The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-21 00:00:00

if you find' a newspaper writing articles' in favour of
Mr. O'Connell and reporting his speeches, you may use,
that against the newspaper to prove they were conspiring
with Mr. O'Connell, and you may use Mr. O'Connell's,
.
speech, as reported, as evidence of his conspiring with
the newspaper." Now, nobody could approve of the lanj
guage that had been used by. the Hon. and-Learned
Member who was the snbject of the prosecution. No
one could approve of the meetings that -had been called
together, because it did- not appear that they they were
calculated to effect any good bona fide object.—(Hear,
hear, 'free' the Mfaisterial benches.) They were un-
doubtedly dangerous, not from any intention on the part
of the lion. and Learned Gentleman, or on the part of
the people,,to break the peace ; .but such a number of
persons meeting together was so liable to sudden in-
flarnmetion-:--so likely to be operated on by unexpected
causes, that 'they were likely to' endanger the publid
peace.;--(Hear, hear, from the Ministeritil benches.) He
also much disapproved of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man referring to the old stories of supposed English
oppression, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion
that England was unfavourable to the Irish, and-that
the continuance of the union was not likely, to-be pro-
ductive'of happiness to Ireland. He disapproved of this
language, just as much as he disapproved of the frequent
referrences to " Fox's Book' of Martyrs" by those Hon.
Gentlemen who set up the "No Popery' cry. One
was just as improper as the other, but no one had
thought of indicting those Hon. Gentlemen. But what
England had to beware of was this—she had to see ,that
in cases which might excite disapprobation, the law was
not violated or perverted to what might be used, on
other occasions,, for a totally different object. Now, an
indictment for hOlding a public meeting calculated 'to
excite discontent and disaffectiOn was a most dangerous
indictment to trust to the hands of the Government in
a country so divided by party as Ireland. • It was a form
of indictment which imposed on the Government that
used it the deepest responsibility for careful watch
over the administration of justice. He had referred to
that part of the indictment charging the 'traversers with
an attempt to overawe the Legislature. In his judgment
it .was as great a perversion of the law as could be
imagined. lie had already alluded to the indictment
against Lord. George Gordon. He was indicted fbr
overawing the Legislature. In his case, 20,000 persons
assembled in St. George's Fields, there having been
riots before that meeting. These !0,000: persons beset
the House of Commons, forced their way into the lobby,
and personally threatened the Members, so that it was
scarcely possible for them to get access to the House,
and they.kept up their threatenings to such a degree that
the House could not proceed with its business. For this
he was indicted for attempting to overawe the Legislature,
for putting them in apprehension of immediate personal
violence. But what had they here Numbers of per-
sons meeting at a distance across the Channel, at a time
when Parliament was not sitting—when there was no
apprehension, and no possibility of its Members suffering
from personal violence. But the Hon. Gentleman said
that overawinc, the Legislature meant --such an exhibi-
tion of numbers as would lead the Government to sup•
pose- that, at a future "day,' by the operation of their
:opinion,
,or if they liked by, their-acts, the Legislature.
Might think it advisable to pass a certain measure. He
would appeal to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to tell
them on what grounds was it that he passed the Eman-
cipation Bill?—(Loud cheers.) Upoa that express.
ground—public opinion. Now, how could they get a
great expression of public opinion? Could people send
their opinions to a meeting, and leave their bodies at
home? He contended that overawing the.. Legislature
was causing an apprehension of physical force to be
directed against the persons of the Members. The ap-
prehension of a distant rebellion was not overawing the
Legislature. What meeting might they not say was an
exhibition of great numbers for the puipose of
overawing the T.,egislature ? It had been said that
the mere numbees of a meeting made it illegal. Why,
for the same reason, they might•.as well say that some
races were illegal—that the Queen's coronation was il-
legal- It was numbers, combined with other, circum-
stances, such as the object of the meeting, and whether
its conduct was calculated to excite alarm in minds rea-
sonably firm. Look at the meetings they had had in
England. What great alteration of any great public
grievance was ever obtained without agitation ?—(Hear,
hear.) Did Government ever alter that of which the
people did not complain? All Goverments were and
ought -to be conservative.-0 rear, hear.): ;It was
for the. safety of the people that they were so,-
therefore they did not alter that with which, the people
were contented. But sometimes Governments required.
