The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY

IRELAND.
THE STATE TRIALS.

DUBLIN, JAN. 10.—Term commences ti-morrow, and
already public excitement is wrought to the very utmost pitch.
[he town has been literally deluged with rumours for the last
few days respecting some fresh and damaging evidence alleged
to be in the possession of the Crown, and which, says the re-
port, will be forthcoming at an early stage of the prosecution.
The sum and substance of all this appears to be a repetition
of a statement put forward some time since by an authority
ho is supposed to know something of the secrets of Burgh-
quay, and who then very roundly asserted that there had been
treachery in the repeal camp; that, in fact, an attaché had
not been as faithful to his trust as the heads of his department
could have reasonably wished. During the present week the
names of three individuals have been freely mentioned as those
of the persons supposed to be implicated in the mysterious
transaction, which, it is just probable, may not have the least
foundation in fact. Meanwhile the Crown is making strenuous
exertions to, if possible, strengthen the case against the tra-
versers. Summonses have already and quite unexpectedly
been served upon parties who never before dreamt of figuring
as witnesses in a State prosecution. Independently of the re-
porters of the London and Dublin papers, a gentleman totally
unconnected with the press has received a notice from the
Crown-office, requesting his attendance to prove the hand-
writing of one of the traversers; and other persons similarly
circumstanced, are to be called upon in a like manner.
It is stated to-day that one of the jury has already declined to
serve, en the score of indisposition ; and that he has procured a
sick certificate for the purpose of exemption from the arduous
task, which, according to the boast of the traversers' partisans,
cannot be brought to a conclusion before the very last day
allowable by law. It is also added, that three or four more
jurors have expressed their determination to pay the highest
penalty that the Crown can inflict rather than run the chance
of being detained for an indefinite period from their usual
avocations.

The indefatigable Mr. Pierce Mahony has filed another
monster affidavit in the Crown-office, upon which to ground an
application to the Court for a postponement of the trials. The
affidavit goes into a history of the revision before the Recorder,
showing that the Crown, by consenting to a postponement of.
the trials from the 1 lth of December to the 15th of January,
did not consider that an impartial jury could be selected from
the old panel. It also sets forth the proceedings had last week
in the Crown-office, the objections to the mode in which they
were conducted, as embodied in Mr. Mahony's protest, and
enumerates the names of several Roman Catholics who, it is
alleged, were improperly excluded from the list. It concludes
by stating, as a matter of course, that delay is not the object
sought, but that as the panel is now constituted the traversers
could not expect a fair trial.
The following is from the Monitor of this evening :
MOST IMPORTANT.

We said in our last that we expected to be able to communi-
cate some startling intelligence in our present publication, re-
specting the extraordinary omission of some sixty-nine navies
from the special jury list prepared by the High Sheriff—and so
we are

That the public may thoroughly understand the matter, it is
necessary to remind them that the revision of the special jury
list rests entirely with the Recorder. He examines the quali-
fications of any man, and judges whether or not he is qualified
according to law to be placed on the panel. This done, the
jurors' book is made out under the Recorder's direction, and
authenticated by him, and then handed over to the High Sheriff,
who is bound by law faithfully and truly to snake out a list of
jurors that appear on the jurors' book, and it is from this list, so
made out, that the clerk of the Crown strikes special juries.
Now, that a most astounding discrepancy appears between
the number of gentlemen admitted as special jurors be the Re-
corder, and the number set forth on the High Sheriff's list, is
undeniably true. The High Sheriff's list contains 717 names ;
whereas the number, as qualified jurors by the Recorder,
amounted to 7V. This, we repeat, is a fact which has now been
ascertained beyond the possibility of all cavil or doubt.
Who, then, is chargeable with this extraordinary omission ?
Who thus falsified the special panel ?
It appears from the information that has reached us on this
momentous point, that the Recorder admits that the High She-
riff's list is riot a faithful transcript of the jurors'-book, as pre-
pared and authenticated by him.
Yes, we repeat, Mr. Recorder Shaw admits that some 63
gentlemen whom he placed on the panel do not appear on the
High Sheriff's list, from which the special jury was struck.
Is not this a startling announcement? But the question
again presents itself, by whom were the 63 names omitted ?
The mystery of this dark transaction has not yet been per-
fectly cleared up. We can only state leading facts—the full
details, however, must soon see the light. Concealment is ut-
terly impossible.
We are so far in the possession of the facts as to state that
after the Recorder had concluded the revision of the panel, but
before that panel had been arranged in alphabetical order, &c.,
he left Dublin on a visit to Sir Robert Peel, at Drayton Manor.

