The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-13 00:00:00

CERTIFICATES GRANTED.

T. Clarke, Norwich, appraiser, Feb. B—E. Tapson,
Cardiff, coal agent, a certificate of the first class, Feb. $
—J. Newton, Ashton-under-Lyne, innkeeper, a certifi-
cate of the first class, Feb. 9-13. Shaw, Gerrard-street,
Islington, Southampton-street, Russell-square, and
Sloane-street, Chelsea, china and glass dealer, ♦ug. 12
—W. Bates, Tithby, Nottinghamshire, horsedealer, a
certificate of the third class, after twelve months from
Feb. $.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
S. Whits and A. Boscowitz, leather sellers—D. Cook-
son and J. King, Whitehill, Durham, paper makers—J.
lichens and T. Sewell, Jersy, timber merchants—J. S.
Forman and G. M. Eden, Uxbridge, wine and spirit
merchants—Marianne Moore and Frances Ann Farrell,
Evesham, Worcestershire, schoolmistresses—J. and J.
Smith, Standon and Wadesmill, Hertfordshire, millers—
J. Fisher and E. Perrin, Liverpool, wine and spirit mer-
chants—J. Waddell and G. Crichton, Redruth, Corn-
wall, drapers—E. B Hawkins and G. W. Gilliogs,
Horton, Middlesex, linendrapers—J. Simpson and G.
Short, Bishop Wearmouth, Durham, ship builders—R.
Brook, J. Brook, and W. T. Gant, Bradford, Yorkshire,
linendrapers—J. Brown and R. Kerr, Norwich, archi-
tects—J. Swindells and S. Blackburn, Manchester, ma-
nufacturing chemists—J. Scott and W. H. Haden, Hud-
dersfield, woollen merchants—P., T., and W. Joynson,
(so far as regards P. Joynson), Manchester, silk manu-
facturers—T. Hunter and T. Moore, Bishop Wearmouth,
Durham, brick makers—T. and J. Ainsworth, Scarbo-
rough, printers—S. and S. J. Bayfleld, St. Thomas's-
street, Southwark, surgeons—R. Davies and G. D. Tay-
lor, Change-alley, Cornhill, law stationers—J. and J.
Rawlings, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, cabinet makers—G.
Nicholson and W. Mitchell, High-street, Aldgate, up-
holsterers—M. W. Jackson and H. C. Attay, St. Mar-
tin's, Stamford Baron, Northamptonshire, and Stamford,
Lincolnshire, surgeons—F. W. Paddon, G. Marshall,
and T. Prout, Plymouth, china clay merchants.

INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
William King, Birmingham, glazier.
Joseph Fryzer, Birmingham, retail brewer.
Joseph Roston, Kingnorton, Worcestershire, retail
brewer.
William Henry Britton, Birmingham, writing clerk.
James Hill Cheatle, Aston, near Birmingham, journey.
man brushmaker.
John Mason Harnesr, Boston, footman.
Alfred Waldron, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, labourer,
Thomas Smith, East Retford, Nottinghamshire, joiner.
William Anstey, Wick-Wick, Gloucestershire farmer.
Isaac Barnett, Bristol, clothier.

Richard Cooper, Oldham, draper.
Benjamin Preedy, Warwick, writing clerk.
Joseph Greaver, Oldham, journeyman tin-plate-worker,
Thomas Cook, Horncastle, Lincolnshire, grocer.
John Leo, Winchester, carpenter.
Alexander M'Crie, Bath, tailor.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
J. Wilson, Cunnock, ironmonger and general mer-
chant, to meet Feb. 18 and March 14, at one, within the
Black Bull Inn, Curnnock.
R. Scott, Govan, Lanarkshire, banker, to meet Feb.
21otel end
Gla March 21, at one, within the Carrick's Royal
H, sgow.
J. Brown, Glasgow, commission agent, to meet Feb.
14, and March 18, at twelve, within the Globe Hotel,
Glasgow.
Peter Bell, Crosston, Forfarshire, firmer and cattle
dealer, to meet Feb. 18 and March 18, at two, within
the County and Commercial Hotel, Forfar.
George Christie, Glasgow, writer and merchant, to
meet Feb. 'l9 and March 12, at one, within Whyte's
Temperance Coffee-houre, Glasgow.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 12.
COLONIAL AFFAIRS.
Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH rose to move
for some papers connected with colonial affairs. He
had given notice to the effect that the colonies should
have self-governments and perfect control of their own
affairs, but the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had wisely
and properly taken the subject into hie own hands. As
a debate had ensued at considerable length, in the course
of which he had had an opportunity of stating his views
and opinions in detail, he would not trespass at
any length on the attention of the House on the present
occasion, and would simply propose the resolution of
which he had given notice. Nothing ho thought could
be more liberal than the principles of co•
lonial policy as laid down by the Noble
Lord; but he was sorry he did not intend
to,. apply them to that extent which, in his
(Sir William Moles worth's) opinion, was ne-
cessary for the complete and permanent contentment
of the colonies. Ile regretted to lied that with re-
gard to Australia, the Noble Lord only intended to
proceed with the Bill of last year, which he thought
would require great alteration before it passed the House;
and he should take the earliest opportunity of proposing
several amendments in the details when it came
before Committee. He thought this colony ought
its
local have hill power to alter or amend
local institutions, and that it ought also to have an elec-
tive chamber and an elective government. The Bill as
proposed would give too much patronage i . n the appoint-
ment of colonial officers, a grievance which at the present
time was the cause of so much discontent. He ob-
jected also to the proposal to maintain the present
arbitrary powers of the Colonial-office over the acts
and proceedings of the Colonial
.Legislature.
Having simply stst2d some of his objections to this
measure, he would not trespass further on the House,
and would conclude by moving for certain returns con.
nectvd with the colonies.