WO much impelling. With all respect to the Bight
Hon. Baronet, he thought that he had required too
much before he granted Catholic Emancipation, They
ought not to wait till rebellion was at their heels before
they altered that which ought to be-altered, and if it
ought not to be altered, he took it for granted it would
not be. The indictment for overawing the Legislature,
therefore, on the ground of meetings being held across
the Channel at a time when Parliament was not sitting,
was not an overawing of the Legislature within the
law. The Noble Lord, the Member for London,
had defined the origin of the law of conspiracy
to be one applied to a private conspiracy to
charge others with committing crimes.—(Hear, hear.).
The Noble Lord said that tins prosecution was con•
ducted' according to the common law of the kingdom.
What was that common law ? -He believed that they
would find the liberties of England buried in their
Courts by this common law.—(Hear, hear.) This re-
minded him of an anecdote related in Roger North's
"Life of Lord Guilford." Seeing that King. James was
in the habit of conversing, with, and confiding in,, Judge
Jeffries, he represented, to the King that Jeffries was
a man of a very violent temper, and very dangerous to
confide in, and said that he himself would do all that the
King wapted by law if he loft the matter to him.—
(Cheers.) All that a bad and profligate Government
might desire could be done by the law of indictment.—
(Hear.) What had been the course pursued with regard
to this indictment ? He could not do better than de-
scribe it in the language of one of the public journals.
—('lho lion. and Learned Gentleman then read a pas-
sage from the Morning Post, to the effect that making
newspaper proprietors responsible for words not spoken
by them, and making public speakers responsible for
articles not written by them, produced so, confused a
charge that it ought not to be brought against any
subjects of a free Constitution, and a verdict obtained
under such circumstances would produce no moral effect
whatever.—The reading of the , passage was followed
by loud cheers.) Such was the character of this indict-
ment. If the design of the Government was to put
down what they called agitation, and to punish the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman for illegal acts which he com-
mitted, it could have been accomplished without such an
indictment, by charging each- of the traversers in-
dividually, and making each responsible for his
own acts alone.' But here was the press of the
country, which could only exist by giving public infor-
mation on interesting events, prosecuted for- a,conspi-
racy, for associating to procure legal objects by illegal
means, those illegal means consisting of reporting violent
speeches made in the absence of the proprietors of the
public Journals in ehich they were reported. The law
of conspiracy was grossly wrested in this case, and a
bad- precedent was created.—(Cheer&) Here were
editors prosecuted for speeches which they never read,
and speakers prosecuted •for articles which they never
wrote.—(llear.) The law as understood was this, that
' there must be an agreement between the persons charged
with conspiracy. Of course they might prove agree-
ment by a variety of means, and it was not necessary
that the agreement should' be actually proved by some
person who was present; for if that were necessary,
conspiracy would be a perfectly safe crime. They might
prove it from acts and circumstances. As, for example;
if they found, as in the' case of the 0. P. riot, persons
with the letters 0. P. in their hats going to the theatre,
creating a tumult, and interrupting -the per-
formance, ,it -showed a design from which it
might be reasonably inferred that there was a.previous
agreement between the parties; but it was a perversion
of the law to treat as a proof of conspiracy that parties
assembled together at public meetings with a common
attempt. They might as well say that it was evidence
of conspiracy if the pit of a theatre had simultaneously
hissed.—(Cheers.) As he said before, it was not feces-
•sary to proVe previous agreement. If there were such
circumstances attending meetings as that 'persons met
in-the same place on successive days with the same em-
blems, they might infer a common agreement. But no
distinction of the kind was made here, for the jury
were told, in the first place, in express terms,
that no one of the overt acts need be proved.
They need not, however, it was said, have proof of their
agreement 'and so on, but they might infer that from
these very seta ; or they were first told that those
acts were not to be proved at' all, but that the whole
crime consisted in the agreement, and then they were
referred baele again to the acts in evidence of the agree-
ment: The' indictment was foe endeavouring to excite
public discontent and disaffection ; 'no attempt was
made to assign the limit within which Irishmen and
Englishmen might manifest dissatisfaction, and that
which amounted to a legal crime. The iedictment was,
in itself, a most dangerous proceeding:—(Hear, hear.)
