MAURITIUS.

Auckland Chronicle and New Zealand Colonist, Volume 2, Issue 43, 30 May 1844, Page 4

MAURITIUS.

(From the Cerneen, January 9, 1844,) Dn Thursday last, our harbour was visited by an ftfttvful ras de maree, which occasioned serious dis■*W*tersto severaljSvessels then,at anchor inourjoads. CoUr,e da y> w ' nd ®hifted from N. W. t and the sun went down in the 'iSnalds* of frowning clouds of a lurid red colour, 'Which but too truly foretold the approaching bad leather. Towards eleven o’clock at night, several gUSs were heard, in the direction of Fort George, aid it was soon ascertained that they were fired as of distress by the illsfated vessels which ijjadjbeen last seen riding at anchor in the Bell--Buoy. Every thing was immediately prepared to -‘trader assistance to the sufferers, but it was soon Made evident, that every attempt would be fruitless during the darkness then reigning. At break of ddiy, the Prince Albert steamer, was dispatched •o pick up tbe crews of the ships in distress, and sfc dreadful spectacle presented itself. Five vessels huddled up together on the rocks, off Fort worge, the sea breaking over them and threaten»ag immediate destruction to all on board. The *hips were the Hugh Matthiee, 583 tons, from Calcutta, with 223 Coolies,—-the Bordeaux, 342 tons, from Bordeaux, put in to land passengers,the Mariam, 350 tons, from Calcutta, with 166 Coolies,—the Defiance, 412 tons, with 256 Coolies, from Madras, and the Malay, 353 tons, with a cargo Of wood from Moulmein. All the vessels outside the harbour Lad endeavoured during the night to get out to sea, but two ®n}y»' the Louisa Bailey , from Calcutta, and the Pecovery , from Bombay, had succeeded in their attempt; the others drifted on shore with the current and struck, nearly about the same time, and on the same shoal of rocks. While the steamer and the customs' boats, and those of several vessels lying inside the barbonr, were labouring at the perilous task of rescuing the crews of the above named vessels, the barque Amity, which had be<en descried early in the morning at anchor off the "ointe Aux Canooiers, was seen making for the port, one of her cables having given way ; bnt a sudden squall from the N. W, having thrown her on her beam ends, she was driven on the reef .at Fort William, before she could recover. The Captain set on more sail, in the hopes of getting over the reef, but the vessel having no headway, refused ; the helm, and this manoeuvre onlv drove it still farther on. . After the above had’gone to press, we have been avoured with a few more details respecting this deplorable event. As we have said above, one man only belonging to tbe Hugh Matthiee, bad met with a watery grave; he had attempted to swim onshore, but was unable to get through the surf, which was rolling «n a most terrific manner, and tell a victim to his rashness, The barque Defiance, whichj although dismasted, had not struck, was Drought into the barbonr on Saturday, the five other vessels are still on the reef, and no hope Is entertained of getting them off. The cargo of the Mariam is totally destroyed; several hundred hags of rice have been landed from the Hugh Matthice.; the personal effects of the passengers on board the Bordeaux have been saved, and it is expected that none of the goods on freight will be lost, as the French Consul is having them transhipped on board the French brig Souvenis. The barque Recovery, which had put out to sea ou Thursday, came in on Saturday ; the ship Louisa Bailey, which was at anchor at tbe Bell Buoy, on Thursday, succeeded in getting into the port on Shat > ery ntght.

IRELAND. STATE PROSECUTIONS, O'Connell 8f others, —v, —the Queen , Tbe State Trials in Ireland have commenced, and were proceeding with activity, at tbe date of the last departure. The Crown lawyers evidently expect that they must be prolonged to a considers able length, as the Attorney General moved the Court that, should the trials not terminate upon tbe Sist of January, every day to the 15tb of April, should be considered as part of Hilary term for the purposes of the trials. From the first, difficulties and mistakes seem to have beset the prosecutions. It was discovered before the trial, that sixty-three names qualified by the Recorder, were omitted from the Sheriff’s list, among whom were several Roman Catholic gentlemen; how this occnried seems a mystery uot yet cleared up. The grounds of objection, as set forth in Mr. Mabony’s affidavit, were, that there were the names of tweutycihree Roman Catholics only, on the special jury list of 1843, that the trials were postponed to tbe 15th January, principally to amend the special jury list as he believed, that a revised list was prepared and approved of by the Recorder, that of this number fourteen persons in four parishes, all Roman Catholics, were omitted on the Sheriff’s list, which were, he believed, grossly and wilfully suppressed, besides twelve more names of £Roman Catholics, which, to the best of bis judgment, had been approved by the Recorder. That he had entered a protest against the omission, which bad been disregarded ; that when the fortyeight names were drawn from the box, and they were to be reduced to twentyefour. by striking off twelve on each side, that eleven Roman Catholics, thelwhole number on the list, were struck off by the Crown.