The motion for the re.urnp, the nature of which we
did no
t catch, was then put from the Chair, and
agreedottST
RIKING JURIES IN IRELAND.
Mr. SADLEIR, iu rising to move for a Select Com-
mittee to inquire int ) the facts connected with
the striking of the special jury, in the case of
"Callanan against Cameron," said he brought it forward
without reference to any party or sect, either in or
out of the House, and declared his anxiety to see
equal justice dealt out to the Protestant as well as the
Catholic. He did not make his present motion in any
factious spirit. He only proposed to lay before the
House certain facts relative to a system which he con-
sidered was subversive cf justice, and had an injurious
bearing on the judicial relations of Ireland. It appeared
that Callanan commenced an action against Major
Cameron in the year 1848, the major baying taken pos-
session of some tenements belonging to Callanan for the
use of his troops, and haying turned the furnituze eta,

The Crown Solicitor Mr. Kemmis, asked f it a spr
cial :
ury, and a special jury panel was returned in the
case; and then followed the practice of the offisir of
the court to proceed by ballot to extract the names of
48 gentlemen who might be placed on the special jury
list. In the 48 names so selected it happened that
there were ten Roman Catholics, residents in the county
o.
of Tipperary. Four or five were on the commission
n:
the peace for that and the adjoining counties, and o
or two were deputy lieutenants. He was himself
there
per-
sonally acquainted with those ten gentlemen, andb
could not be men of higher character or standing. Each
counsel had the rightlin such cases to strike off twelve'
leaving twenty-four names on the panel, of whom the
first twelve were chosen. In this case Mr. Kemtnie,l
the exercise of his right as solicitor to the Crown, _
pro-
ceeded in the first instance to set aside and reject the
names of nine of these Roman Catholic gentlemen, and
he honestly believed that the tenth only
ault by accident, because Mr. Kemmis believed Mr.Jtteufe
Archer Butler was a Protestant. The names of
nine did not appear in the list in consecutive order, but
they were dispersed up and down. Ho knew that English
escaped the in;
gentlemen e ere strangers to such a system as that which
he had point d out, and such a s}
stem
were slow to give credence to statemen
which showed that the people were filched of the rightt
of trial by jury. But he held in his hand a statement
of a committee of Roman Catholic and Protestant
gentlemen, who undertook to investigate the syeedin
whichi juries were constructed in the county he allude
to. This statement showed the marvellous decrease_
stem of xclusiots
of Roman Catholics on the list cif persons ts serve a:
jurors from 1839 to 1843. He placed More the Units
these facts with the view of extorting from the Govern'
ment a clear explanation from which the Roman Catlin'
lie people of Ireland might feel convinced that the repro:
sentative of Royalty had nothing whatever to do tell"
this insulting warfare against the consciences of the peo-
ple of Ireland. He hoped the Government would show
that they did not countenance the infliction of these ic"
sults on the people of Ireland. He warned the Govern-
ment against putting this question on a mere quibble.
The Dublin Evening Post, which was avowedly an
organ of the Government, had dealt with this ea
monstrous case—as one which demanded public
investtgation, and as involving the conduct of s
Government official, which had been wholly nu;
justifiable. The Irish people had hoped that :bat
investigation would have been made. An attempt 1.
been made to justify the proceedings of the Crown
soli-
citor, by showing that he did not represent the CroesU
He had cautioned the Government against making this
defence, because there was evidence that he was acting
in his capacity as Crown solicitor. It had, indeed, been
put forth that Mr. Kemmis was not only acting 841
private solicitor, but that he was bound to take the u et
course he could to secure his client. He denied that
Mr. Kemmis, under any circumstances,
excluding Roman Catholics. It woull be said, perbn,Pli
that as the law stood, and acting on the instructions laid
down by Justice O'Loghlen, and the present Attornerg;
General, the Crown solictor had a discretion rested le.
was justified s
him. Everybody knew Mr. Kemmis's predi!eetine