He did not say that its form was new, bathe did say that
its application to the facts of the case was perfectly new.—
(Hear.) Now lioW had this indictment been prosecuted?
e--(Hear, hear, from the' Opposition.) He did arraign
the cohduet of this prosecution,- most undoubtedly.- He
was not at altdisposed to say anything unkind or
ral, or disrespectful in the slightest degree of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ire-
land •, but he did feel it his duty to urge a most serious
.complaint against. the conduct of this prosecution.—
(Hear.) Ile said that the Government were implicated
—he used the word Government, not as denoting the in-
dividuals of-whom' it-was cOmposed,'but the Government
generally responsible—and hemaintained that they were
most seriously implicated.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. O'Con-
nell, he, averred and stated with the utmost firmness,
had no fair triel.—(Great cheering from the Opposition
benches.) His Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-,
General said, last bight that that was noproper place
to discuss how far the verdict was consistent with
the evidence—ari observation which he (Sir T. W.) took
the liberty' of eheering. He then went on to say—having
said it would be very improper to discuss it there—that
he defied anybody to get up and say that the verdict was
not consistent With the evidence.—(Laughter,) He (Sir. T.
-Wilde) had heard some new constitutional doctrines in
that House. He was happy to see the Noble Lord
(Lord Stanley) in his place. •lie .begged to ask, for in-
lorniation, where the Noble Lord had learned that new
constitutional principle, that it was indecent in a lawler
to arraign in that House the conduct of the judges ?;--
(Hear, hear.) • He had heard from his Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General, that there were Acts of Parlia-
ment which they had no right to discuss there. With
all respect, 'both for the Noble Lord and for his lion.
and Learned Friend, he begged to say that a more out-
rageous or unfounded doctrine he had never heard: Pray,
Sir, continued the lion. and Learned Gentleman,
what is the first duty of this House ? To watch the
administration of justice in this "eountrY. You- had—
whe ther you have now in form, I do not know—but you
had a Committee of Justice, and I say, with all respect

for, the Noble Lord, that it is the especial duty of this
'house, to watch over the conduct of the judges. The 1
public were-deeply interested in the character and cons
duct of the judges. It was of essential importance that
those criminals who had misconducted themselves, and
Were tried for the crimes which _they had committed,
shiltild be able to respect the judges before whom they i
• were arraigned.—(Hear, hear.) The object of a con-
Viction was to operate upon the individual beneficially on
his,,future conduct, and that could never be done if he
had no respect for the judge before whom he was tried.
—(Hear.) Although he admitted, therefore, that it
was exceedingly improper to make indecent remarks
with respect to judges, in the spOtlessness of whose cha-
racter the lower orders—those who are most often
brought under their jurisdiction—were so deeply inte-
rested; yet 'he maintained that, on an occasion like
this, when the question was whether the Government
had committed a great error in the conduct of a pro-
. secution, when they had to consider whether that pro-
secution • had -been fairly conducted; and when the'
• Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet talked loudly
of the vindication of the dignity of the law, they ought
not to have 'their mouths stopped by being told that, if
they entered upon the subject, it would be a profanation
of the law ?—(Cheeri.). This was not a common case.—
(Hear, hear.) Ile hoped that parts of this case would
become subjects for specific : inquiry. It was in-
volved in the greatest suspicion. He -said
there was, more than suspicion that unfair play had been'
practised.—(Hear, bear.) How was he to know whether
he could agree with the statement-of the Noble Lord and
his Hon. andLoarned Friend—that the dignity 'of the
law had been vindicated?—(Hear, hear.) Was he to
take it, for granted nistn their assertion? He had the
greatest respect for_ them, but they, would excuse him if,
in a matter of that sort, he presumed, though, a lawyer--
(Latighter)to entertain and express an opinion as to
the conduct of the judges.. But why;were lawyers to be
excleded?!—(Hear, hear.) Was it because they were
supposed to know something -about it ?—(Hear, hear,
,and laughter.) It- was strong language to use to •it
'Member of that House to charge him with indecency in
remarking upon the conduct of a judge in the dis-
charge of his Parliamentary duty. Mr. O'Connell's case
mixed itself up-with the public interest—it by no means
rested upon an ordinary footing. The good or the. evil,
which they had done depended upon the character of
the prosecution.-s-(Hear' hear.) If they had prosecuted
Mr: O'Connell, though he might . hare been guilty of
some offences; if they ,had 'profaned the temple- of
justice instead of vindicating its"honour; if they had sent
him to trial expressly to be convicted, then he said they
had done that, which he was charged:with having done,
but done' with infinitely greater effect. They had
_de-
' stroyed the confidence of the Irish people in the admi-
nistration of justioe.—(l:lear hear.) The Learned
Judge laid down the definition of the law
of conspiracy, if he (Sir Thomas Wilde) might
presume to say so, with perfect confidence, and he stated
that he had the concurrence of his brother Judges in
the doctrines which he so laid don n. That had nothing
whatever to do with that Learned Judge's course in the.
