The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-17 00:00:00

Crown.
Mr. Moons said, on the part of Mr. O'Connell,
and after the able statement of the Solicitor-General,

should be struck.

WASTE LANDS.—ENCLOCIRE ACT.—On the motion
of Lord Worsley, a very long return was made in June
last " of the true or estimated quantity in statute mea-
sure of all common or waste lands not being held in
severalty, in every parish or tithe commutation district,
so far as the same can be ascertained from the schedules
to the agreements or awards, or from the apportionments
received by the Tithe Commissioners," and also "A Re-
turn of all Acts passed since the year 1800 for the En-
closure of Common or Waste Lands in England and
Wales, not being held in severalty, distinguishing the
parishes and counties in which the same were situated,
together with the estimated number of Acts passed from
1800 to 1810, from 1810 to 1820, from 1820 to 1830, and
from 1830 to 1840." The summary of England shows
that in the forty counties the total quantity of land
amounts to 6,718,523 acres, of which the quantity of
common or waste land is stated to be 1,358,419 acres. In
Middlesex alone there are 1,321 acres of waste land.
The largest quantity of waste land is in the Nerth
Riding of Yorkshire, there being no less than 132,815
acres of common or waste land out of a total of 1,897,592
acres, making a total of waste land in England and
Wales of 1,860,232 out of the total of 8,616,115.8 y
the
second return it appears that from 1800 to 1810
number of Enclosure Acts passed was 905, from 1810 to
1820 the number was 741, from 1820 to 1830 the num-
ber was 192, and from 1830 to 1840 the number of En-
closure Acts was 125.
o
r sa-
lary
—Tyne Mercury.
AN EDITOR'S SALABY.—At a conference of dele-
gates of the coal miners, held in Manchester a few days ago,
the subject of the amount of salary to be paid to the editor of
the Miner's Advocate, a fortnightly publication recently esta-
blished in this town, it was, after some discussion, agreed that
twenty-one shillings per week be the
laryl w i th ant
a n allowanceofewsroorato twenty shillings per annum, as a
subscription enabal:u him t
to of
see the
the
papers
p

IRELAND.
THE STATE TRIALS.
FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS.)
DUBLIN, MONDAY, JAN. 15.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (in continuation) said—
With regard to the observations made by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Fitzgibbon, that the fifty-nine persons
whose names were left out ought to be inserted, he
begged to remark that it would not be competent for
them to do so. They could not make any alteration
in the jury list after it had been once struck, but
persons seemed to imagine that things could be done
in this case which could not be done in any other.
The Learned Gentleman proceeded at great length to
controvert the Arguments of the counsel for the

;hat-he would propose the matter should now be re-
ferred back to the Recorder, and that a new list