The Attorney General said that Mr. Mahony ,had not fairly stated the case in his affidavit, be had sworn that fifteen Romnn Catholics had been omitted in the list, thus inferring that none but those had been omitted ; when in fact, according to another stetement made by the traversers, there were sixty five omitted, of whom forty were Protestants. Mr. Kennis had stated too, that the .fifteen were on the ordinary, not the special jury list. The Recorder had taken much trouble in settling tbe matter, and all the explanation of the mistake which he could procure, was that a slip containing sixteen names, constituting the qualified special jurors of St. Andrew’s parish, had been dropped by Mr. Magrath, who bad acted as Registrar to tbe Recorder, by mistake, which list has since been found in the office. Mr. Ma* grath is himself a Roman Catholio. Asa reason for striking off tbe twelve which he did, Mr. Kennis stated that they were members of the “ Loyal National Repeal Association,” some of the acts of which were connected with the indictment.

The Istb being tbe day appointed for the trials, the anxiety of the public had arisen to the highest pitoh of excitement. Every thoroughfare to the court was crowded, though oueetenth of the numbers anxious to be spectators could not possibly find room. At nine every part was full, except thosesecured for the,bar t the traversers, and the press. The accommodations provided for the last was on a most convenient and liberal scale. Several ladies, including Lady Sugdeti, were piesent. In tbe morning Mr. O’Connell held a levee, after which he went in almost triumphal procession to his trial.

Tbe Chief Justice, and Judges Burton, Crampton, and Perrin took their seats on the bench at five minutes past ten o’clock. The Attorney Genera), Solicitor General, Serjeant Warren, Messrs. Brewster, Hartley, Bennet, Freeman, Q. C., Holmes,JSmyly, Baker and Napier, appeared for the Crown. ’ The following counsel attended for the traversers: Messrs. Moore, Q. C., Shiel, Whiteside, M’Donogb, Monohan, Fitzgihbun, Henri, HatchelJ, Sir Colman O’Loghlen, and Messrs. O’Hagan, Close, Clements, M’Carthy, Moriarty, O’Hea, and Perrin.

The Crown Solicitor and his assistants, and Messrs. Mahony, Cantwell, Gartlan, and Ford, the attorneys for the were also ia attend, ance.

The jury being sworn, several sick certificates were put in, and allowed ; other excuses were likq= wise made—in fact, there seemed to be a pretty considerable dislike to form part of the jury. Mr. O’Connell entered the court, and applied for a few minutes to put on his robes, which were granted. Before the jury were sworn, Sir Colroan len challenged the entire array of the jury in tfie box, on behalf of Daniel O’Connell, on the grourtd of the fraudulent omission of the names, After some delay, similar challenges were put in by the other traversers. The Attorney General demurred, and the point having been argued, three of the Judges were of opinion that the challenge should be refused. Mr. Justice Perrin thought it should be allowed, though he bad considerable doubts. On the 16th thejury were sworn, and the Clerk of the Crown said;—Gentlemen ot the Jury, Daniel O’Connell, John O’Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas Matthew P.ay, Charles Gavin Duffy, John Gray, Richard Barrett, and Thomas Tierney, stand indicted for having, on the 13th February last, in the parish of St. Mark, in the city of Dublin, entered into a conspiracy in the manner as set out in the The Traversers ltaVe severally pleaded not Guilty*. “ Mr. Napier then proceeded to open the pleadings. He said the indictments cantained eleven counts. The first count stated that the several traversers, together with divers other persons unknown, did unlawfully and maliciously conspire to excite discontent amongst ber Majesty’s subjects, hatred and jealousy amongst different classes, and discontent aud disaffection in the army ; also contempt of the established tribunals for the administration of justice; also to create changes in the government and constitution of the country, and to bring them 'into contempt. The count then set out the several overt acts which were done in fuither ance of that conspiracy The second count was the same as the first, omitting the overt act. The thud set out the meetings for seditions and unlawful purposes; and the fourth, the conspiracy to excite discontent and disaffection in the army ; the filth the conspiracy to bring into hatred and contempt her Majesty’s Government; and tbe sixth to procure changes in the government and constitution by