summing up of the ease.---(Loud cries of " Hear, hear "
from the Opposition.) If he expressed himself strongly
on this subject, he had no intention of departing from
the respect which was due to that Learned Judge.
But he asked if the summing up of the Learned Judge
had not rather the characteristics of a speech of counsel
than of what it was intended to be. It was deficient in
all that belonged to its proper office.—(Hear, hear.) He
begged to call the Right Hon. Baronet's attention to the
circumstance that Mr. O'Connell's defence consisted in
this—at least, one part of his case was—" You charge
me with uttering certain expressions with a certain in-
tent. It is true, you have selected certain passages and
sentences . from my speeches, but I call on you to read
the whole of those speeches ; and when you read the
whole, those particular sentences will be qualified." Now
what man's speeches could stand the test of particular
seatences extracted here and there ? " Read the whole,"
said the counsel for the defence ; and accordingly the
greater portion of the time ,occupied by the trial was
taken up in reading the whole of the speeches. Yet not
one sentence of what the counsel for the defence
got read, had formed a portion of the Learned
Judge's summing-up.--(Hear, hear.) The Learned
_Solicitor-General had got the particular passages
on which -the Government—and. he did not use the word
in an offensive sense, he meant those to whom the con-
duct of the proSecution was intrusted—the Solicitor-Gene-
ral had got the particular passages on whiCh the Govern-
ment relied, selected and printed, and as he read them
in reply, the Learned Judge said, " hand them up
to me." Up they went, and they were read and summed
up to the jury.--(Hear, hear, from the Opposition
benches.) Such parts as were most violent were thus
read without any parts which qualified them, and which
formed part of the traversers ' defence.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Sir T. Wilde) was one of those who labouredunder
the infirmity of believing, that the greatest injustice
was done to persons charged with any crime or offence,
by the accuser having got, in his right of' reply, the last
word. Let ever so powerful a speech be made for a
prisoner in his defence—let the evidence be ever so fa-
vourable to his case, yet when the speech in reply comes
and after it the Learned Judge's summing up, he must,
say that juries—who were not generally composed of
persons who were taught to bear in mind and
analyse speeches—were almost c.rtain to . have
the speech for the defence entirely. obliterated
from their minds, and to have quite forgotten it. Those
paragraphs, that were used in the course of the prosecu-
tor's case, were again read, at least a fortnight after the
passages which qualified, explained, and softened them
down, and gave evidence of the motives with which they
had been ettered.—(Hear.) No distinct directions were
given marking the boundary oflegitimato agitation. He
used the word agitation as a short one to express his
meaning. There was no direction to distinguish that,
right which could never be too narrowly watched, whe-
ther in the case of Mr. O'Connell or anybody else. The
Government had watched those men for nine months,
on a subject upon which they were deeply interested,
and placed in a situation of great excitement, and on
which their feelings warmed by collision—as the feelings
of an Irishman were always excited when he talked of
his coantry. Why, let them adopt a similarcourse with
even any Honourable Member of that House who spoke
in debate, and what would be the consequence 1? He
would take, for instance, one of the most amiable Mem-
bers in the House—the Noble Lord—(the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was supposed to allude to Lord J.
Russell)—and would any one dream that the respect
and esteem in which he knew his Noble Friend
was held out of that House, would be damaged by
any accidental expression he might let fall
in the heat .of the debate ? Well, then, . those
passages which could have modified the parts
relied on by the Crown having been read, a whole
fortnight elapsed, during which, speeches of Counsel
were, delivered for five or six hours a day each, and
how was it possible that, when they had been omitted
-from the summing up, they could have that effect upon
the jury which it was intended, and which they ought
to have had ? Then with respect to the summing up, to
which he prayed attention. The Rev. Mr. Tierney, one
of the traversers, had attended one. of these meetings,
and adopted all that had gone before. He bad, also, a
little pet meeting of his own.—{hear, hear, &cm Mr.
