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

IRISH WORKHOUSES.

Mr. S. FRENCH wished to know from the Right
Hon. Secretary (Sir J. Graham) when the report on
the Irish Workhouses would be ready for Members?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had received the report
from Mr. Parrythorn, and it should be laid on the table
of the House without delay}'.
Mr. P. M. STEWARI also wished to put a question
to the Right Hon. Baronet. The Lord-Advocate of
Scotland had introduced a Bill into the House, which
proposed great alterations in the divisions of parishes in
Scotland, and affected important interests in many other
ways. This Bill had only been introduced on Mon-
day last, and was appointed for a second reading
on Monday next. Now the draft of the Bill could only
be received in several parts of Scotland yesterday and
to-day, and, under these circumstances, he hoped the
Right Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department
(Sir James Graham) would give a pledge to the House,
on the part of the Government, that it should not be
further proceeded with until after Easter, or, at all events,
until a reasonably distant time from the present.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the measure which
had been introduced by the Lord Advocate of Scotland
was very similar—in fact, almost the same—as the mea-
sure he had himself introduced last session. He would
not say that he would not postpone the second reading,
but he thought it desirable that the principle of the Bill
should be discussed at an early period.
Mr. P. M. STEWART wished to ask if the Bill was
proceeded with before Easter, it would be on the under-
standing that the second reading would not be proceeded
with until after the Easter recess. _

_.,.....
The LORI) ADVOCATE was understood to reply
in the affirmative.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir H. W. BARRON, referring to the Bill introduced
last session relating to the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts,
wished to ask the Government if, after all the reports
which had been made, and discussions which had taken
place for the last 25 years, they were prepared to bring any
measure for remedying the gross abuse of the Ecclesias-
tical Courts in Ireland ?
Sir R. PEEL said that the jurisdiction of the Ecclesi-
astical Courts in Ireland properly belonged to the Lord
Primate. The Lord Primate had stated when the
vacancy occurred last year in the Judgeship of the Pre-
rogative Court, that he was perfectly ready to waive
his right to the appointment, and leave it to the nomi-
nation of the Government. When tliat appointment
was made by the Government it was accompanied by a
distinct stipulation that it was subjected to any altera-
tions that might be made in the constitution of the
Court, and if there should be an increase of duties
thrown upon that officer, he was not to be
entitled to an increase of salary. That appointment
was made towards the close of last session, and that lane-

tionary was now in communication with the Govern-
ment on the question of a change in the Ecclesiastical
Courts.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said he would take that opportu-
nity of putting the question of which he had given
notice, in reference to the measures taken by the
British Government, with respect to idolatry in India.
The House would recollect that he had put a question
in the latter part of the last session with regard to the
separation and disconnexion of the European servants
of the East India Company from Mahommedan worship
and Hindoo pagodas, and also whether steps had been
taken to stop the pension or allowance granted to the
idol of Juggernaut. The answer was perfectly
satisfactory with regard to the Presidency of Bombay,
and all but satisfactory with regard to that of Bengal ;
but it was not at all so with regard to that of Ma-
dras. What he wished now to ask was, whether all
connection of the European servants of the Com-
pany with this worship was to be discontinued?—
Whether it was not correct that the subject had been re-
ferred to the authorities in India as regarded the pledge
of continuing the allowance to the idol of Juggernaut,
and that the answer was, that no pledge to continue
that allowance had been given? He also wished to know
whether his Right Hon. Friend would have any objection
to lay on the table of the House the dispatch which had
been sent with the pamphlet of Mr. Strachan to the
Governor-General ?
Sir R. PEEL said the House would recollect that it
was stated in the pamphlet of Mr. Strachan that 60,000
rupees were paid by the Indian Government for the sup-
port of the idol of Juggernaut in consequence of a stipula-
tion to that effect; and he also stated that the pilgrimages in
honour of the idol were sanctioned by the Indian Go-
vernment. A copy of the pamphlet was immediately
transmitted to the Governor-General. He had
no objection to communicate the dispatch which
had been sent on the subject by the Court
of Directors. On seeing the dispatch his Hon. Friend
would be best able to judge how the matter stood as far
as regarded the British Government. With regard to the
continuance of the assistance of the servants of the
Company at the pagodas, he had to state that
in Bombay a Committee was appointed, which
took the management of the funds out of the
hands of those who managed them before. The
same rule prevailed in the Government of Bengal.
He was enabled to state exactly what had been done in
the Government of Madras ; but he hoped that the
arrival of the next mail would enable him to inform the
Hon. Gentleman of the steps which had been taken by
the Government of India on this subject. He should be
prepared to lay on the table all the correspondence re-
lating to the subject.
EXCLUSION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS FROM
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`lienna, 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
ease was one merely of Ribbonism. He wished to ask if the
Noble Lord could state why the Catholic jurors had
bean 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 sat aside. The
Honourable Gentleman must be aware, that
the instructions on this subject issued by Chief
Justice Brady in 1839, and which had 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 l►e had failed to exercise a judicious
discretion in the present instance. With regard to the
last question, as he hack received no notice from the Hon.
Gentleman on the subject, he was not in a condition to
return an answer.