means of intimidation. The seventh was tbe same as the sixth, adding the charge of attempting to procure a dissolution of the legislative union. The eighth, ninth, and tenth, set out tbe attempt to disparage tbe tribunals constituted for the administra tion of justice; and the eleventh, by means of intimidation, causing large numbers of persons to assemble, and having addressed them in seditious and inflamatory speeches; also the publication of matter intended to effect changes in the constitus tion." The Attorney-General then proceeded tojaddress the Court, but we have not room in our present number, for even an abstract of what took nearly three days in the delivery. On the conclusion of each day’s trial thejury returned to their own homes with a strict charge and solemn promise not to communicate with any person on the subject of tile trial. Thursday,* the 18th. was entirely occupied with the examination of Mr. Bond Hughes, who gave bis evidence with great fairness and readiness. He withdrew bis allegation respecting Mr. Barrett’s attendance at the Abbey St. Meeting, and the dinner at the Rotunda. His evidence went to prove the various allegations in the indictment, in connection with the meetings, commencing with that of Mallaghmast on the Ist of October, and ending with that of the 18th. He deposed that peaee, order, and tranquility were observed on these occasions, which he considered chiefly due to Mr. O’Connell. Mr. Ross, a reporter, was examined on Friday* his evidence was nearly to the same purport. Mr’ Jackson, a reporter, was examined as to the meetings at the Corn Exchange ; and Mr. Browne, a printer, as to the documents printed by him for the Association ; his examination occupied the whole 0£ Saturday. On Monday, the 22nd, Mr Justice Burton was preventedTrom attending by illness. Mr. Hatchell objected to proceeding in his absence on tbe part of the Traversers. The Chief Justice took a note of it. but over-ruled tbe objection. The AttorneyGeneral referred to a similar circumstanoe which occurred at the trial of the Bristol rioters, when Lord Tenderden was absent from illness, but the Judge held that the trial could proceed. Documents connected with the proposed Irish Parliament; the rules to. he observed by arbittas tors in the Arbitration Courts; and the Repeal Wardens; were put in and read. Henry Mantley, John Annesley, and Joseph Ainsley, were examined to the same purport. They proved that Mr. Holbrook the engraver, had printed the cards, and that those were the cards issued by the Repeal Association. John Ulicb M’Namara was examined as to the speeches and mottoes at the meeting of Tullamore. John Simpson Stewart, a constable, was examined as to the mottoes at Tullamore, the marching and order of the people, the uniform of the hand, and some of Mr. O’Connell’s expressions. Neal Browne, Esq,, was examined to the same puipose, James Johnson, constable, gave evidence as to the meeting, procession, bands, and banners, at Longford.

The following is an abstract from Bell's Life of the 28th January, of the proceedings in Court for the week preceding. The witnesses consisted principally of reporters* (who had been employed, some by the goyernment, and others by the press.) and policemen- The evis dence related to the speeches of O’Connell, and other repeal agitators at the Munster Meetings, and of publications or proclamations issued from the Corn Exchange, and published in the Dublin papers, advocates of repeal. The witnesses were rigidly cross examined, principally to shew the peaceable and orderly conduct of the people. One paper was read, entitled " Flan for the renewed action of (he Irish peasantry and related to the number of representatives to be assigned to each town or electoral district. Another paper was entitled "Rules to be observed by arbitrators;’’ which contained very minute directions for the constitution of arbitration courts —how to regulate their proceedings and carry them on without violating the law. This made part of the report of a committee which was directed to take this subject intoi<ts special consideration. There was a recommendation made in the association that any member who refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators should be expelled; but Mr. O’Connell observed to the court that this proposal had never been adopted. Copies of some of the summonses and other forms to be used ill the couits of arbitration were produced aud read. One of the placards issued for calling the people to atteud the meeting at Mullaghmast was read. It called upon the men of Leinster to remember that rallying.place, and pointed oul: where the ** band” and "cavalry" were to assemble. A lithographic artist proved the execution of various cards, with devices and drawings upon them, - for the use of the Repeal Association. These cards were ordered by Mr. Ray, and others of the traversers, who inspected them while in progress, end suggested alterations. The cards were delivered at the Corn Exchange Rooms.

