The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-21 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, DEC. 19.—The order of the Judges at the
Commission prohibiting the publication of the proceed-
ings in the case of the Queen v. Duffy, has given great
dissati,faction to the public, and mortal offence to the
press, more especially the Conservative portion, by which
it is denounced as unjust and tyrannical. The folly of
the proceeding will be strikingly exemplified this morn-
ing, on the delivery of the London papers of yesterday.
which will contain full reports of what occurred at
Green-street, on Saturday, while the Dublin journals
published yesterday and this morning give them in blank.
The Evening Packet threatens to set Judge Perrin at
defiance this evening, and publish the proceedings in full.

Judge PERRIN—We cannot comply with the request—
The prisoner was then called upon to plead.
_ . .

Mr. &HAGAN, one of his counsel, handed to the clerk
of the Crown a plea in abatement, on the ground that
the prisoner could not be called upon to plead, inasmuch
as two of the grand jury by whom the bills had been
found, namely, Walter Sweetman and Patrick Boylan,
were not at the time inhabitants and freemen of the city
of Dublin.

The case was then adjourned to two o'clock, to give
the Counsel for the Crown an opportunity of considering
what aLswer they would give to the foregoing plea. At
two o'clock the law officers returned into court, and
were informed by their .Lordships that as they had taken
up another case (one on which a woman was charged
with having poisoned a man named Thomas Nolan),
they should postpone the further hearing of the at-
goiments in Duffy's case till the following morning
(Tuesday).

JudgePEasix threw out, that as the Court would
protect the prisoner from being injured by the existence
of anothtr indictment, it was for the Crown to say whe-
ther a nolle prosequi should not be entered upon it.
DUBLIN. DEC. 20 —The argument of the plea in
abatement proceeded yesterday morning, and will last
-wring the day. The Attorney-General entered a de-
murrer, and contended that the common law or the
statutes did not disqualify jurors from having any free-
hold in the county for which they were impannelled in
counties of cities, and towns, nor need they necessarily
be inhabitants, provided they resided therein, that is,
transacted their business, or held their places of busi-
ness, in the county, in the body of which they were un-
pannelled ; that at common law every loyal subject was
qualified who dwelt within the body of the county.
Should this question be decided as it is generally
presumed it will, in favour of the prisoner, the effect
will be strange and embarrassing to the Crown. This
is the third commission since Mr. Duffy first was in-
dicted, and under the Habeas Corpus Act he is entitled
to be now put upon his trial, admitted to bail, or dis-
charged. As regards the second indictment yet sub-
sisting, that found in the county, the Crown seems al-
ready to have abandoned it, and both grand juries having
been discharged, no new indictment, either in city or
county, can be preferred at this commission. What
course then remains to prevent Mr. Duffy's release on
bail, unless, indeed, the powers of the Habeas Corpus
Suspension Act be invoked against him, and be shall
be continued in prison under a warrant of the Privy
Council?

The question of the demurrer was argued yesterday
by the Attorney-General; and Mr. John O'Llagan,
with Mr. Napier, Q.C., supported the plea. Mr. Ser-
geant O'Brien replied on the part of the Crown. At
the conclusion of the argument the Court intimated
that the question to be decided was too grave, and the
authorities quoted on both sides were of such numbers
and importance, that they could not be considered and
judgment upon them prepared to-morrow. The Court,
therefore, will not give judgment to day, or probably to-
morrow. It is likely that the judgment will not be de-
livered until Saturday.
After their Lordships had declared their resolve to
ponder on the question, Mr. Justice Perrin adverted to
the order prohibiting publication of the proceedings.
His Lordship said that some very foolish strictures upon
the order promulgated by
.the Court had been brought
under his notice. He advised these parties to beware.
What the Court had directed was within its jurisdiction,
and it was determiued that its legal obligation should be
enforced. He cautioned those parties how they dis-
obeyed the order.
_

Baron Richards expressed his concurrence in the de-
termination of his Learned Brother, and in the propriety
of the order, and referred to precedents, amongst others
those afforded by Lord Ellenborough and Mr. Justice
flolroyd. Mr. Duffy then addressed the Court, and
said that he would show that the prohibition of publica-
tion was the cause of substantial injustice towards him.
Mr. Justice Perrin said the order was made as well for
the protection of the prisoner as the Crown, and it
would equally protect both. If, however, the prisoner
had anything to urge against the order, let him instruct
his counsel to put it forward, sad the Court would give
it due weight, otherwise they could not hear anything
against the order.