MR. BIDDULPH. (Hansard, 27 April 1841)

The Marquess of Normanby
wished to avail himself of that opportunity to call the attention of the House to a statement made by a noble Earl a few nights ago, respecting the trial of certain persons for an attempt to assassinate Mr. Biddulph. There were one or two expressions referred to by the noble Earl, in reference to a letter which the noble Earl had read to the House from Mr. Biddulph, asserting, that Mr. Biddulph had not been consulted as to the panel of the jury, notwithstanding he had stated, on the authority of the Solicitor-general for Ireland, that Mr. Biddulph had approved of the jury list, and had not denied, that any persons should be challenged. The next day he had written to the Under-secretary for Ireland, to apply to the Solicitor-general, and the other counsel engaged in the prosecution, and to request them instantly to inform him as to the circumstances of the case, and more especially to call their attention to the letter of Mr. Biddulph. He had received answers to his letters from all the counsel, but one, engaged in this prosecution, and that one was absent from Dublin. He felt bound to read all these letters to their Lordships, in answer to the statement made in the letter of Mr. Bid- 1139 dulph. All these gentlemen coincided as to their conviction, that at the time of the trial, Mr. Biddulph was perfectly satisfied with the constitution of the jury; and one of these letters stated, that that gentleman had declared, that he would rather not have two of the persons on the jury whom he saw in court, and when he was asked the reason, he said, that they were strong politicians, but he had no doubt that they would find a verdict of guilty, if the evidence was clear. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the following letters. The first was from the Solicitor-general:— 25th April, 1841. My Lord—I take the liberty of troubling your Lordship with a few lines on the subject of the late trial at Tullamore. I saw last night in the Report of the proceedings of the House of Lords, a statement, by the Earl of Charleville, of the contents of a letter, received by his Lordship from Mr. Biddulph. The precise language of that letter was not mentioned in the Report I saw, but it substantially was a denial of the correctness of my representations to your Lordship. If the matter rested between Mr. Biddulph and myself, I should, in consequence of that denial, feel bound to admit, that I had misunderstood what he had stated, though my own recollections on the subject are as positive as they could be. It is possible that one person may have fallen into a misconception, but it is not easy to suppose that many can have done so. When I had the honour of writing to your Lordship on a former occasion, I stated not only the result of my own recollection of what had occurred, but also the result of what the other counsel recollected on the subject. On that occasion I stated, that Mr. Clarke and Mr. Corballis were the only counsel in town. I take the liberty of enclosing to your Lordship, letters from each of those gentlemen. Mr. Berwick the other counsel for the Crown, on the trial, was not in town when I last wrote, but I have this morning requested him to state to me his recollections on the subject, and I take the liberty of enclosing his letter also. Mr. Berwick was the only Queen's counsel who was on the circuit at that time; he and Mr. Clarke are the personal friends of Mr. Biddulph, and what Mr. Berwick states did not occur in my hearing. I take the liberty of enclosing letters from Mr. Geale, and Mr. Seed, his principal assistant, as to their recollection of what occurred. On referring to the letter, which I took the liberty of addressing to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and comparing the statements in it with those contained in the document I send, I trust your Lordship will be of opinion, that if I have misconceived the state- 1140 ments of Mr. Biddulph, five other gentlemen are guilty of a similar misconception. I have only to beg of your Lordship to do me the kindness of reading to the House of Lords my former letter, and those of the gentlemen herewith sent, and also to state, that I very respectfully court the fullest inquiry as to the conduct of the trial at Tullamore, and of my report of the facts that occurred there. I have the honour to be &c. RICHARD MOORE. The Marquess of Normanby. 24th April, 1841. Dear Solicitor-General,—In answer to your inquiry as to my recollection of the circumstances which occurred at Tullamore with relation to and at the time of striking the jury to try the prisoners in the case of Mr. Biddulph's prosecution, the following is as nearly as possible what my recollection serves me in stating to have taken place. Having, as you may recollect, on the day preceding the trial, arranged to indict the prisoners on the capital charge, and being most anxious, in consequence of the right of challenge to which the prisoners were entitled, that there should be as full an attendance as possible of jurors, so that there should be no possible objection to the formation of the jury, and Mr. Biddulph having, in communication with him, stated, that if there were a good attendance of the jurors on the grand panel, there would be an abundant number of excellent jurors, we took the precaution on the day before the trial, by application to the Chief Justice in open court, to have public notice given to and through the sub-sheriff, that the grand panel would be called over on the next morning on heavy fines, and that no fine once imposed should be taken off without very sufficient excuse shown to the court. The sub-sheriff was also, at your request, in open court, directed to circulate as widely as he could within the course of that day such intimation of the judge to any of the jurors who did not then appear to be in