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected altogether to
such a proposition, and he was astonished that such
a one could have been made by Mr. Moore, who, as
a lawyer, must know it would be perfectly illegal ;
and he, holding the office of Attorney-General, would
be unworthy to hold that situation for a single moment
if he assented to such a proposition.
Mr. MooRE said the Attorney-General had grossly
misconceived the nature of his proposition. He (Mr.
Moore) made it only with respect to this single case.
The Attorney-General seemed to attribute to him an
improper motive, and monstrous ignorance in making
it. He would not reply to the observations of the At-
torney-General. The proposition he made in good
faith, and in consequence of instructions he had re-
ceived from his clients. He did not think he could
be charged with having exhibited any improper feel-
ing, or could be charged with monstrous ignorance as
to his duties as a lawyer in making it.—(Applause
throughout the Court.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if such feel-
ings were manifested in Court, he should be obliged
to take measures to have no persons admitted to tile
gallery. He thought that his Learned Friend had
meant his proposition generally, and he must have
known, if he did so, it could not be legally done.
' The Learned Judges having consulted for a short
time,
The CHIEF JUSTICE said the majority of the Court
were of opinion in this case that the demurrer should
be allowed, and, consequently, that the challenge
should be overruled. The subject-matter was not
now under the consideration of the Court, inasmuch
as the arguments used on both sides had embraced, in
substance, the greater part of what the Court had
been occupied with on Friday last. The Court had
then given judgment, and upon every consideration
he had been able to give the subject since, he found
no reason to alter the decision the Court had then
pronounced, through him. On the contrary, during
the progress of the argument, and applying his best
judgment to the matter, the opinion he entertained
then was confirmed. The application then under the
consideration of the Court was, that, for certain rea-
sons alleged, the panel should be quashed, and he con-
fessed he could not see the principles upon which he could
now be called upon to give a different judgment from
that which he had given on a former occasion, and
in which all his brethren concurred. The present
application came before the Court in the shape of a
challenge to the array. The objection was that a
number of names which should have been upon the
jury list were not there, and that the Recorder of
Dublin had neglected, or omitted, to make a proper
list. In considering this subject, it would be neces-
sary to look to the Jury Law to see what its object
was. The Learned Judge then proceeded to point
out at considerable length how the provisions of the
Act applied to the present case, and how no violation
of them had been committed so as to invalidate the
proceedings of the Recorder or the Clerk of the Peace
in the matter. The Clerk of the Peace, with a view
to his preparing the jury list for the ensuing year,
was directed by the Act to issue his precepts to the
several collectors of taxes, whence might be dated the
origin of the persons who were to be called on to be
placed on the jury lists or not. The Act defined who
were the persons that were to be admitted upon the
jury list, and precautions were taken by those officers
that none were admitted but those qualified to dis-
charge the duties of a juror. Those lists having been
returned to the Clerk of the Peace, were to be subse-
quently laid by him before the Recorder of the City
of Dublin for his revision and adjudication. The
Recorder was the last who had any control on the
subject, and there must have been very good reasons
why his decision was made final and not open to col-
lateral investigation. In the present case, the provi-
sions of the Act had been complied with—the precepts
made—the lists returned from the parish officer—
the investigation and the Recorder's decision made,
which decision none but the Recorder himself could
review for the purpose of disputing it. All that was
required by the Act had been complied with, and if
the course contended for by Counsel for the traversers
had been pursued, it would be unsettling rather than
settling the duties of the officers—a thing that cer•
tainly could never have been intended by the Act.
Where fraud had not been proved it was out of the
power
of oftbteh e Q u
Recorde e ne
r' Beveennc hi ft o
he
investigatebad
come
nt he
a wrong
deci-
sionconclusion. The Learned Judge detailed at consider-
able length various reasons in support of his view of
the case, and concluded by saying that he was of
opinion the demurrer must be allowed.
Mr. Justice BURTON next stated his reasons for
concurring with the Lord Chief Justice in the opinion
that the demurrer should be allowed. If the demurrer
were not allowed, it would form a precedent which,
in future cases, would cause delay, that might, per-
haps, ruin parties engaged in law proceedings; and
it would, besides, render the present proceedings a
