Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-16 00:00:00

DUTY ON HARDWARE,

Mr. Hadfield aske•l the Secretary of State for India
whether it is contemplated to imnose any, and what duty
on hardware, under the new tariff, in India.

Sir De Lacy Evans submitted that, in the present aspect
of Continental affairs, no diminution of the effective mili-
tary forces in the United Kingdom ought to take place,
and that it would be inexpedient to despatch a corps of
artillery to augment the British arms in India, which has
already proved sufficient to quell the mutiny in Bengal, and
which unneccssiry augmentations of that army could but
serve to increase the financial embarrassment of the Indian
government.
Lord Stanley, who spoke in a very low tone, was under-
stood to say, in reply to the gallant officer, that the
subject had been gravely considered by the government,
and that it was not intended to detach at present any corps
of artillery at India. In reply to the first question, he
stated that the duty on hardware was to be increased from
five to ten per cent. ; such duty to apply equally to foreign
and British manufaeures.

Mr M'Mahon asked the Attorney-General for Ireland
whether he can give any explanation relative to the setting
aside of jurymen on the late trials for ribbonism at Belfast,
and state the names of the jurors set aside, and the cause
for which each juror was set . aside

The Attorney-General for Ireland • said that the
House of Commons .was not the tribunal to whom
application should be made in such cases. The
hon. gentleman, Mr. M‘Mahon, had, on a recent occasion,
read a letter stigmatising the conduct of the officers
of the Crown in the late trials a gross injustice. He read a
report in contradiction of this statement from the Crown
Solicitor, from which it appeared, the greater part of the
jurors set aside were publicans, and were then set aside in
consequence of a regulation of old standing. The proroga-
tive of the Crown in setting aside jurors had been more
sparingly exereised in the present case than in any other of
a similar character which had occurred for many years.
No person had been set aside on account of his religion.
He took the opportunity of referring to the conduct of the
law officers at the late trial at Tralee, reading strong testi-
monials in favour of the character of those who had the
management of the trial. At the first trial, only four per-
sons had been challenged, and there was much dissatisfaction
as to the conduct of the jury. At the second
trial twenty persons who were Protestants were challenged
by the prisoner, and sixteen by the Crown. Some of whom
were challenged on account of their religious opinions.
He maintained that the Crown Solicitor acted with perfect
fairness, One of the persons challenged had already been
convicted of conspiracy. The only object had been to
enforce public justice and to vindicate the law.

Mr. A. Herbert said that as to O'Sullivan be had no
doubt of Ms guilt, or of the justice of the verdict, but he
must still express his deep regret at the course pursued by
the law officers.

The Attorney-General had given no reason whatever why
eight of the gentlemen called upon had been told to stand by.
There never was an occasion* when it was more
politic as well as just to avoid even the suspicion
of sectarian bias. It was a Roman Catholic clergyman who
first informed the Government of this 'foolish conspiracy.
It was denounced by the Roman Catholic priests, to whom
a favourable testimony had been borne by the right hon.
gentleman himself, and the reward was that Roman Catholics
were declared to be unfit to sit upon a jury. One of the
gentlemen callenged, although a magistrate, was objected to
because, 27 years ago, he had been sentenced to a fortnight's
imprisonment for what was called a conspiracy against tithes.
He read the opinion of a magistrate of the country, of strong
Protestant opinions, who declared that the Government had
made a great error.