Evers body who knew that gentleman knew that it, ,
had the opportunity of exercising a discretion he weals be
glad glad to insult Catholicism. He had nothing t°lBlo
against the gentleman, but they knew he had bee
cradled in bigotry, in a system of religious exclusion and
political intolerance—a system which no man could u
fend—a system which had been condemned in every
4
quarter. He knew Mr. Kemmis was the child of t;
late Thomas Kemmis. He knew his father was the cm
:r
cial of one of the most rabid Irish Orangemen who sued
filled the office of first law officer of the Crown. lie
understood the Right Hon. Gentleman that the Doane'
Lions issued by Justices O'Loghler, Brady, and Perrin
were meant to apply to ordinary cases. He thought's,
fair interpretation of those instructions was, that ine,le'fs
instance in which the Crown took part the principle bt
Justice O'Loghlen should be adhered to. The Rigue
Hon. Baronet had laboured to establish the fact that 1.0
Government set aside the Roman Catholic gentlemen
a great social position in Dublin, out of a spirit of kinds
„
ness towards those gentlemen, and said they were ex'
eluded out of regard to them. That, he contended, sv-sf
a calumny on the whole of the Roman Catholic body °,l
Ireland. In a statement male by the Noble I°
last year, Dicer saying that he did not think there seso
any reason why the Roman Catholics ought not tn.b
placed on en equal footing with Pratestants on joie ,
so, likewise, he held that a man holding
opinions on repeal should not be disqualified fro
serving on a jury. But that in the case of a men w
openly declared that Ireland ought to be separated from
England, that the Queen's power should be taken swaift;
and that these objects should be completed by for,
question was, whether he was a man who would be lik,:st
to try the issue justly, as parties were sworn to do. 190",
if the Attorney-General thought any person Was got
likely to give a verdict according to the evidence,
us
against it, then it was right not to leave the newi.
the list of the jury. Now, in these opinions, thus
ell-
pressed by the Noble Lord, he was sure every wt,
minded Irishman would coincide. Every effort oughto
be made to prevent the continuance of the exclusive
system now adopted; and he implored the House 1° con
cider by what alteration of the law they could Pftv be
the recurrence of such a transaction as - that whle."eet
had brought forward. He had brought the 'AI of
before the House with the view of planting the seed.
us
peace and good will among the people of Ireland. an
from a desire Is see justice impartially administered in
that country. The love f justice was inherent nig' ,ss,
Irish eharaetes, and to use the language of Sir j'a;,,jation
" there is no people bettor satisfied with the that
thereof, even though it be against theresolgef thesi
they may have the protection and benefit o
lop
when upon just tame they do desire it." T"
Memt sr concluded by moving the appointment tf :he
Committee.
Mr. SCULLY seconded the met;on.
Mr. HATCHELL gave the Honourable Member,
credit for his endeavours to reconcile the differences and
dissensions which existed in Ireland ; but the scope
his observations and references, an the manner fa
_
which he bat spoken of individuals, and the transactions
of bygone times,- were not calculated to effect that en.
ject. Every one must lament that anything should oc-
cur with respect to the striking and impaneliing
juries which would lead to the idea that they bad been
er
ehse da
t.
struck or impanelled unfairly. There WAS another el.'
cumstance deserving the notice cf the House. The cause
tuontwriheidc.h—t(hHe
eHaro,n
honearar.b)le
TMemtis
weuld
take place in about three weeks,rTeifpeprreerdarv;a9.:stee-
and if omml` the C should be appointed, it mightsl
would be proceeding durin that the ""
so happen coal'
g the sitting of the
b,00., mitten. Such a proceeling he considered highly f
tionable, and little cond • eeadministration °
uctve to the
jostiee.—(Rear, hear.) H pre". ‘, •
sent motion extremely econsidered the 'ace
inconvenient on that
count. But that was
This was not the only 0"-' end a
as not a question between o ow° and
the .0_„„ case
subjoin in any criminal
t proceeding, but an etch 51.7
,
to try. an action of troy ass and ascertain -ether e:
house or two had been illegally taken -ession in •
this cage a special jury had been struck.°3' The ordinary
each or
practice, was to call over the forty-eight names, d tbio
