The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-22 00:00:00

ENING,

Lord Campbell, he made no ail--
lance. On the cone.
of perem”‘

..-apt to restore the ba-
-ay, having and exercising the right
~ory challenge, he challenged, out of 71 jurors
who attended, no less than 39, of whom 18
were Roman Catholics, and they were the only
Roman Catholics who answered to their names.
Let him observe, in passing, that this right
of peremptory challenge was a very arbitrary
one. It was condemned by Sir Michael O'Loghlen in
evidence before the House of Lords in 1839. That cele-
brated lawyer even declared that he did not believe it
was the law of the land; and certainly, in no case in
modern times had the privilege ever been exercised to
the same extent as in the case of Mitchel. The conduct
of the Irish Attorney-General was, indeed, only equal
to taking up the panel and selecting his own jury. What
reason—what excuse—could he assign for such a pro-
ceeding? When out of office there was nothing that the
present Government so much impressed on the public
as the importance of a fair and impartial administration
of justice in Ireland. In 1836 Sir M. O'Loghlen, when
Attorney-General in Ireland, impressed upon the
Crown solicitors the importance of not pressing this
prerogative of peremptory challenge, and stated to
them that such practice was not pursued in England.
The present Lord Chancellor Brady gave similar direc-
tions. He even went so far as to say that the Crown
had not the right of peremptory challenge. The Hon.
and Learned Member proceeded to quote from the evi-
dence of Sir M. O'Loghlen and Judge Perrin before a
Committee of the House of Lords, in which both autho-
rities strongly disapproved of the indiscriminate exercise
of the right of challenge by the Crown. He (Mr.
Keogh) was not anxious that partisans on any side
should be chosen, but he asked the Government to give
one sufficient reason why those eighteen Roman Catho-
lics had been set aside. He had made every inquiry, and
he was prepared to state that ten out of the eighteen
were totally unconnected with political associations of
any kind.—(Cheers.) He now came to the most serious
part of the case. If there had been only one trial it
would have bean bad enough, but it happened that there
had been four juries struck before that to which he had
been alluding. Two were the juries for trying Messrs.
O'Brien and Meagher, and two were struck to try
Mitchel for sedition, butthat charge was abandoned when
the conviction for felony was obtained. In the case of
Mr. O'Brien, of the twelve jurors struck off by the Crown
ten were Roman Catholics, all men of the highest respect.
ability, and not one of them connected with any poli-
tical association. He would contrast this with what had
taken place at Mr. O'Connell's trial in 1844, a case
which had so much excited the anger of Hon. and Right
Hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the trial ten Roman Ca-
tholics were struck from the jury list by the Crown, but
of those, eight were admitted to be members o!' the Re-
peal Association, the ninth had signed the requisition
for the monster meeting at Tara, and the tenth was
struck off without knowledge of his religion to make up
the necessary legal number.—(Hear, hear.) Now, there
was no reason why the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government should not look at these matters in the
same light in 1848 as he had done in 1844.—(Haar,
hear.) In that year (1844) the Noble Lord said, that
the conduct of the Government in striking of the ten
Roman Catholics was such as to deprive the legal pro-
ceedings of all moral weight or value.--(Hear, hear.)
When a motion was then made hostile to the Govern-
ment, the Noble Lord paired in favour of it, although he
had not heard the case or the justification. Why was
not the Noble Lord then in his place ?—(Hear.) lie had
been there that evening to propose his third Coercion
Bill against Ireland.—(Cheers.) He would again be in
his place to proceed with a Bill, although when two
years and a half in office he had declared that he merely
occupied Ireland without governing it ; and yet when
the subject under discussion was a direct insult to the
Catholic people of Ireland, it was not deemed of suffi-
cieut importance to detain the Noble Lord.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the
Home Department also gave his opinion on that occasion
in concurrence with that of the Noble Lord. But that
was not all. Various Members of the Government had,
in 1841, expressed strong opinions in Dublin relative to
the striking of Mr. O'Connell's jury. Without twenty-
four hours' delay, a meeting was called in Dublin to pro-
test against the conduct of the then Attorney. General,
and among the foremost names to the requisition were
those of the present Master of the Mint and the present
Attorney-General .—(Loud cheers.) There was also
the name of Mr. Redington, the present Under Secre-
tary for Ireland—he was glad to see his Right Honour-
able Friend the Chief Secretary repudiated the
connexion. (Loud cheers and laughter.) The
Honourable and Learned Member quoted the speech
of the Right Hon. the Member for Dungarvon, on the
occasion alluded to, exhorting the people to memorialise
the Queen and both Houses of Parliament against what
the speaker styled the unconstitutional and illegal con-,
duct of the Government. Mr. Wyse, the late Secretary
to the Board of Control, also spoke, and asked what
would be said in England if persons were struck off the
jury because of their religious opinions ?—(Hear, hear.)
But Mr. Redington, the Roman Catholic Secretary for
Ireland—he felt that it would be quite unworthy of the
faith he professed, making it a matter of faith—(Hear,
and a laugh)—that the course Ministers were adopting
would bring neither credit to the Crown, nor safety to the
State.—(Hear, hear.) There was yet another name he
must mention, as that of a gentleman who was present
at the same meeting—the present Attorney-General for
Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) This law officer of the Crown,
who had been conducting all these- prosecutions, be
signed his name to the requisition calling the meeting,
and joined in the protest against the course the Go-
vernment had adopted. He might also refer, as
contrasting with the conduct of the Government now, to
the name of the present Chief-Governor of Ireland.—
(Hear.) When the motion brought forward by Lord
Normanby in the House of Lords condemning the con-
dUct of the Government of the Right Hon. Baronet in
striking Roman Catholics off the jury was negatived,
and a protest on five points was entered on the journals
of the House against that decision, the second name to
that protest, and for all the reasons, was " Clarendon."--
(Cheers.) But he had grounds far stronger and more
urgent than the conduct of the members of the present
Government when in opposition in favour of this motion.
Was there nothing in the present condition of Ireland
to warn the House against inducing, by any act of theirs,
a belief in the minds of the people of that country that
the law of England had been given to them, not as a
blessing and a boon, not as a law to be administered im-
partially and fairly to all, but as a means of oppression,
and for the purpose of obtaining verdicts by fraud and
connivance—(Hear, hear)—to prevent men accused
of political offences from being tried fairly by
juries impartially chosen, and to enable the pro-
secutor, while protesting against partisanship in favour
of the prisoners, to choose a jury of men whose opinions
are known to be adverse to him ? This was the course
pursued in regard to the jury which tried Mr. Mitchel.
It was said that the object was to have men of respecta-
bility and wealth. Why, he had looked at the list of
the jury by which the prisoner was tried, and found that
some of them had been bankrupt or insolvent within a
few years previous. And yet these were men selected
for their wealth and respectability, while other men,
who were men of undoubted wealth and respectability,
were rejected. The Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite had
obtained their places by the cry that they would never
consent to any measure of coercion for Ireland, unless
accompanied by great and sweeping remedial measures.
—(Hear.) Whatever excuse there might have been in
1846 for postponing such measures, there was none in
1847. When the Noble Lord was in opposition his
advent to power was to bring plenty to the Irish people.
New measures were to be be brought forward—
waste lands were to be cultivated—the question
of the Roman Catholic clergy was to be settled, with-
out which settlement they were told there was to be no
peace for Ireland. But the present Ministry came in,
and 1846 was allowed to pass without any such mea-
sures ; 1847 was equally barren ; and when the session
of 1847-8 came last November, it brought with it—a
Coercion Bill.—(Hear.) And when his Lion. Friends
opposite, who are connected with Ireland—and why they
were on that side he knew not—complained of this for-
feiture of Ministerial pledges, they were told " Wait till
we meet in February, and you shall have all you ask."
Well, they had a sample of these promised measures.
There was the Bill for the sale of incumbered estates.
He had not taken any part in opposing that measure,
though he might have ate opinion that when 5,000,0001
of property was already in the market, and no pur-
chasers to be found, it could be but of little service sud-