nullity. It was his opinion the demurrer must be
allowed. He had considerable doubt whether any
challenge at all existed to the panel of a special jury.
Supposing it did apply here, no imputation whatever
rests upon the Sheriff; again, there was no imputa-
tion on the Clerk of the Crown. The Sheriff's duty
was indeed a mere formal matter; as to making any
judicial decision on the list, it was quite out of his
function, which was merely to strike a panel. What
was the challenge here founded on ? On the supposed
want of impartiality of some unknown person who had
access to the Recorder's-office, before the list was
arranged. That was an unheard of challenge. It
was not founded on the want of impartiality on the
part of any public officer ; it gave a new range en-
tirely to the right of challenge, and impugned the
whole list because there was some fraud or mis-
management on the part of some unknown person,
during the process of preparing the list. Admitting
that the Recorder had not been as diligent and atten-
tive as he might have been under the circumstances,
still there was no fraud alleged against him. The
Learned Judge then read extracts from the statute
defining the duties of the Recorder, which he con-
tended were judicial, and against his decision there
was no appeal to any Court. The other officers had
merely a plain, defined duty to perform. As to the
omission of the sixty names from the list, what was
the duty of the Sheriff with regard to them ? The
list must be taken from the jurors' book, and could
be taken from no other source; if the jurors' book
for 1844 were a nullity, then they were directly
driven to the jury book of 1843. The admission of
the challenge would cause many difficulties. Suppos-
ing that a knave or an idiot obtained access to the
papers while in course of preparation, and were to
purloin part of the papers ; or even if a rat were to
eat them, the whole community was to be deprived of
a special jury list. Even the omission of one name
might on this principle be considered sufficient. It
was always necessary that a private injury must give
way to a general inconvenience. No par-
ticular injury bad been stated here ; but was
there ever a case in which a snore monstrous
general inconvenience had been pointed out?
They could not go behind the -jurors' book,
and there was no imputation upon that ; the imputa-
tion was on the general list. They could not enter here
into any considerations as to the mode of preparing
the jurors' book, through the medium of a challenge.
If they had been right in refusing the motion made
on this subject, they should be right, ex superabun-
dante ,in refusing the challenge. He was, therefore,
of opinion, that it must be refused.
Mr. Justice PERRIN, in giving his opinion, said he
had given careful consideration to the Act of Parlia-
ment, and applying its provisions to the matters as
they appeared on the challenge, he was under the dis-
advantage of not coming to the same conclusion as
that to which the Chief Justice and his brethren had
arrived. He thought, subject to considerable doubt,
that the challenge ought to be allowed. By the Act
of Parliament, the collectors of taxes were to make
out two lists of all qualified persons to act on the
jury within their districts, and to give them to the
Clerk of the Peace. These lists were afterwards re-
vised by the Recorder, and, with respect to that
officer, he fully concurred in the distinction which
had been drawn between his ministerial and judicial
functions. With the revision cf the list he considered
that the Recorder's judicial duty ended. This ap-
peared to be the case, from the mode in which the
jury lists were prepared in the counties. There they
were revised by the Justices, and delivered to the
Sheriff. In the present case, the Recorder should
not have written out a general list with his own
hand ; he ought to have caused a general list to be
made out from the list he had revised ; but
it did not appear that the least degree
of fraud had been imputed to the Recorder ; he had
never heard it imputed, nor could it be believed.
But it seemed that he had been imposed upon by the
person whom he had employed to make out the list.
Now every one must employ clerks, and if con-
trivances of that kind, on the part of persons so em-
ployed, were not inquired into, and were not to
vitiate the acts which purported to be the acts of their
superior officers, he was really at a loss to understand
what was the security of the public for the purity of
the jurors' book. In such a case one list might be muti-
lated, and another list substituted. He had heard
some difficulties stated, as to whether the Recorder
could amend his list, having discovered any mutilation
or omission, after having delivered it to the Sheriff.
But it seemed to him that he could do so, and would
do his duty ha so amending it. It had been stated
also that there was likely to be some inconvenience
experienced should the challenge be allowed. It ap-
peared to him that the inconvenience had been appre-
hended to be much more extensive than it would
really be found to be. It appeared to him that there
was a power of at once correcting the errors which