Accordingly, as the panel was arranged in alphabetical order,
it was transmitted, made out on slips, to the Recorder, at Dray-
ton Manor, to be authenticated by him; and it appears that
two slips, containing the 63 omitted names, either were not
forwarded to the Recorder, or, being forwarded, did not come
into his hands, for we understand the Recorder has no recollec-
tion of the omitted names having reached ;him. Now this
places the whole matter in a nutshell.
Either the two missing slips were forwarded to the Re-
corder or they were not. If not forwarded, then the officer re-
sponsible is the guilty party. If, however, they were for-
warded, then the Recorder is culpable.
We deal thus pointedly with the subject, because it is mere
moonshine to suppose that accident had aught to do with the
abstraction of the missing slips. These slips contained the
names of sixty-three gentlemen, the majority of whom were
Catholics. This fact speaks trumpet-tongued. By no mere
accident could such an omission took place.
The Recorder's character is involved in this matter, and he
must come honestly forward to clear up the whole transaction,
else he is irretrievably damaged in reputation as a judge, and
in character as an honourable man.
We shall say no more to-day on this branch of the subject ;
but we must now ask how can the Government go to trial
before a jury thus admittedly struck from a partial and falsified
panel?
No trial can be bad before such a jury, for a conviction
under the circumstances would nut carry with it the slightest
particle of moral weight.
The Crown cannot, without outraging public justice, press
for a trial before such a jury. The evil they seek to remedy
would be aggravated a thousand-fold by, in violation of every
principle of justice, forcing the traversers to go to trial before
a jury obtained from a panel notoriously defective, no matter
who may be the guilty party.
The administration of justice would gain nothing, but suffer
much, by urging on a trial under the circumstances. What,
then, will the Crown do?
Of course we cannot pretend to say. Two courses, how-
ever, are open to the Crown officers—either to proceed with
the present jury, or to consent that the present reduced jury
list be set aside, and a new jury selected from the entire panel,
as amended and rectified by the addition of the 63 omitted
names.

This latter is the only honest alternative left the Crown.
To proceed otherwise would ;be to shake national confidence
in the administration of justice, and render the Government
that could sanction such a proceeding amenable to the repre-
hension and contempt of every honest man.
We are inclined, indeed, to believe that the Crown will
adopt the fair and honest course we have indicated, because
last night notice was served on the traversers of the intention
of the Attorney- General to move the Court to-morrow, or as
soon after as possible, that, should the trials not have terminated
on the 31st, each succeeding day up to the 15th of April shall
be considered as part of Hilary term for the purposes of the
said trials. The following is the notice:—
"IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH, CROWN SIDE.
"THE QUEEN AGAINST DANIEL O'CONNELL, JOHN O'CON-
NELL, THOMAS STEELE, THOMAS 'MATTHEW RAY,
CHARLES OAVAN DUFFY, JOHN GRAY, RICHARD BAR-
RETT, THE REV. THOMAS TIERNEY, ♦ND THE REV.
PETER JAMES TYRRELL.
" Sir,—Take notice, that counsel on behalf of the Crown
will, on Thursday, the 11th day of January inst., or on the
first opportunity after, move the Court for au order, that in
the event of the trial of this cause, fixed for the 15th inst.,
not having terminated on or before the 31st inst., that Thurs-
day, the Ist day of February next, and every succeeding day
until the 15th day of April next, or so many thereof as may
be necessary for that purpose, shall be appointed by the Court
for the continuation of the said trial, and that the days so fixed
shall accordingly for the purpose of said trial be deemed and
taken to be a part of the Hilary Term of this present year 1844.
" Dated this 9th day of January, 1844.
" WILLIAM KEAIMIS, Crown Solicitor,
"40, Kildare•street, Dublin.
" To Daniel O'Connell, Esq., John O'Connell,
Esq., Thomas Steele, John Gray, Richard
Barrett, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, the Rev.
Peter James Tyrrell, Charles Gavan Duffy,
and Thomas Matthew Ray ;
'And to