attendance. The following day, before the panel was called over, I requested of Mr. Biddulph to attend in court to assist with his local knowledge, to communicate his opinion as to the general attendance of jurors, and also any objection which might be fairly made to any individual juror. I also took care to see, that the gentlemen who belonged to the Crown-office were in attendance. Mr. Biddulph was, I think, beside me during the whole time the grand panel was calling over, and heard the names who answered. When the calling of the panel was completed, I begged of him to tell me what he thought of the attendance, informing him that the prisoners had a right to challenge forty peremptorily, and stating, that if from the attendance of jurors he apprehended, that objectionable jurors would be placed on the jury, the Crown had the power 1141 of putting but one on trial, which would re-duct the number of challenges for the prisoner to twenty. He told me there was a most abundant and respectable attendance, and that sixty at least might be struck off, and there would still remain an excellent jury. I recollect then saying to him, to bear in mind that his opinion was to be formed upon the number of names of those who had answered, and not from the names that had been called merely: and I asked him what he thought of those who had so answered and appeared: He said, that we need not be in the least afraid of putting both prisoners on trial, for that if sixty of those who first answered were struck off, there would be still sufficient to form an excellent jury. The sheriff then signed the panel. The attendances were upwards of 120. The clerk of the Crown then proceeded to call the jury. I then begged of Mr. Biddulph, and I think also of Mr. Brown, the stipendiary magistrate, to suggest to the Crown solicitor, as each juror was called to be sworn, any objection which they knew to such juror. Mr. Biddulph, as far as I can recollect, went and took his place under Mr. Geale, and after the jury were sworn, he returned to his place beside me, and stated, that he considered the jury to be a very fair jury; that there were but two who he would rather were not there, I asked him what his objection was to them, and he stated to me, as I best recollect that they were strong politicians; but he added, that if there was a good case laid before them in evidence, he had no doubt they would find an honest verdict. With this I felt fully satisfied, and certainly for the first two days of the trial I heard no objection made to any of the jury. I remain, &c., WALTER BERWICK. The Solicitor-general. My dear Solicitor-general—With the utmost surprise I observe by the report of the proceedings in the House of Lords, that Mr. Biddulph has written a letter to Lord Charleville denying that he ever approved of the jury sworn in his case. It has always been painful to me to differ in opinion with a gentleman on a matter of fact, but I owe it to what I believe to be the truth, to say, that my recollection is very different, Mr. Biddulph remained close to Mr. Clarke; while the panel was called over he was at some distance from me; when the jury was on the point of being sworn he was invited to come over to where the Crown solicitor Hood, in order to assist from his local knowledge in objecting to any improper person being put on the jury. After five or six jurors had been sworn, a juror whose name I do not know, being called to the book, Mr. Biddulph said to me I do not like that man. I replied that except he assigned a reason, his merely not liking him was not a sufficient objection, and he made no further objection to him. I communicated to you what Mr. Biddulph had 1142 said, and you having agreed with me the juror was sworn. Though I was close to Mr. Biddulph till the jury was sworn, he made no further objection, but, in answer lo a question put to him by you, expressed himself satisfied that the jury would do their duty, and during the three days of trial, to my knowledge, he never expressed a contrary opinion. This is my recollection of the facts of this case. I remain, (Signed) "J. R. CORBALLIS. April 25, 1841. My dear Solicitor-general—Having a perfect recollection of what took place at tie time of the swearing of the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case (who sat next to me when the panel was calling over), I can safely say, that when it was ended he expressed his satisfaction not only with the number that attended, but the persons composing it, and in my presence and yours, declared that from sixty to eighty might be taken off it, and a good jury still remain to try the case; and this he said in reply to a question of yours, to ascertain whether you could with prudence put both the prisoners on their trial, so as to give them the privilege of forty challenges; he left where he was then sitting by me, to be near the Crown solicitor whilst the jury was swearing, and though the distance was but short, I did not hear him make any objection to any of them; after they were sworn he returned to his seat, when I asked him (as was natural), what he thought of the jury, when he assured me there could not be a better, and that he was convinced they would do their duty; in the course of the trial, which you know lasted such a length of time, I had frequent interviews with Mr. Biddulph, and he never expressed the slightest dissatisfaction with the jury; and from the very close intimacy and friendship which has always subsisted between him and me, I think had he entertained any doubt as to their propriety he would have mentioned it to me. I have only to add, that shortly after my return from circuit, I left town for a few days, and during my absence Mr. Biddulph came from the country, and dined with my family, and said he told me at Tullarmore he approved of the jury after they were sworn, and considered they would act honestly. I