• Sheil.)• Language of similar import to that used on
former occasions was used upon this, and yet the strong
passages alone were summed up, anti those which would
modify their effect were left out. Was that the way in
which a judge should vindicate the dignity of the law,
and cause- it to have a conciliatory effect upon the
minds of the Irish people ? Was it not rather calcu-
lated- to give, them the idea of, the traversers being per-
secuted than that they were fairly dealt with ? He was
'-miStaken if much did not remain to be discussed- with
respect to this triaL He 'took it for granted that the
verdict would not be permitted to stand without being
impugned before the proper tribunal. But that was not
all. The House had been managed by some dexterity
to be led into a certain degree of confusion respecting
the composition of the particular jury. He begged to
call the attention of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
the Attorney-General for Ireland, particularly to this
part of of the case. He must say that, with all respect
to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he grossly mistook
that which was the interest of the Government—he used
the word Government for country—respecting the con-
duct of those prosecutions. First of all there was con-
siderable ambiguity relating to this part of the subject.
The old jury-list was thought very inadequate to fur-
nish the means of a fair trial. The traversers, there-
fore, took proper . measures to have the jury-list made
up for the year 1844. The House had already. learned
that was the custom of certain parish officers to make
returns of the persons qualified to act as jurors in the
respective districts. They then went to the Hon. and
Learned ReCorder of Dublin, and it was his duty to as-
certain.all those persons that were qualified to serve,
and to distinguish between these qualified to serve on
common and on special juries. With respect to special
juries, some remarks were made by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet which certainly struck him (Sir T. Wilde)
with surprise, and that was, that the striking
'of a special jury was an advantage to the traversers.
'Why if he were to make such an assertion in West-
minster Ball they would laugh in his face.—(Cheers.)
'The Right lion. Gentleman said they had done this out
of mercy to the defendants—because with a special jury
each party struck off by turns, but with the common
jury the law officers of the Crown could order as many
to stand by as they pleased. They knew very well that
if they had a common jury they could not have ordered
men to stand by as they pleased.—(Loud cheers.) They
knew very well that if with a panel of 72 they had, when
the name of John Thomas was called, ordered John
Thomas ''to stand aside they would have been asked
why,? If they had ordered another man to- stand by
they would again be asked why ? How long would
you have dared to have gone on in such a course?—(Loud
cheers.) They 'dared not to have done it--(Counter
cheering)—and it was because they dared not do it that
they had struck a special jury.—(Loud cheers.) They
struck off the twelve names of a special jury- in a private
room. They -must have challenged the common jury-
men in the open Court.—(Cheers.) They did not try
the defendants before a common jury because they were
afraid.—(Cheers.) They chose a special jury because
they could make sure that there should be no Catholic
On it. They could not, avoid that on a common jury.
The thing had been dexterously and designedly ma•
naged for the purpose of. 'sending these men to convic-
tion—(Cheers)—by the underlings who had struck and
prepared the jury list.—(Hear.) Those lists had been_
settled by the Recorder, who, •as he went through the
list, placed a mark against the names for the purpose of
distinguishing special jurymen' from common . jurymen.
The revision of those lists bust have occasioned the
Right Hon. Gentleman considerable anxiety. Never
had the Court of Dublin before presented such a scene.
The revision was at length completed, and when appli-
cation was made by the traversers to see the lists they
were told that the Right Lion. Gentleman had taken
them with him to England.
Mr. SHAW—That is not so. It is quite untrue.-
moment
Thomas
what
the Sir T.
Sight Hon. Gentleman
dki
tl notman said,doubt f
Wilde), in the cause a the people of England, relied upon
obru t one
ee

the affidavit which had been produced upon the tria1.......
(Loud cheers.) He did not .know whether the Right'
lion. Gentleman was unapprised of the nature of that
affidavit-(Cheers)--or whether be was absent from
Dublin at the time of the trials, but tl. at affidavit had
been read in the open Court.
Mr. SHAW-Whose affidavit ?
Sir THOS. WILDE was surprised at being called
upon in that manner to state whose affidavit it was, and
when it' had been read. It was the affidavit of the ate-
torney. for the traversera, and Mr. Mahoney stated that
on applyine- at the office for copies of the lists as re-
vised by the Right Hon. Gentleman
Mr. SHEIL-The parochial lists.