REPEAL ASSOCIATION.
Among the subscriptions handed in was 11. sent
from the Queen's Bench by Dr. Gray, the proprietor
of the Freeman's Journal and one of the traversers.
The whole amount for the week was 9041. 19s. sd.
The announcement of that sum was received with
loud and enthusiastic applause. _

The following letter was read by Mr. Crean :
" Merrion-square, Festivalof the Holy Name, 1844.
" Dear Sir,—As I shall be of course confined by my attend-
ance at the trial to-morrow, and thereby unable to be person-
ally present at the Association, I inclose you 11., and beg o 1
you to get proposed as a member of the Association my twenty.
sixth grandchild, Miss Eliza O'Connell, who bad hardly a right
to use the name as yet.
" I hope and believe that in the necessary absence of many
of the leading members of the Association not one word of an
irritating nature will lie uttered, but that, on the contrary, the
people throughout the country, and the repeal wardens in par-
ticular, will once again have it authentically declared unto
them that the success of the repeal agitation depends altogether
upon the most perfect peace, order, and tranquillity being pre-
served throughout. If they wish to gratify me and their other
friends they will preserve the most perfect peace, order, and
tranquillity. I repeat this advice so frequently that every man
throughout Ireland might understand the deep conviction I
entertain, that whoever disturbs the public peace in the slightest
degree is a traitor to the sacred cause of repeal.
" The next point to which I wish to call the attention of all
the members of the Association is the great Catholic move-
ment which is now being made in order to endeavour to obtain
for the Catholics of Ireland some legal guarantee for the enjoy-
ment of the rights intended to be secured to them by the
Emancipation Bill—it being perfectly clear that the conduct of
the Attorney-General is, on the other hand, a practical repeal
of the most valuable right intended to be secured by that Bill.
I do not at all deny that the Attorney-General had legal autho-
rity to make the use he has done of the royal prerogative, by
the exclusion of Catholics from that jury. The moral pro-
priety of so using that prerogative is quite another question ;
but this is perfectly certain, that it is absolutely necessary
for the Catholics of Ireland, for the preservation of their
lives, liberties, and properties, to continue the Catholic agita-
tion until a legal guarantee shall be obtained against a :similar
exercise of the Royal prerogative in future. The Catholics
have two things to complain of—first, of the striking off
of every single Catholic, eleven in number, from the bal-
loted panel. This is sought to be accounted for by an idle ex-
cuse that these eleven were all Repealers. The allegation,
however, is usifounded, the fact being distinctly otherwise;
but even if they were all Repealers the excuse would be a bad
one, and would serve as a precedent for any other idle excuse
that may be given by a future Attorney-General. I would
particularly press the folly of yielding to excuses of that kind
to mitigate a prominent and undoubted fact, namely the exclu-
sion of all the Catholics from the balloted panel.
" Another cause of complaint which the Catholics have is,
that there have disappeared from the jury panel—nobody can
tell us exactly how—but by some manoeuvre or misfortune,
about sixty-three individuals, thirty-five of whom were Catho-
lics of respectability, several of whom took no part whatsoever
in the Repeal agitation, and about twenty-eight Protestants,
most of them, it is said, of Liberal politics. This is what
Judge Perrin is reported to have called a matter of deep suspi-
cion. That seems a very moderate way of expressing it;
but however it be expressed, and especially if it be true that
the jury panel was transmitted, as has been alleged, by some
of the clerks in the office, to England, it is perfectly clear that
the Catholics should apply to the Legislature for some mode of
legal remedy against the occurrence in future of a similar
fatality. As the thing stands at present, the Catholics of
Ireland are clearly deprived of any legal guarantee for the
most valuable of the rights we thought we had acquired,
namely, a fair and unsectarian trial by jury.
" I scorn to complain that this practical repeal of the Eman-
cipation Act has occurred in my case. I was one of the most
prominent in obtaining what we considered Emancipation, and
it is quite fit that the discovery should be made in my person,
that such Emancipation may. be practically repealed. It im-
poses a sacred duty to continue Catholic agitation again—it
renders itself doubly incumbent upon me to exert myself once
again, as a Catholic, to make the Emancipation Act, in reality,
what it was in spirit intended to be.
" My object in submitting these reflections to the Associa-
tion is simply this :—To convince the members of the Asso-
ciation that they ought not to interfere, as Repealers, with this
distinct and Catholic agitation. It should be a distinct and
separate agitation—totally unconnected with the question of
repeal. Ihe repeal should not, if possible, even be mentioned
at any of the meetings held for the purpose of petitioning to
have the Emancipation Act rendered perfect. There are
many 'Catholics non-Repealers or anti-Repealers' who feel with
us the absolute necessity of a better protection for their lives,
liberties, and properties. Let us, then, cheerfully follow,
assist, and support those persons ; and I trust that every person
in Ireland will, as speedily as may be convenient, send petitions
to Parliament, and an address to the Queen, praying for relief
and protection.
" It is quite true that those addresses to the Queen must go
through the hands of gir James Graham, who was distinctly
understood in the last session to have more than insinuated a
charge of perjury against the Catholics ; he was, however, in-
duced to retract or disavow any such charge, but it is to be
apprehended that his retractation was merely verbal, whilst his
real opinion may by recent events be practically illustrated.
" Upon the whole, therefore, I have to implore of the Re-

pealers—
" First, to observe perfect peace and tranquillity all over
Ireland.
Secondly,.not to mix up the Repeal agitation with the
Cithoht agitation for the bettor securoy of trial by jury.
" .Thirdly,,to continue, in every other respect, their peace-
fill, legal; loyal, and constitutional exertions for the restoration
of our domestic legislature, in the person of our respected and
loved Sovereign the Queen, in the Irish House of Lords and
Irish House of Commons.
" I am, dear Sir, your faithful servant,
" To Martin Crean, Esq., "DANIEL O'CONNELL."