it was proved that at tbe Mallow meeting the people went in procession, marching tour and six deep, preceded by bands of music, under the command of persons who bore wands. Mr. O’Connell and Mr. Steele were at the meeting, and it was proved used very strong expressions regarding repeal. One witness, when giving evidence as to the Ballinglass meeting, also attended by O’Connell and Steele, was deposing to expressions among some persons about half an hour alter the meets ing, aod half a mile from town, when the counsel for the traversers objected, and a long argument arose, in which the Attorney-General look part. The court ultimately ruled that those expressions could not be admitted as evidence, and thejury were directed to expunge them from their uotes. This decision was considered very important for the traversers.

A policeman produced a paper wltichVas sold amongst the crowd at the Mallaghmast meeting,

which was of a most exasperating and inflammatory character; it was entitled "A History of the great Massacre at Mullaghmast," The traverse s’ coun. sel contended that this atrocious publication ought not to he read, or considered as "res* ponribiiitie*.” It was not printed by employed hy them; it was sold by ftiWKdfs among the multitude as. a ballad, and thebe was no evidence to connect the traversers with it. court however overruled this objection, after argument, and said it should be treated as any other part of the res gestee or the" Rath/’ The clerk of the crown then read this " Fin I and true acoount of the dreadful slaughter of 400 Catholics, who were basely and treacherously slaughtered hy Saxon tyrants,” and so forth. One ofi the inscriptions on the flags used on this occasion was, " Mullaehmast andjts Martyrs, ora voice from the Gtave.” Her Majesty’s speech a* the close of the last ses« sion, or so much of it as deprecated tbe repeal agitation in Ireland, was .put in as evidence for the Crown, To the reading of this also, the gentlemen concerned for the defence raised an objection, but il was overruled, and that passage was repeated to the court wherein her Majesty declared that she observed with deep concern the efforts that were being made to excite disaffection among her sub* jects in Ireland, her sincere conviction that the Union was no less necessary for tbe welfare of the whole kingdom than it was for Ireland, and that she felt assured that her loyal subjects in that country would nse their exertions to discourage, to the utmost of their power, the system of pernicious agitation that existed there. Janies Urwin, a poliee constable of Liverpool, w»s called to prove that copies of the address from (he Repeal Association lo the subjects of the British Empire in every part of tbe world, had been posted in various parts of that town* Two days weie occupied in reading article* from the Repeal newspapers, and in the discussions which arose out of them ; particularly one from the Nation, headed "The Morality of War,,* but which the Attorney-General, itt his opening speech, and again on this occasion said might be more properly designated the " Morality of Rebellion.”-—A. loDg argument arose on two points :—first, whether the traversers were at liberty to require any part they" pleased of the contents of the paper, or any other document produced by the Crown—to he given in evidence ; and secondly, if so, wh flier the evidence so adduced was to be considered that of the prosecution or the defence. The court pronounced a qualified opinion on both points,but one with which the Crown Counsel seemed content. Mr. O'Connell required the address of the liberal members of the House of Commons to the people of England to be read, published in London in August last, and other documents, to shew tbe peaceable character of the movement. The Attorney General, in reference to this, that tbe Crown were anxious to close their case within a reasonable time, and he complaioed of the inconvenience of reading documents not relevant to the issue, or which shoufd have been reserved for the defence. On one occasion, when Mr. o‘Connell and hi* Son were absent at a meering at the Corn Exchange the Attorney General insisted on their .being sent for, or he wonld have them called on their recognizance. It was rumoured that the Crown would attempt to establish a case of intimidation, by procuring persons resident in tbe various localities, where th© repeal demonstrations had been held. Judge Burton had been too ill to attend the court during the last week. Mr. Steele has given instructions to have Lord Plonket, (his only Irish witness,) Sir Jame& Graham, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Lyndhurst immediately summoned to undergo his personal examination on his trial.