Sir THOS. WILDE-The parochial lists-lists from
which the general list was framed-he received for an'
ewer that the Right Hon. Gentleman bade gone to Eng--
land and taken the lists with him.
Mr. SHAW-I never did.
Sir THOS. WILDE did not mean to say that he had
-he would only say that it had been sworn to in Court;
and not been contradicted. (The libn. and Learned
Gentleman searched for some time among his papers,
but was unable to find the affidavit.) He feared he had
it not with him, but he would state the substance of it. It
was the affidavit of Mr. Mahoney read, on the application
to quash the proceedings, on the ground that the jury
had been .struck from an imperfect list, and in which he
stated; that as soon as the revision was over application
had been made, on the part of the traversers, at the
Right Hon: Gentleman's office for a sight of the jury
lists, andthat the answer was, that . the Right Hon.
G ent!einanhad gone to England and that he had taken the
jury lists, with him.-(Cheers.) Notice had been given
to the. traversers to. attend to join' in striking the 48
jurymen, and up to that time they had never seen the
jury lists.-(Cheers.) When they went to strike, a
.question occurred respecting those lists, as, it appeared
that the list from which the 48 had been struck did not.
contain the'names of all those persons whom the Right,
'Hots. Gentleman had adjudged as qualified to serve.- '
(Loud cheers.) They had proceeded however to strike •
the special jury, under protest, when an application was
made tp the Queen's Bench •to quash the panel, on the
ground of the incompleteness of the lists. On that occa-
sion affidavits . had been made in suppOrt of the
application; , and he would read the affidavit of.
Mr. Mahoney, which he feared he had mislaid,
but which be had since found. - (Hear, hear.)
(The Bon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
read the affidavit sworn by Mr. Maho- ey. on the occa-
sion alluded to. The deponent stated that the revision
of the lists commenced on the 14th, and was finished
on the 23d ; that the Attorney-General had applied
to have the 11th December fixed as the day for the trial
at.. bar ; that application was then made to postpone
the trial on account of the imperfect state of the jury
lists i and that eventually an order had been made that
the trial should c••mmence on the lath January, and
that the jury should be taken from the lists for 1844 ;
that when the revision had been finished on the 23d
November, the Recorder should have caused the general
list *of the proper persons qualified to be drawn out,
and shou!d have delivered the list to the Clerk of the
Peace, who should,, have copied . the same into the
jury book, and delivered the same to the Sheriff.
The deponent made application to the Clerk of the
Peace, at his office, to ascertain if the said books were
finally prepared, and was informed that the Recorder was
absent in London, and that he had.with him several do-
cuments necessary for the preparation of the said jurors'
list-(Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from the Opposition)
-and from which, when fairly delivered by the Re-
corder, the Clerk of the Peace made his jurors' book.
He was at length informed that the list was not de-
livered up until the 29th of December ; and on the same
day the Clerk of the Peace caused the jurors' book to be
delivered to the Sheriff. How was the office of the
Clerk of the Peace conducted ?-(Hear, hear.) How
was so important an office managed if when, on applica-
tion to the proper functionary, he was told that the list
was not there, but that the Recorder had the list is
London?-(Hear.) .
Mr. SHAW-Not the list.
Sir. T. WILDE-The Right Hon. Gentleman may cavil at
the word list, or at any other names-but that the list--
Mr. SHAW-No. Not the list.-(Cries of " Order.")
Sir T. WILDE-Sir, it is named the list, and the hat was
absent. . .
Mr. SHAW-I repeat what I have already stated.-4 Cries
'of ._" Order, order," and confusion.)
' Sir T. WILDE-Then I will read from the affidavit again.
" Ho (deponent) was informed that the Recorder was absent
in London, and had with him several documents necessary
for the preparation of the jury list."-( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAW-The list-(Renewed and vehement cries of
" Order, order.")
Sir 'l'. WILDE--I tell the Right Hon. Gentleman again he
may carp at the word list-let him call it document or paper,
or anything else he pleases, the substance is the same.-( Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Is there any doubt of it ? Has it
not been sworn to by the officer, who say-" The documents
necessary for the preparation of the jury list the Recorder had
with him in London."-Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Op-
position.) Of all the gross faults ever committed, there never
was one grosser than this. There never was a trial at which
it was more important the proceedings should be above suspi-
cion than this.-(Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that the do-
cuments had not been in their proper place.- ( Hear.) They
were not accessible at the_ proper times to the proper parties.
