The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-24 00:00:00

TR

the Attorney-General for Ireland. In what manner that Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman discharged the duty imposed on
him in vindicating that honour, and of the able and admirable
way in which he had discharged that duty, it would scarcely
become him to speak. Tho House had already judged, and
decided on that point ; he might be permitted to say also that a
more able speech, delivered in a more gentlemanly tone, and
with more manly bearing, he had never heard.—(Loud cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) He would at once express to
the Hon. and Learned Member for Dungarvon his entire sa-
tisfaction at the explanation he had given of what took place
at a trial in the county of Tipperary, some fourteen or fifteen
years ago, when as many as thirty-six jurors were
set aside on the part of the Crown. He was
thoroughly convinced that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
was only actuated by a desire correctly to discharge his duty
and ensure the satisfactory administration of justice. Having
so far discharged a debt of justice to the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, perhaps the House would allow him to
set himself right on a point alluded to by the Right Hon. and
Learned Member for Worcester, as to the conduct

that was pursued on the part of the Crown in
a case recently before the Exchequer, where he, Es
Attorney-General, consented that the trial should be sus-
pended, the jury discharged, and the defendant permitted to
have an opportunity of stating his case on another occasion.
He thought it right shortly to state the circumstances con-
nected with that case, that no mistake might be made as to the
grounds on which he then acted. Before that trial it
had been the invariable practice in the departments
of the Customs and Excise to fix the precise day on
which the trial was to come on. The able and learned person

whose assistance he had in that department, for a reason .svhich
satisfied him at the time, had, instead of keeping to the day
fixed, which was the 24th August, extended it for four
months, namely to the 24th of December. That was
an entire departure from the ordinary course, and one which he
(the Attorney-General) greatly discountenanced. When the
change was made he told the Hon. and Learned Member for
Worcester he was as conscious as himself of the practice of the
office. When the trial came on he had not the slightest
idea the alteration in the time appointed for the trial would
have been made a cause of objection. It was not until the case
for the prosecution had closed, and counsel had risen to
address the jury for the defence, that he was
aware a grand grievance was to be made of this
alteration of the day fixed for the trial. The Solicitor to
the Excise was put into the box, and admitted it had been the
invariable practice of the department to insert in the notice the
real day fixed for the trial, and that a delay of four months had
taken place. That there might be no ground fur com-
plaint, he interrupted the counsel for the defence, and said he
would agree to have the jury discharged, and another day, Of
which the customary notice should be given, appointed for the
trial. This was done with the consent of the other
side and the sanction of the Court. The course he (the
Attorney-General) adopted was advantageous to the
defendant and honourable to the Crown. Approbation
had been expressed with reference to the course of proceed-
ing at Lancaster, at Cardiff, and at Carmarthen ; and he
should presently have occasion to call the attention of the
House to the circumstances that occurred with reference to each
of those transactions. The favourable notice the House had
been pleased to take of his conduct would undoubtedly
animate him in the faithful discharge of his duty.
He would be wanting in fairness to his Right Hon.
Friend at the head of the Government if he did not state one
of the principal encouragements he had received in the course
of his public career to adopt that course which had been fa-
vourably noticed by the House. He hoped it would not be
considered out of season if he mentioned very shortly what had oc-
curred when he was first appointed Attorney-General in 1834.