torney being called upon strike twelve; 13-
to off a.,,,stiou
had been done. No w, without going into a speen'''' sht
of the high character and property of the jury, be mbi:eo
safely say that a more competent jury had never ase.--'
appointed to try even a far more imporfant c- Go.
(Hear.) The only ground for eoenecting the Irish
of
Torment le
with tie transaction was the bossingccumat
Mr. Kemmis being the Crown solicitor; and,
were
that position, it was supposed that the Government ted
responsible tor his acts, and that he had been act naid 0
by a bigoted and sectarian spirit. Mr. Kemmis he
bard
high and honourable social position, and it was beat
that, in his absence, such imputations should hayes the
thrown upon him. But if there was one thing tee
present occasion more reprehensible, it wasof
unnecessary allusion to the transactions the
1842, libelling the son by a reference tnA the
transactions of his deceased father; and he trusts - • V
Hon. Member for Carlow would, on reconsiderall°;
consider that he ought not to have taken such 0 n°tirs
aman
(The Hon. and Learned Gent, then read , a letter
from Mr. Kemmis, stating that the jury „g ante k
sof
the usual manner—that the names of the jurors seer, of
the most respectable class—that in the performenco
his duty he had exercised his best judgment for it/table
terest of his client in the same way that any ropec000•
solicitor would have done.)—(llear, hear.) The sf the
Gentleman, in referring to the names of some, eel/
jury, seemed to intimate that the name of tunj ft in
Roman Catholic, James Arthur Butler, had been
s'
tret -h
by mistake. Now nothing was farther from tb light
He protested against such a motion having been Wilso•
forward with respect to a case still undecided; and sok;
because it would set an example to every person °neje'
ing the House to pronounce an opinion upon floor'
jury selected las t +seen party and party, where 00, for
ney must act to the best of his judgment and skillober
the benefit of his client. He trusted the Hon •S:egootie•
would be satisfied with the disavowal of Tar• etbut be
and withdraw his motion. If not, he submitted.: • dee
had said sufficient to induce the House to gii• 1"
cided negative. ly re;
Mr. SADLEIR explained. He had studi°lls,, ono
frained from adverting to the merits of the 01;011
had made no observations 'electing on the reopen"'
of the gentlemen on the panel. . tO
Mr. SCULLY maintained that the proceoo f the
which his Him Friend had called the attention 0, Ira.
House was an insult to the religion o *he people 01 m-
land, and he should ther, fore support the motion' t,be
Mr. NAPIER said the precise question hew fa 0
for the
House was this. A •I •
specie jury was applied and V'
civil action. The panel in the Crown Court
_l till'
special jurors' book were constructed on ae entir'ege
uipes
&rent footing. The names of all the gentierulleook in
tent to act were placed on the special jurors .king Of
alphabetical order. The sheriff attended the Wl._ haw
the jury, which was done in this manner; certal,urefes.
bers were put into a box and on being drawn Out,
once was made to the 'book to ascertain the narevw'sele
48 names were thus selected by ballot out of titioll
special jurors' list to serve on every cause 's
rie
ge
a special jury. Then what did the law allowhlou the
agreed in the observation that Ireland ought t°
benefit of English institutions. The same Isl,r; seer
plicable to both countries.—(Hear.) Out 01, thesoy the
eight names so selested, the law allowed each
_l7we'eble
legal right to object to twelve without being
attorneY to
to any tribunal; and it was the duty of the a, ~,e wept
strike away the twelve which he considered the been
objectionable, and leave the rest. If there lacrto on
any fraud, the Court ought to have been appealss_ss apses
affidavit ; and he decidedly objected to the sysz-juge#,
milting the opportunity of going before
religious
&s-
-and involving the House of Commons in a
cussion, when the facts were not fully befor
d cretion,
sate
thought Mr. Kemmis had exercised an honest
duty to
and on every ground he should think it his.tor.„sose
with his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicoi
Mr. FAGAN said that after the denial m
oheerra.
mis, it was exceedingly difficult to make an):„.„. SOW
tions, but he must say in justification of the .I_tf: righl.
be" Or Carlow that it was impola o
ible for w

w,, .
> ~:,
.;; ,