The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-08 00:00:00

THE ADDRESS.

The adjourned debate on the Address was resumed
by
Mr. Sexton, who moved a fourth amendment, calling
for a more impartial administration of the criminal law
in Ireland, especially with i egard to the composition of
juries. In support of it Mr. 6exton inveighed energeti-
cal\,_ against jury packing, which, he maintained, had
reduced trial by jury in Ireland to a farce, and enabled
the Government to punish the innocent when they
could not get at the guilty, or even when they could.
He referred to the circumstances of the Maamtra.sna
murders and to the recent trials in Dublin, in regard to
both of which he contended that the Government had
contrived to pervert the course of jnstice.
Mr. O'Brien seconded the amendment, asserting that
the Government had murdered innocent men and had
screened the guilty.
Mr. Trevelyan replied briefly to those criticisms,
which he contended were utterly unjustifiable, and
afforded no ground for censure. To accept the amend-
ment would make the repression of crime in Ireland
impossible.
Mr. Power, having remarked that in Ireland there
was one law for the rich and one for the poor, protested
against the Irish judgeships being given to Government
partisans.
Mr. Biggar charged the Government with packing
juries for the purpose of convicting persons whether
guilty or innocent.
Mr. Leamy contended that the present lawless state
of Ireland was due to the policy of repression and
coercion which had been inaugurated by the Liberal
party; and Mr. Barry supported the amendment.

Mr. Marum entered upon a 1-mg historical review of
the persecution of Catholics in Ireland, and, being
twice called to order by the Speaker, traced the history
of the practice of challenging juries, and argued that
the Executive Government, who put persons on their
-trial, ought not to retain the power of ordering jurors
to stand by.
Mr. A. Moore expressed the dissatisfaction largely
felt by Roman Catholics at their frequent exclusion
from juries.
Mr. W. Redmond animadverted on Mr. Bolton's
restoration, which he attributed to Ministerial fears,
and expected that Mr. French would shortly be set at
liberty with a large sum of money in his pocket to leave
the country.
Mr. Plunket vindicated the conduct of the Irish
Juries, and though he attributed much of the deplorable
condition of Ireland to the action of the present Govern-
ment, he did not think they were liable to the censure
now proposed.
Mr. Kenny, Colonel O'Beirne, and Mr. Deasy having
supported the amendment,
The Solicitor-General for Ireland replied categorically
to the charges brought against the Government. He
denied that the right of free speech had been interfered
with in Ireland, and protested against the insinuation
that the merchants of Dublin who had served as special
jurymen had not honestly fulfilled their duties. He
contended that Roman Catholics had not been im-
properly excluded from juries. Where they were ex-
cluded such exclusion was effected by their co-reli-
gionists, because every officer of the Government con-
cerned in the administration of justice in Dublin, with
the exception of himself, was a Catholic. Referring to
the suggestion that the Government had endeavoured
to screen Mr. Cornwall, he pointed out that the Govern-
ment bad prosecuted him upon every charge which the
law allowed them to prefer against him.
At this point Mr. J. H. M‘Carthy moved the adjourn-
ment of the debate, to which Mr. Gladstone emphati-
cally objected, pointing out that the Address was not
the occasion for raising a debate on any subject simply
because it happened to be important, and declaring
that if any further extension were given to the recent
practice a new revolution would be introduced intc
Parliamentary life.
After debate and divisicn, the debate was adjourned,
and the House adiovrned at 2.40.