am, &c., (Signed) "W. D. CLAREE. April 25, 1841. Dear Sir—With reference to Mr. Geale's letter to you of the 20th ult., relative to the circumstances under which the jury was selected to try the persons charged with shooting Mr. Biddulph, and to Lord Charleville's statement with respect to a letter which he had received from that gentleman, in -which he stated that he had not approved of the 'panel,'—I beg to state, in compliance with your desire, that I should communicate my 1143 recollection of the facts, that I perfectly remember asking Mr. Biddulph, after the jury had been sworn, if he was satisfied with them, and he replied, 'that he was perfectly so,' adding 'that he thought it a very fair jury.' In this I cannot be mistaken, as Mr. Biddulph not only stated the same thing in my hearing to Mr. Edward Geale and other persons who were present; but I believe to yourself likewise, and also to Mr. Geale, who has already mentioned the circumstance in the letter before alluded to. I likewise perfectly well remember Mr. Biddulph having stated, when 116 or 127 jurors had answered their names from the panel, that there was quite sufficient to give the prisoners challenges to the amount of 60 or 80, and have a good jury afterwards. I have, &c., S. SEED. The Solicitor-General, &c., &c., &c. April 25, 1841. Dear Sir—I have already given you a statement of the circumstances under which the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case were selected, which I can only repeat, and in addition to that now given by Mr. Seed, have to state that my son Edward, who is at present at Athlone, is aware of the same facts, and will fully corroborate Mr. Seed's statement. I will get him to write to you when he arrives in town. I am, &c. (Signed) "PIERS GEALE. The Solicitor-General, &c., &c., &c. In this case, the noble Marquess proceeded to say, that the matter did not rest on the balance of evidence, but was at once proved by the fact that Mr. Smith, the clerk of the Crown, told Mr. Biddulph that if he objected to the panel of the jury, he would, on the part of the Crown, put the prisoners on their trials separately, so as to diminish the challenges one-half. He could not sit down without reminding their Lordships that all the inconvenience had arisen from the circumstance of the noble Earl having brought forward a motion on a subject which was still before a court of justice. This had led to the greatest embarrassment, and, if such a course was persisted in, must be productive of much evil.

§ The Earl of Charleville
said, that if the noble Marquess had thought it consistent with his duty to have given him information of his intention to bring the subject forward to-night, he should have been better prepared than he was at that moment to address their Lordships. But the noble Marquess had thought proper to impugn his motives, and therefore he trusted 1144 to the sense of the justice of the House to have an opportunity allowed him of answering the noble Marquess. It would be in their recollection that he stated when he brought forward his motion that in this country, in cases of murder or violent assault, the next of kin (in cases where death had ensued) was allowed to employ his own solicitor and counsel, but this was not the practice in Ireland. All that he asked was, that in Ireland the next of kin should be allowed to prosecute. He did not bring his motion forward on the single case of Mr. Biddulph—he brought it forward on the general principle, and for that general principle he relied on the evidence given by the witnesses before the committee on the state of crime in Ireland, including the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and all the Crown solicitors. He alluded to four cases—to the case of Mr. Biddulph, to the case of Mr. Powell, in Armagh, to the case of Samuel Gray, in Monaghan, and to the case of a man named Macleod, in Londonderry. He never expressed any opinion of his own as to the conduct of the jury in the course which they had thought proper to pursue. What he said was, that he objected to them previous to their being sworn as jurors. He stated, that three Ribbonmen, one a county delegate, one a county committee man, and another a parish master, had been introduced on the jury in the case of Mr. Biddulph. The noble Marquess had not ventured to deny that statement, and he was sure the noble Marquess would have done so before this had it been in his power. He was not answerable for any discrepancy between the statement of the Solicitor-general and any other person, In justice, however, to Mr. Biddulph, he trusted he might be permitted to read again that Gentleman's letter. Mr. Biddulph stated— That he had read with much attention the statement of the noble Earl, and the answer of the Marquis of Normanby, and the latter was by no means correct, let it emanate from what quarter it might. He had objected to a person on the jury, but he was told that the ground of his objection was not substantial, because he only acted on rumour. He had never expressed any opinion that the jury was a fair and impartial one, for he felt that they would never agree; but he said, that a better jury could not be formed out of the persons who remained, those whom he considered fair and impartial being exhausted—thus leaving him without an alternative, 1145 Having read this letter he trusted that the House would acquit him of having made any statement without authority. He had yesterday received from Ireland the account of a murder committed in the day time, almost within sight of the excellent and venerable ex-Judge Moore. He had also received a letter from the county of Limerick which would show their Lordships the peaceful state of that county. The letter stated, that a murder had just been committed, that there had been within a few days two attacks upon the police, whose lives were endangered by the violence of the mob who assailed