The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-16 00:00:00

INDIA,

Lord STANLEY rose to answer the somewhat miscella-
neous questions which had been put to him in the course of
this discussion. In the first place he would refer to what
had been stated by Mr. Kinnaird with reference to the delay
which that hon. gentleman complained occurred with refe-
rence to the transmission of official intelligence. There
Were two reasons for that delay. in the first place it arose
out of the very nature of official communications. It was
hardly possible that official communications coull be received
in the same time as private communications. A private cor-
respondent, or the correspondent of a public journal, did not
Write under any official responsibility, he took his facts from
their current rumour. But as official communication was
made under a grave responsibility, it was necessarily requi-
site that the party making it should not do so without due
consideration. But, further, it frequently happened that
those communications had reference to local questions, and
in such case further time was taken up in referring to the
locality to which they had relation. With regard to the
alleged disturbance at Travancore, to which the hon gentle-
man especially referred, he had not received any officia com -
munication. He had seen several accounts relating to that
affair, all of them varying much in their statements of the
facts. The hon. gentleman asked him what course he
rould take supposing those facts were of a certain nature.
witwn rhe must say, in all courtesy to the hon. member and
conve_emcmct to the house, that it was not consistent with
answer which
for him to answer such a question. The only
aovare o:ivhich he could give was this, that when he was
t__th facts then he would say what was the course
He wo the part of the Government, ought to be followed.
and ant refer to the statement of Colonel Kingscote;
vernraent to
would take
mem-
ber
he Innet rata° theth question of the hon. and gallant 4. at it was not the intention of the Go-
itsional details to
.iiithe steps to which his question alluded.
based Lire
ztinto too long a discussion of profes-
vernmentthe grounds upon which their Go-
the hon. and gallant He could, however, assure
Government had maturrumber and the house that the
next matter alluded to
we, Y
the the question. The
The hon, member for She financial position of India.
what was the duty to be placed
eld (Mr. Hadfield) had asked
Now, the only copy which he d 4a
upon
tat`les of hardware.
of riff was the draft

which had not yet passed the Council of Calcutta. In that 1
draft the duty on hardware was fixed at from sto 10 per
cent. The hon. member had also asked whether the Indian
Government had power to impose this duty. He understood
that since the act of 18.53 the legislative body in India had
power to make alterations any laws not affecting the pre-
rogative of the crown. In this case the Government had
sent out instructions to impose duties corresponding closely
with the course actually taken by the Indian authorities
upon their own responsibility. Lord Canning had in fact
communicated to him that it would be impossible for him
to meet the pressure upon him unless on his own authority
he took the step of levying this impost. He had, therefore,
taken upon himself to follow that course, relying upon the
Government to give him their support. That support he
need hardly say the Government were prepared to extend
to Lord Canning. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Wil-
son) had asked him whether these taxes were intended to
be an increase upon British manufactures only, or upon all
others also. In answer he had to state that they would
affect all manufactures. (Hear.) He thought he had now
answered all the questions put to him.
RIBBONISM IN IRELAND. _ _ _

Mr. M'MAHON asked the Attorney General for Ireland
whether he could give any explanation relative to the setting
aside of jurors on the late trials for ribbonism at Belfast,
and the cause for which each juror was set aside ?
Mr. WHTTESIDE thought, with all respect to the house,
that it was not a fit tribunal to inquire into a matter of this
kind. He found that a few years ago, when a motion of this
nature was before the house, Sir J. Grant, then the Attor-
ney-General of the Government, opposed the motion, and.
stated that it was an inquiry which could only be gone into
in the case of corruption of a public officer, or in the case of
oppression. He had received a report from the crown soli-
citor on the subject to which the hon. gentleman referred.
He must premise that 25 years ago an order was made by
the Attorney-General (Sir M. O'Loughlin) that in cases of
conspiracy a licensed victualler should not sit on the jury;
that was a rule based on the fact that most of these socie-
ties were held at the publichouses, and it was a rule which
had ever since been acted upon. Now in the case to which
the hon member referred nine jurors had been told to stand
by—four of them under the rule laid down by Sir M.
O'Loughlin; the others were directed to stand by because
they were party men. In no case was a juror challenged on
account of his being a Catholic. The house, perhaps, would
allow him to advert to a statement made the other even-
ing by the right hon. gentleman the member for Kerry (Mr.
H. Herbert). The right hon. gentleman adverted to a trial
which recently occurred at Tralee, and said he regretted
much the course which the Crown officers had thought
it right to take there. The case to which allusion was
made was that of the Phcenix conspirators. The indict-
ment in that case was framed under the Pains and Penal:

