The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-27 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, MAY 25.—The following manifesto was
issued this morning by the Council of the Irish Confe-
deration:—

"JURY-PACKING BY THE BASE, BLOODY, AND

BRUTAL WHIGS.
"People of Irelautt,—Mark the.e facts, and learn the
value of that liberty which you enjoy under the Britibh
Constitution.
"There is a certain book called the Jurors' Book,
which contains the names of all the citizens of Dublin
qualified to serve as common jurors. Out of all the
'amen in this book the Sheriff is supposed to select, in-
iifferently, a sufficient number to act as jurors at each
commission.

names, of which 3,426 are Catholics, and .
Pro-
restants, including Presbyterians. Observe, there are
;wady three Catholics for one Protestant.
" Out of those 4,661 names the Sheriff has chosen 150
to act as jurors at the present commission, Amongst
"At present the book contains, altogether, 4,661
1235 are
these there are onlyi 28 Catholics.
"On the Jurors Book the Catholics are to the Pro-
testants nearly as 3 to I.
"On the panel selected ' indifferently ' from that
book the Catholics are to the Protestants as one to five.
inad nsd
ao np y eihi
ostilit enemy y
against by such
Sour treacherous
Protestant devices.fhere are not three Presbyterians returned on the
p our
abunreratv:
•` Shame on the miscreants who would strike down
they
yotry have proved
in their
" Catholics of Ireland, let not these facts create in
p
fellow-
countrymen. Be not afraid to intrust your liberties into
theirz,hrae
atpatriotism
s,a hands.nd
that
hlanti twost
hey
taking rceacne
innhtoe instances
lpolnagcee r
ofbe relied on as the
rarrison of England. Cultivate this improved spirit,
and let all your hostility be reserved for the pestilent
tyranny which lives by, our divisions, and whose yoke
presses
equally upon all.
The admirers of Mr. Mitchel are playing the destrue-
threatening letters. One of the
tire game of sending
jurors recived a note menacing him with assassination
,hould Mr. Mitchel be convicted. _

Public as well as private intimidation has also been
vented in the folloWing fierce denunciation, which has
oeen extensively circulated throughout the city:—
"To the Jurors of Dublin.—God's truth has been
,spoken and written by John Mitchel. He has pro-
claimed to the world the labourer's right to live in the
and of his birth by the sweat of his brow; the farmer's
right to the fruits of his labour, his capital, and his
This is God's truth. Will you, jurors, pro-
aounce, by your verdict, God's truth to be a seditious
ilbel—a felony?' If you do (which God forbid), then
he blood of that innocent man of truth, John Mitchel,
be on you and yours to all eternity ! The curse of God
will fall upon you ! The fate of perjurors and assas6ins
'waits you! ! Attend to your oaths, and a true ver-
lict give ! ! !

" ONE OF THE PANEL."

TRIAL OF MK. AIIIsCHEL.

The interior of the court was full of bustle, and in-
deed, confusion from en early hour, and every available
seat on the floor of the court was filled with gentlemen
if the bar. The following gentlemen attended for the
;rown:—The Attorney-Cit neral, Me: srs. Henn, NV hitt'.
.ide, Baldwin, Smyly, Q.C.. and Air. Perrin. On the
part of the prisoner—Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Messrs.
tiolmes and Pigott.

Their Lordships, Baron Lefrov and Mr Justice Mo
tppeared upon the bench at half. past 10 A.M., an he
sited was then called.
Sir COLMAN O'Locm.Es having as* Ainei tha the
Merit'''. had signed Vie panel, challeng d tl.ewarray for
)artiality and unfairness..` The challenge was read by
iit Colman, and alleged that the array had been made
contrary to the usual practice in that court; that certain

lanieJWhom it wee su-ppos,d would be unfavourable to

he prisoner were put on the panel, and others supposed
u be favourab;e were omitted ; and alleging other utif-ir
trratigementF.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL asked a few moments to
!onsider the challenge, which being allowed, all the
jounsel for the Crown retired, and after some time
'gain entered, when the Attorney. General said that be
otned, as the panel was perfectly tuir, equal, and im-
partial.