Very shortly after his appointment, some di& culties arose, and
he had reason to consult his Right Hon. Friend, now again at
the head of Treasury. His Right Honourable Friend was
kind enough to give him his advice, and in doing so, he said,
" You need never come to me again for advice. The respon-
sibility is yours, and let me give you this general direction,—
coivider well what you are about—make yourself master of the
subject—don't decide in a hurry—ascertain what is your duty
with reference to the public interest, and when you have
ascertained it, look neither to the right nor to the left—look
to the interest of the Crown on the one hand, and the public
on the other ; and when you have so ascertained your duty,
then discharge it. When I differ from you, I will do justice
to your motives. This is the only advice I wish to give
you, and having given you that advice I leave
you to the discharge of your duty." That was the
only advice he had received, and it was advice
worthy of the first Minister of the Crown to give to the first
law officer of the Crown. It gave him confidence in the
course which he had pursued, because it enabled
him not merely to look to the letter of the law—
not merely to read the statutes, or a digest of
the common law ; but to administer the law in such a manner
as to make it in accordance with sound public opinion and in
unison with the feelings and sympathies of the great
body of the community.—(Cheers.) It appeared to him
that the present discussion was forcibly illustrative of the
danger which must arise from bringing subjects of this nature
under discussion while proceedings were pending.—( Hear. )
He perfectly admitted the right of the House to discuss this
subject, and would admit that circumstances might occur which
might render it necessary for the House to interfere at once ;
but admitting the right of the House, he contended that the
exercise of that right was in general calculated to interfere with
the purity of the administration of justice. To-day their
discussions might be raised to protect a person who was supposed
to be unjustly accused—(Cheers)—to-morrow to immolate a
victim to popular prejudice.—(Cheers.) He, therefore, should
have desired that the House had abstained from discuss-
ing matters which were still pending, and which must
and would be brought under discussion elsewhere.—( Hear. )
He would discuss only so much as he was compelled to enter
upon, and he would endeavour, in so doing, to avoid all acri-
monious allusions and topics. The debate, as far as it had
gone, was very much confined to members of the legal pro-
fession, and to legal topics; but why the Hon. and Learned
Member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Murphy), and the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, had so studiously
avoided those topics, and so much repudiated the profession to
which they both belonged, he did not know. He recollected
going with the Right Hon. Gentleman on the Northern Cir-
cuit and holding briefs with him ; he possessed too powerful
a mind not to master all the details of the law if he applied it
to them, and he was too honest a man not to practise in the
profession if he had not done so. He would therefore still
continue to call him his Right Hon. and Learned Friend.—
(A laugh.) He was selected as a lawyer for office, and was
employed in India in the construction of a code, and he
was succeeded by Mr. Amos, a gentleman of the highest
attainments in Westminster Hall. He did not know whether
his Non. and Learned Friend had mixed tip bad law with
worse politics, and therefore repudiated the profes-
sion, but having himself attained the highest pro-. ,
fessional honour, he was not content to lose this
decks et tutanten of the profession.—(Hear, hear.) He
would go after him, and reclaim him, and try and bring him
back again to the fold. He had heard the speech of the Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman with the greatest pleasure. He
heard his splendid oration with the greatest delight—it was the
outpouring of a mind most richly stored with varied informa..
tion—of a mind full of intellectual wealth, intermingled with
that, similes drawn from ancient and modern literature
and illustrations from every part of the world, and from all times
and places. He had listened to that speech till he was almost
lost in admiration—it was impossible not to listen to his glowing
language—his magnificent periods—his powerful and shining
points, without feeling the highest pleasure and gratification.
But it was rather the oration of an author, a poet, or an
orator than of a great statesman. He had looked in vain
from the beginning to the end of that speech for something
practical. The Right Hon. Gentleman complained of every body
and of everything, but he had suffered his sympathy for Ireland
to expend itself in barren generalities. There was nothing like
a practical application to the present subject. The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman complained of the construction of the
jury and said that they ought to be contented with a
common jury. This was repeated by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Worcester and the Hon. Member for Dungarvon.
Now, he begged to say, this had never before been suggested by
any human being. The counsel for the traversers, fifteen in
number, had never even hinted at such an expedient.—
( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he did not feel it
his duty to speculate on what would or might to have been
the reception of • such a proposition, if it had been made.
