The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-30 00:00:00

intended to refer to sugar generally, or free-,grown
sugar.

Lord G. BENTINCK. said, that in the report of the
Committee no difference was made between free grown
sugar and that produced from slave labour.

SPAIN.
Mr. BAILLIE, in reference to the documents and cor-
respondence that had been laid on the table relative to
the recall of Sir H. Bulwer from Madrid complained
that the statements made by the Spanish Government
had not been laid on the table of the House.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he had no such
papers.—(Hear.)

"POOR-LAWS.
Mr. C. BULLER, on the motion of Lord G. Ben-
tinck, brought up returns from the Poor-law Commis-
sioners.

THE IRISH STATE TRIALS.
Mr. KEOGH wished to know from the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government whether ho had re-
ceived any information to the effect that, on the trial of
Mr. Mitchel, every Roma❑ Catholic, to the num-
ber of eighteen, were excluded from the jury
in open court by the Attorney-General for Ireland. He
also wished to know whether that course had not been
adopted on the trial of Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Meagher?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no explanation to offer
with respect to what had taken place at the trial of Mr.
Mitchel; with respect to those of Mr. O'Brien and Mr.
Meagher, he had letters from the Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland and others, stating that juries had never been set
aside in Ireland from political or religious opinions.
ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that an humble ad-
dress of condolence be presented to her Majesty upon
the death of the Princess Sophia.
Sir R. PEEL seconded the motion, which was put and
carried unanimously.
CONVICTION OF MR. MITCHEL.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, in justice to the
late Government ho felt it his duty to state
that the instructions given in the private letter
which the Noble Lord had read were directly con-
trary to those given by the late Government, in re-
ference to Mr. O'Connell's trial, if they contained an
intimation that parties were to be struck off the jury on
account of their religious persuasions. The instructions
given by the late Government were identical with those

given 1::y Mr. Monahan, and it was distinctly laid down
that those parties only were to be struck off who might
be supposed to be identified with the political opinions
of the late Mr. O'ConnelL

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the letter alluded to was
not sent to Lord Clarendon as instructions, but simply
to put him on his guard that charges might be preferred
against Government after the trial had taken place.
Mr. BRIGHT said it was quite evident from what
had passed in that House, and indeed from what had
been said to-night, that it bad been the opinion
of the Government that it was highly desirable that
the trial of Mr. Mitchel should take place, and that
a conviction should be obtained. Now he was not in
the least disposed to make any complaint of that; but
there was another thing at least of as much importance
for pacifying the people of Ireland and cementing the
union of the two countries, and that was, that the people
of Ireland should feel convinced that in the trials upon
charges of grave offences, whether political or other-
wise, that they should have that fair trial which
the constitution of this country declared should
be had by the meanest subject of the Crown. Now he
was not about to say that Mr. Mitchel had been guilty
of everything that had been laid to his charge, nor would
he say that the verdict returned was not in accordance
with the dictates of the law; bat if they might judge
from the reports which appeared in the public prints—
and these reports it must be borne in mind would be
read not only in London but throughout Great Bri-
tain, and not only in Great Britain, but by every
person who could read in Ireland—it would seem
that there were 150 persons who were upon the panel,
of whom, if he were not mistaken, 23 were Roman
Catholics, although it was a notorious fact that the