Mr. HOLMES repeated a motion he made yesterday, as
!vidence must had, ha desired to produce a witnt ss—
lie brother of the Attorney-General.
The ATTORNEY• GEN I:11AL opposed the reception of
:,he affidavit offered by Mr. tiohne&
Mr. HOLMES raid it must be the desire of the Crown
o prove the panel not only chaste, but above suspi-
Aou. They had served a subpceaa on Mr. Monahan,
who it appeared had proceeded to Galway to attend
fair, and ho had left town most unexpectedly.
['hey had used all the diligence they could, and it
voutd be most fatal to them to proceed in his ab-
,ence. There was a suggestion that he left to avoid
;lying evidence.

-
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL read a letter from surgeon
elonahan, brother of the absent gentleman, who nega-
ived the suggestion of leaving town to avoid being
rved with any summons. Ile contended that they
eight not to get any further time, because if they had
given notice to the Crown Solicitor on Tuesday, the day
.he trial was fixed, it would have been possible to have
Vlr. Monahan preserit that day.
Mr. Lloemes said it was not for him to observe on the
•etusal of the Atterne) -Ueneral to consent to postpone-
nent, but really it was very hard.
Baron LEFROI—The application now made to us must
le dealt with as any other case. It was an application
quite ordinary—the question being, had the prisoner
nade a case? Many thought that the application was
ounded on grounds sufficient; but the Court, even in
capital cases, required something more. The Court
.squired that due diligence should be used after the
materiality of the witness, and that the witness had got
'effieient time to be in attendance. No doubt, if a
orisoner satisfied the Court, that even on the day of
riul it should be made appear to the Court that the
witness could give evidence material to the clef once of
.he prisoner, that would oblige the Court to postpone
he trial for the appearance of that witness. But it was
.he duty of the Court to see that no encouragement was
riven lay the Court to the delay or obstruction of justice.
His Lordship then said the bills were sent into court in
this case on SatUrday—notice v. as given that it would
be proceeded with. The Court addressed the grand
iury on the subject. The bills were sent up in the
course of Monday, and the grand jury Sent down the
hills. Various preliminary matters were discussed,
And on Tuesday an application was made lay
the Attorney-General to fix Wednesday. His Lordship
reviewed the other proceeding preliminary, and stated
that they had no evidence to show that they had recently
become aware of the materiality of the testimony of the
witness, or of any due diligence being used to secure his
attendance. On the contrary, if they had to judge of
the question whether it was not intended to abuse the
rule of the Court, the abstaining from giving due notice
to the parties who would have kept the witness in town,
they would doubt the bona tides of the application, and
the Court were bound to refuse the applicatioc.
Mr. Justice MOORE said he would not enter further
into the case than to say that sufficient grounds in law
were not laid for the application.
Mr. Thomas J. Quieten and Mr. Worthington, the
former foreman of the county grand jury, and the latter
Another grand juror, were sworn as triers.
Mr. Peter Cassaday, an attorney, was the first witness
examined. He deposed that ho practised as an attorney
'Or six years constantly in that court. Was acquainted
with the class of jurors generally in attendance. Ex-
amined the present panel. They were not the same
class of jurors as usually attended. They were rather
a more respectable class of persons on the present panel
—he meant more wealthy in circumstances—that was
the only difference he saw.
Mr. Peter Slevin, an officer of the corporation, was
next called on. He deposed that he was very frequently
employed in registering proceedings, and knew the city
well.
Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN then asked him did he know
how many Roman Catholics were on the panel?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected. He did not see
what that had to do with the panel.
Sir COLMAN tYLOGHLEN said he thought it would be
found relevant. For whereas the Catholic jurors were
to the Protestant on the jurors' book as four to one, the
number of Catholics did Oct on the panel bear to the
l'rotestants the proportion of one to six. Sir Coltman
quoted the case at the Queen's County Special Com-
ruission before the late Chief Justice Bashe in the year
1837.
Mr. HENN, Q.C., was heard contti. The sheriff wits
perfect liberty to place upon the pant l in any posi-
tion he pleased, and in any numbers as to any party he
pleased, and the only challenge could be whether
he had done so corruptly or not.
Baron LEFROY—Suppose it should occur that a poor
wan was on his trial and that the sheriff should place
on the panel a large number of rich men, would you
think that was unindifferent?
Mr. HOLMES—I think it would.
Baron LEFROr—Lord Tenterden has decided c-n-
-trary.