The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-16 00:00:00

JURIES.

Mr. BELLEW rose to put the question to the Noble
Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, of which he had
given notice, on the subject of the exclusion of
Roman Catholics from juries in Ireland. In
the' recent trial in the county of Monaghan,
of the " Queen v. O'Halloran, M'Kenna, and others,"
which was a charge of Ribbonism, there were twenty
jurors returned ; of these eight Catholics were
challenged by the Crown, and the prisoners had
no right of challenge. The result was, that
of the twelve jurors sworn, only one was a
Roman Catholic. and the general impression on the pub-
lic mind was, that the Catholic jurors had been chal-
lenged solely on account of their religion. In that case
there was no question of Repealer or Anti-Repealer, the
case was one merely of Ribbonism. He wishedto ask if the
Noble Lord could state why the , Catholic jurors had
been thus struck off. He also wished to put a question
respecting the employment of the Crown witness.
It appeared that the Crown witness had been

employed as an approver before the late assizes.
He had been out on bail, and during that time
and while he was in communication with the police,
he had continued to attend Ribbon Associations,
and he had admitted that he had taken an oath
of secresy at a meeting of a Ribbon Asso-
ciation since he had been in communication
with the Law Officers of the Crown. He wished to
ask the Noble Lord how it happened that the
Crown had excluded from the jury all Roman
Catholics except one, and how they could justify the
employment of such a person as the approver and prin-
cipal witness for the Crown, with a proper regard for
the due administration of justice ?
Lord ELIOT regretted that he was not in a position
to give a satisfactory answer to the Hon. Gentleman.
On the day on which the Hon. Gentleman had given no-
tice of his intention of asking the question he (Lord
Eliot) had written to the Crown Solicitor on the North
Eastern Circuit on the subject. He had received an
answer from that gentleman stating that he was still on
circuit and had not the papers with him which
would enable him to return a satisfactory an-
swer, but that he should return to Dublin on Wed-
nesday, when he would furnish the necessary papers ;
but he declared that no juror had been set aside solely
on the ground that he was a Roman Catholic, but that
he should be able to assign good and valid reasons for
the rejection of every one that he had set aside. The
Honourable Gentleman must be aware, that
the instructions on this subject issued by Chief
Justice Brady in 1839, and which bad been
laid on the table of that House, were still in existence,
and the Attorney-General for Ireland and the other law
officers of the Crown in that country had addressed cir-
culars to the Crown solicitors on the various circuits, re-
questing that those directions should be rigidly adhered to;
so that if there were any deviations from those
instructions the responsibility rested with the
Crown Solicitor, and not on the Government.
Mr. Maxwell, the Crown Solicitor alluded to, had
been appointed in 1831 by the Marquis of Anglesey.
He had held the office ever since, and had given satisfac-
tion to all the different Governments since, and he would
not believe that he had failed to exercise a judicious
discretion in the present instance. With regard to the
last question, as he had received no notice from the Hon.
Gentleman on the subject, he was not in a condition to
return an answer.