denly to throw 10,000,000/. more into it. Another of the
remedial measures was that for improving the law of
landlord and tenant. But the present Government did
not take that measure into account as one of remedy
when the Protection for Life Bill was brought in by
the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel),
for at that time the' Honourable Member for Falkirk-
__

shire had at least as good a Bill before the House,

Then they had been told that the grand jury system
was a great pest, and must be reformed. Now that
they had arrived at almost the close of the session he
might be allowed to 'ask where was the grand jury law ?
—(Hear, hear.) What then were the great remedial
measures Ministers had in their minds in 1846? It
had been said—and in the leadingjournal of this country
—that the people of Ireland indulged in extravagant ex-
pectations ? (Hear, hear.) Who had encouraged
them to those expectations? When the Noble Lord was
out of office nothing but large and comprehensive
schemes would be of service to Ireland. Where were
those schemes now? When in 1845 the party opposite
failed in forming an Administration, the Noble Lord
stated that he had hoped to form a great and com-
prehensive scheme to lay the foundation of lasting
peace in Ireland had he then come into office,
and it was on that account only that he re-
gretted he had not succeeded in forming an Administra-
tion. Surely then in 1848, after two Coercion Bills in
one session and another promised within twelve hours,
he might ask what was the great and comprehensive
scheme he cherished the hope of carrying in January,
1846?—(Hear, hear.) He asked was not this the time,
a time when they were proposing measures of coercion,
that they should, if they could not bring forward large
and comprehensive remedies, they should at least in-
quire into well-founded complaints? At a time when
republics were being formed out of the fragments of
ancient monarchies, when war was raging in the south,-
and peace was scarcely established in the north of
Europe, might it not be prudent to do something to
rally round the British constitution the affections of all.
her Majesty's subjects? He asked that House to give
to his countrymen the principle of the British constitu-
tion, and not its cold and cheerless image. Let them 6,3)
this and the loyalty and valour of the Irish peopkf •
might be depended on in all circumstances aa d
in all dangers, as in times past. This v vas
the spirit in which he was anxious they should cone& lite
the affections of the Irish people.—(" Oh," and h ear,
from the Ministerial benches.) The sneer from I lon.

Gentlemen on the other side well became men , who,
when out of office, found their profit in ericouragin g or
conniving at every species of agitation.—(Cheers, and
counter cheers.) He called upon them to show the it all
their promises were not mere pretences, but that they