The suggestion ought to have been made when it could have
been acted upon it should not have been reserved
for that debate. Now, with respect to the question of a special
or a common jury—though he was not versed in the details of
Irish proceedings—he begged to say that in this country he
would no more have thought of trying such a case by a common
jury than ho would have thought of trying a case of high treason
at the sessions. He was not aware of a single instance in
which a trial of this kind had taken place by a common jury ;
and if he (the Attorney-General) representing the Crown, had
on any occasion consented to depart from the general practice,
he would have been betraying the duty which he owed to the
Crown, without feeling at all certain that he either added to
the security or the satisfaction of the subject.—( Hear.) In this
case, the law officers of the Crown were consulted as to the
practice, and they gave an unhesitating opinion that the trial
ought to be by a special jury, and they did so for this reason,
that in the case of a special jury, the forty-eight names were
indifferently taken from the centre panel. In the
heat of argument, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had
spoken of the jury as being selected. ‘Vhy, there
were none of them selected. The forty-eight names were
taken out of the list by ballot. The Right Hon. Gentleman
ought not to have spoken of the jurymen as selected from
the panel, for they were all taken by ballot from
the list, and the power of objection was given.
Forty-eight names were taken by ballot from the list; they
were reduced to twenty-four, by each side striking off twelve ;
twelve more were to be taken off by a further ballot, and
the twelve remaining were to form the jury. This
method, he contended, was free from reproach, free from
difficulty, and satisfactory to the public. It was preferable to
allowing the Crown the power of setting aside a common juror.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester himself
acknowledged that this practice would have such odium attached
to it, that the Crown would not exercise it. This mode was
established for the purpose of avoiding that; it was secure,
and it was impartial, because it placed the Crown and the tra-
versers on the same footing. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
tleman (Mr. Sheil) had said that " the lottery" had not
turned out so favourably for the traversers as it
might have done. But that formed ne ground
of accusation against the public officer. —( Hear, hear.)
One reason why he entered so deeply into these matters was,
that he was himself at Carmarthen placed precisely in the same
situation. He went down to Carmarthen to the trials. There
wa a small population and a limited jury list.
He was sorry to have to enter into these details
publication, but he was compelled to d
publicly,- for they were veryo
When
nabtlhee
jury
list waansdlaihdebefworaeshionsreribfloundiorly seventy.-two names upon
it,
persona on
that a very
ole the juri, list
consi-
derable number of those
i could not be trusted ; that
and
oertiaititeruLawfl
rey.re had
taken part in those riots and outbreaks,
presented by their relations, their neighbours,
In short, he found there were upwards of thirtyil,ht nawmaaleesmhlse,ee.
could not call upon with safety.
to do in that situation ? He said at once, he would commu-
nicate with his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath
(Mr. Roebuck), and he half shrunk from his duty ; but he did as
he felt he ought to do—he did exactly as the Honourable
and Learned Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil) had done
in the case which he explained to the House
last evening. He did set aside those he could not
trust ; and he knew that if his conduct was questioned
in that House he had but to explain his motives and his posi-
tion to obtain an approval of his conduct. He knew too the
purity of his own motives, and he dared to do
his duty. He had consulted the gentleman who
was associated with him in his duty, and who
was entirely opposed to him in politics. He men-
tioned this to show that he placed confidence in them.
He felt that they were prepared to do their duty as much as he
took place
of
authority
without
was prepared to do his. They told him. what was the custom
in
oEunglaehndaileaengdetabebyeiteogld
madehim en
nat
both zio
sides. He
had ever
ghant tdos
exerciseupplrt to the
fLuellaerante de x
tFereite Friends,
pre-
rogative of the Crown, and obtain a jury from whom a firm
but impartial verdict might be expected. Could the Attor-
ney-General for Ireland have dared to do as much ? It
would be almost impossible that what had been done i n
Tipperary by the Right Honourable and Learned Member for
Dungarvon in 1829, could not have been dont in Dublin in 1844.
Such a proceeding would have created an impression that the
proceedings were unfair. In bis (the Attorney-General's)
bumble opinion, it was the duty of the Irish Attorney-General