them, and that, in fact, life and property were not safe for a single night. He had also received a letter from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, which his Lordship desired that he should read to the House. The letter was as follows;— My Lord,—In your Lordship's speech on your motion just before the recess respecting crime in Ireland, you were represented to have said that you considered the correspondence between yourself and me to be of a private nature, and that some of the letters were marked as such. I felt, at the time, that this statement was quite at variance with my own impression of the fact, but not having the letters by me in England, where I then was, I did not feel warranted in opposing my recollection to the more accurate sources of information which I believed were in your Lordship's reach. Having, immediately on my return here, referred to your Lordship's original letters to me, as well as to the copies of my answers, I do not find any of them marked 'private,' and in the absence of any such mark I do not consider that there was anything in the general nature of the correspondence to debar your Lordship or myself from treating the letters as documents of an official character. Had I thought otherwise, no advantage which I could have gained to the Government or to myself would have tempted me to sanction a public reference to them without a previous application to your Lordship for your Lordship's leave to do so; and I trust your Lordship will do me the justice to read this letter to the House of Lords, in order to correct the erroneous impression which the expression attributed to you has been calculated to produce respecting my conduct in this case. His own impression was, that the first letter he received from Lord Ebrington was marked in the corner of the envelope "private." He had another reason for thinking this letter private, for in certain pipers for which he had moved, and which had been granted by their Lordships, this one had been referred to by the noble Mar- 1146 quess as of a private character. He regretted that these letters had been ma e public, for in one of them which he had intended for the private perusal of the Lord lieutenant, he had used the expression of those "evidently guilty men." The noble Marquess had, on the occasion of a late debate, stated to their Lordships, that he (the Earl of Charleville) "had insulted his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen," but in writing to Lord Rosse, he had referred "to the great tribute which Lord Charleville had paid to the address of the Roman Catholic clergymen to the people." So the noble Marquess was his foe to his face and his friend behind his back. Having been held forth as the calumniator of the Roman Catholic people, he had felt bound to make these remarks.

The Earl of Wicklow
wished to bring the House back to the sole question before it, which was the exculpation of the noble Marquess for the statements he had formerly made. Alter the letters which had been read, he felt bound to say, that the noble Marquess was fully justified in making those statements with respect to the case of Mr. Biddulph on the information he had received, and was now fully justified in entertaining the same opinion of them as that which he had formerly expressed.

The Marquess of Normanby
must beg to defend himself from the charge of a want of courtesy, for he had that morning written to the noble Earl giving him notice of his intention to make the statement. He would not follow the noble Earl through the various topics introduced by him in his speech, but he must say, that noble Earl appeared to be well prepared with every document necessary for a long address. He would only now remark that he could not acquiesce in the statement that there were three Ribbon-men on the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case. The noble Lord had complained of the publication of the letter to the Earl of Rosse, but it was moved for and ordered to be produced on a motion made at the request of the noble Earl himself. So he trusted, that the Earl of Rosse, would know on whose shoulders the blame, if any, ought properly to lie. He regretted that the noble Earl had adopted the very inconvenient course of raising exciting topics of discussion and debate on every opportunity which afforded itself, however unsuited or ill timed.

§ The Earl of Charleville
would only say one word in answer to the remarks of the noble Marquess. He had stated, that he had given him notice of his intention to bring forward this subject, but, in reality, the note which the noble Marquess had sent to his house that morning contained no such information. It merely stated, that he intended to communicate something to the House, and gave him no idea of the subject respecting which the statement was to be made. [The Marquess of Normanby: You had better read the note.] Very well. The note was as follows:— Lord Normanby presents his compliments to Lord Charleville, and begs to inform him that it is his intention, at the sitting of the House this evening, to make a communication, at which Lord Charleville may like to be present. Now, from that note what idea could he possibly form of the subject on which the noble Marquess intended to address their Lordships? Might he not naturally think that that communication referred to some proceedings which occurred last evening in another place.

The Marquess of Westmeath
would not allow the present opportunity to pass by without expressing his entire approbation of the course pursued by his noble Friend, with respect to the matter which he had originally brought before their notice, and his strong condemnation of the inconsistent erroneous, and uncertain conduct of the noble Marquess, who on every occasion concealed his ignorance and want of information by an affected air of conscious rectitude and triumph.