largest proportion of the population of Dublin were of
the Catholic persuasion, while of that 150 only 65 or 75
answered to their names. Of those, Government had
the power of striking off to an unlimited extent,
but the prisoner had only the power of strik-
ing off to a limited extent. It appeared thus
that the Crown struck off every person who was a
Roman Catholic. Now it was quite possible that every
one of these persons was known to sympathise with the
views of the prisoner, and it was quite possible
that every one of these twenty-eight persons
was incompetent to give a fair verdict; but the
people of Ireland would not so consider, and as
six-sevenths of the entire population of that (country
were of the Catholic persuasion, no doubt it would
become the universal opinion of the majority of them
that they were not considered by Government competent
to give a fair opinion, and, therefore, ought not to be
asked to take part in a jury to try a political offence.
He hoped that whilst the Government showed the
powers of the law, and were determined to put it in
force, the House, from whom the law emanated, would
show the people of Ireland that it wished to see justice
done, and was disposed to exercise its mercy. There
was one institution in Ireland which had been the cause
of most of the evils that had been inflicted upon
that country, and which he was confident the majority
of the people of this country would assist in taking
away. He alluded to the Established Church, the mem-
bers of which the Government had looked upon as the
only fit persons to sit on juries in political cases, thus
excluding about six-sevenths of the people of Ireland
who were Catholics. Such a state of things was most dis-
graceful, and he hoped the House and the country would
not long tolerate it.—(Hear, hoar.)
Mr. GRATTAN here rose and interrupted the Hon.
Member to state that Catholic juries in Ireland were as
honest, intelligent, and as capable of discharging their
duties as Protestants. In consequence of the proceed-
ings against Mr. Mitchel, he had to say that many of
those who were formerly anti-repealers would now be
thorough repealers for the rest of - their days. He
would tell the Government that they had made
a great mistake of late—that they had acted
the part of cowards, and not the part of men,
in enforcing the law. They had brought into the
House a most abominable law to put down the phy-
sical force men in Ireland, when that might
have been done quite as effectually by the common
law. Nothing code. be so monstrous as the packed jury
system in Ireland. In the jury books the proportion of Ca-
tholics was three to one more than that of Protestants, but
after they had been under the revision of the sheriff, the
proportion was reduced to one Catholic for five
Protestants. He hoped that some Honourable
Member would give notice of a motion for
a sifting inquiry into the whole proceedings in Ireland;
because he held, front the virtue, wisdom, and knowledge
in that country, that the arbitrary power which Go-
vernment had exercised would be but short-lived, and
would ultimately fall.
Mr. BRIGHT said it appeared from the Honourable
Member's observations, that it was as dangerous to de-
fend Ireland as to attack her. The Hon. Member
had entirely mistaken his remarks, for he never meant
to express an opinion that Catholics were unfit for juries.
What he meant to convey was, that six.sevenths of the
people of Ireland were not in harmony with the Go-
vernment, and would not help them to carry out the
law. His sentiments were entirely in accordanc-
with those which the Honourable Gentleman had
enunciated, and, therefore, he was never more surprised
in his life tha❑ when the Hon. Gentleman rose and at-
tacked him.—(Laughter.)
Mr. ROCHE said if the Government had occa-

sion to appeal to the laws of the country against
those who opposed them, they should take care,
for their own reputation, that the parties were
tried by an impartial jury.—(Hear.) Although Mr.
Mitchel had been convicted and sentenced, they bad his
statement that there were 300 who were ready to follow
his example, and, therefore, it was not unlikely that
some of them would have to pass through the ordeal
which he had passed through, and therefore it behoved the
Government to take care that the juries by whom they
were tried were fairly selected. It was stated in the
letter which the Noble Lord had read that every man
professing repeal principles was to be struck off—so
that it came to this, if this were done, that parties placed
on their trial like Mr. Mitchel, would be tried by parties
who dissented from them. The repeal party was di-
vided into sections, some of whom had no sympathy with
the violent principles maintained by Mr. Mitchel, who
dissented from them as much as he or any one in this
country did ; but surely they were as competent to return
a fair verdict as any other parties. It came, therefore,
to this—were they to have trial by jury in Ireland or
not ? If they struck off those of the same religious
persuasion as the persons to be tried, trial by jury in
Ireland would become " a delusion, a mockery, and a
snare."

Mr. KEOGH explained that what he meant was
that Roman Catholics of the highest respectability,
living in Dublin, and in no way connected with the
repeal movement, for they entertained the opinions
generally ascribed to "Conservatives," were struck off the
panel by order of the Attorney-General. He (Mr. Keogh)
stated that fact from his own knowledge; it rested with
the Government to show why these persons wQra
struck off.

Lord J. RUSSELL—With regard to the Hon. Gentle-
man's question, I have given him and the House all
the information I have received on the subject.
The Attorney-General gave instructions to the Crown
Solicitor on the matter; that is all the information I
have on the subject. The Attorney-General having given
instructions to the Crown Solicitor, left it to him to carry
them out by striking off the names objected to. If I receive
any further information I will communicate the purport
of it to the Hon. Gentleman and the House. I merely
venture to state that the discussion which has taken
place is not very regular.
Sir DE L. EVANS said generally, when Govern-
ment instituted prosecutions, a belief was entertained by
some that they had been guilty of trickery. He wished to
know if the Commissioners appointed to report on the
state of juries had not represented that if juries, after
being shut up twelve hours, did not agree, that three to
one in favour of a verdict should be deemed sufficient?
Sir. G. GREY said it was not the intention of the
vernment to propose to Parliament any measure on
the subject.
Mr. HUME did not wish to see any change. He be-
lieved they were better satisfied with their system of the
jury-laws in England than they were in Scotland.
NA TIG ATION- LA WS.
On the motion for the House resolving itself into a
Committee on the navigation-laws, several petitions
were presented for and against their alteration.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. HERRIES rose to make the motion of which he
had given notice.
Dr. BOWRING rose to object to the motion on the
ground of its not being in order.
The SPEAKER overruled the objection, and
Mr. HERRIES then proceeded to move as an amend-
ment to the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair,
" That it is essential to the national interests of iths
country to maintain the fundamental priaciplee ofthe