" William Forde, Pierce Mahony, Thomas Reilly,
Peter M. Gartlan, and J. M. Cantwell, Esqrs.,
Attorneys for the abovenamed traversers.
Now, unless the Crown intend to adopt such a course as we
have mentioned, it appears strange that they should require
such an extension for the trials as to the Ibth of April next,
making three clear months.
We hope, then, that the Crown have determined not to go
to trial before such a jury, fer a trial under the circumstances
would be nothing but a barefaced and outraged mockery of the
administration of justice.
We subjoin the particulars of what is regarded as a most im-
portant notice, which was served on the traversers last night by
the Crown.
The notice is very long, but we have made an abstract from
it, giving in detail everything contained in it, denuded of an
immense mass of verbiage:-
1. To produce on the forthcoming trials any diploma, card,
or other document issued by the association, wherein the tra-
versers are designated volunteer members or associates, or any
other document in their possession proving their connection
with the association ; and also the books containing the entries
of members, the payments to the association, &c.
2. To produce the laws or rules which govern the association,
and of its several officers, such as repeal wardens, inspectors,
collectors of rent, &c.
. .

3. To produce any book containing entries of the proceed•
ings of any committee appointed since the Ist of July, 1840,
together with the minutes of proceedings of all such meetings
held during all the months of the past year, and the resolutions
passed at such meetings.
4. To produce the abstract of accounts of the Association
from the 6th of September, 1842, to the 26th of January, 1843,
audited and signed by Edward Hogg, J. P. Conran, and John
Levey, and alse all books containing the receipts with the dis-
bursements for the years 1842 and 1843, to the proprietors of
the Nation, Pilot, and Freeman's Journal newspaper!.
5. Copies of the following letters .—Of the 14th of February
last, by I'. M. Ray, to the Freeman's Journal; of the 6th of
March, by the Rev. Richard Kitson, of Askeaton, Limerick;
of the 11th of March, by J. C. O'Callaghan to T. M. Ray ; of
the 29th of April and other subsequent dates, by Maurice
O'Connell; of the 10th of May and other dates, by B. O'Hal-
loran, of Curry; of the 16th of May, by the Rev. Mr. Mea-
gher, of Stradbally ; of the. 22d, by Mr. O'Connell; of the
16th of June, dated Halifax, and signed James Tobin; of the
29th, by Mr. O'Connell, containing the list of repeal wardens
for Munster; of the 29th, by Rev. A. H. Martin, of Carrow-
brovrne ; also all letters addressed to Mr. O'Connell from the
Repeal Societi9s in the United States and British America, of
which many are suggested in the notices; also letters by the
Rev. Martin Loftus, of Galway ; Rev. P. Hanly. of Bally-
dooly ; Rev. T. Gillseman, of Curraghroe, and all documents
by the latter gentleman to the Association in the months of
July, August, and September of the past year.
6. Also, copies of letters by the Rev. P. Maguire, of Ma-
guire's-bridge ; the Rev. Charles APDermott, and E. APHugh,
to the Pilot newspaper ; the Rev. Hugh M'Gauran, of Swan-
linbar ; Sir Benjamin Morris, Waterford ; P. Daly, county of
Clare ; Hon. Martin French, to Dr. Gray ; Robert T)ler,
jur., to D. O'Connell ; Lord French ; F. Maguire, Clonkeen ;
Rev. E. Murtagh, of Eglish Frsnkford; Thon as French ; J.
Al 'Donnell, Doo Castle; Charles O'Connell, Aghadoe; B. T.
Roche, Galway ; J. H. Hynes, Clare; Dennis Jackson, Tal-
low ; H. Daly, Wicklow; J. M'Dermott, Athlone ; J. Doyle,
P. Skerrctt, Loughrea ; J. M'Cougher, Glasgow ; J.
M'Ternan and Simon Walsh ; Rev. N. WEvoy, Kells ; Rev.
E. Casey, Collinstown ; Rev. P. Farelly, Moynalty ; Rev.
M. Coughlan, Rev. AI. Tunny, Ballintra ; B. Masterson, Mul-
lingar ; J. Delany, Maryborough ; Rev. E. Walsh, Ballypo-
reen ; together with all letters received or read at any meet-
, ings of the Association for the past year.
7. Mao ft docurnegt :entitled, " Plan for the renewed action