ties Act, the object being to avoid the extreme capital
penalty. The trial took place, and 0 witnesses were ex-
amined, and after some consultation it was found that the
jury could not agree. There was no imputation that could
be properly cast on the Crown Solicitor in the matter ; he
had acted with due zeal and impartiality. The Crown
Solicitor had felt deeply the remarks whieh the right hon.
gentleman had made, and he had forwarded to him (Mr.
Whiteside) a letter from the late Mr. O'Connell, speaking
of him in the highest terms, and as one who " was a model
for all Crown Solicitors." Well, as he had said, the jury
could not agree ; two of the jurors—he mentioned only
what was openly stated to the court—would not listen
either to honour or reason. When another jury was em-
panelled, a gentleman was desired to stand aside because
twenty-five years ago he had been tried and fined in a tithe
case. It was true that he was on the list of magistracy, but
in appointing him the Lord Chancellor was not aware of
his having been concerned in such a case. It was felt, and
justly, that in a case like that before the court, this gentle-
man, though many years had gone by, might not be alto-
gether without bias. In conducting that case, the Crown
officer followed the course which had been pursued in the
case of Mr. Mitchell, the most recent case of conspiracy.
The Attorney-General of that day, himself a Catholic, wrote
to the Crown solicitors, " that it was not his desire that any
person should be set aside on account of religion, but that as
to the propriety of setting aside persons on account of poli-
tical bias, he did not think the instructions usually issued
applied to the case of a confederacy." He (Mr. Whiteside)
was present at the trial, and there were then 39 jurors or-
dered to stand by, in which number all the Catholics were
comprised. In the recent trial at Tralee fewer persons were
set aside than he had recolletced to have seen challenged in.
a political trial, and he put it to the right hon. gentleman to
show a case in which the prerogative of the Crown had been
exercised so leniently.
Mr. H. HERBERT must still express his regret at the
course which had been pursued on the trial to which he al-
luded. He had listened carefully to the speech of the right
hon. gentleman, who had given them no reason why eight
other gentlemen now besides the nine he had particularly
instanced, were told to stand by. With regard to this being
a political confederacy case, he must remind the house that
it received no sanction from the body of the Roman Catho-
lics of Ireland. They before the Government moved had
nipped the thing in the bud, the small tenant farmers, even
the class known as the " boys," who were proverbially ready
for mischief, stood aloof from it, and the priests had de-
nounced it from the altar. Their reward was to be told that no
member of their community was fit to serve upon a jury.
Mr. WHITESIDE—I never said so.
Mr. H. HERBERT—It might not have been said, but
the opinion was acted upon, as all Roman Catholics were
struck off. Amongst others who had been struck off was a
magistrate whom he (Mr. Herbert) had recommended to the
commission. The grounds were that this gentleman had
been convicted of conspiracy, the facts 'being that 27 years
ago he was convicted of making an anti-tithe speech in an
obscure village,and for it he was sentenced to a fortnight's im-
prisonment. This gentleman had felt so acutely the obser-
vations which had been made in that house, that he had
tendered his resignation to the Lord Chancellor. He (Mr.
Herbert) had felt himself justified in recommending this
gentleman to the commission, and the attorney-Genera
told him he was unfit to be a juror.
Mr. WHITESIDE had never said that the gentleman
was unfit. What he had said was that a man who had him-
self been convicted of conspiracy was not the fittest person
in the world to try another person for conspiracy. (Hear.)
Mr. HERBERT considered the objection to this gentle-
man to be no more than a quibble, and was still of opinion
that the ends of justice would have been better served by the
empanelling of Roman Catholic jurors on these trials. A
Protestant and a Whig, writing to him, said, "It was ex-
ceedingly improper to strike off these jurors," and a high
Tory was of opinion " that the Crown made a grievous mis-
take in rejecting Mr. Gerard O'Connor." (Hear, hear.)