How did that happen? How came those officials to invent
so false a statement ?-(Hear, hear.) Who dared to behave so
improperly as to say that the Recorder had the list in London
when ha had not ?-(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and ironical
cheers from the Opposition.) Why was it that when the
Recorder had left all things in order in his office, those per-
sons who were entitled to inspect them were not allowed to do
so, but the public officer made fictitious statements?-( Hear,
hear,) How dare they say that the Recorder had the lists in
London when he had not ?-( Hear, hear.) Yes, be repeated
the question. He would again read from the affidavit :-." When
a summons to strike off a special jury bad been served, the de-
ponent lost no time in applying to the Sheriff for a copy of the
special jury panel, and which should have contained the names
of all persons properly qualified to serve on the jury ; that the
Sheriff declined complying with deponent's application unless
with the consent of the counsel for the Crown and the counsel
for the traversers." What tight had the Crown to interfere to
prevent the traversers from see.ng the docu,i.ent ?-( Hear,
hear.) Wh) should the public officer interfere with the
Crown, or why should the Crown interfere to prevent the tra-
versers from obtain;ng their right ?-( Hear. )-
Mr. SHAW-They had no right.-(Order.)
Sir T. WILDE-Sir, I submit that they had a right_
(Hear, hear.) As British subjects about to be put upon their
trial, they had a right to see it.
Mr. SHAW-No.
Sir T. WILDE-I won't pledge myself to it, but I believe
they had a right.
Mr. SHAW-Certainly not.-(Loud cries of " Order.")
Sir T. WILDE-I believe a recent Act of Parliament gives
that right.
Mr. SHAW-Decidedly not.-(Renewed cries of " Order,"
and confusion.)
Sir T. WILDE repeated his impression, and proceeded to
say that if the documents were public, why were they not to
be seen ?-( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, even
if the law were all his own way, would surely not say that the
subject bad not a right to see the jury list, which bad been
made out according to the Recorder's adjudication. What
Hon. Member would refuse it, or say it ought to be refused?-
(.Hear, hear.) What honourable or honest motive could there
be for the refusal ?- ( Hear, hear.) What security could there
be far the independent discharge of their duty as publicrofficera,
if they required the sanction of the public officers In order to
do their duty? Every step in this trial presented exactly the
same features.-( Hear; bear.) The deponent applied to Mr.
Kemsnis for his consent, which he declined to give ; and that
refusal was followed by to much irregularity-such
palpable irregularity-as not to leave any character
for fairness or impartiality in the proceedings. The
deponent next -stated that he went to the office of Mr.
Walter Bourne, for the purpose of striking a jury, and Mr.
Whiteside applied for the traversers to have a postponement,
on the ground that they had no opportunity of examining the
jury list, and that they were therefore unprepared to enter
upon the matter at the time. The adjournment was agreed
to by Mr. Brewster until both parties could get a copy of the
jury list from the Sheriff, and the 3d of January was fixed.
On examining the list on that day, it was found that the names
of many qualified persons had been omitted from the special
jury list, who had been admitted by the Recorder at his revi-
sion ;•and the deponent, in cempany with one of the traversers,
went again to the office of the said Walter Bonnie, and pro-
tested against any proceeding respecting striking a jury,
on the ground that there had been a gross suppression of
the names of persons qualified te be placed opt,' the
jury. and the deponent was convinced that a wilful and cor-
rupt suppression bad taken place." This was a portion of the
affidavit of the traversers' attorney before the special jury was
struck, stating that there had been corrupt and wilful omis-
sions of certain names. Now, forsooth, the Crown, to be sure,
was roost anxious to have a fair jury list made out l-(Loud
langhter.) He would ask, judging from the reports of what
had taken place in the Court, if ever any human being had ever
observed a stronger affidavit ? He knew something of the law,
and he would say that no common case, such as the Noble
Lord thought would furnish a rule of precedent for an at-
torney, was applicable to the present case. Why, if it bad been
a common action for 51. in one of the minor courts,
if the attorney on either side made an affidavit,
stating that there had been corrupt practices in striking
the jury, the Court would at once put off the trial.-(Loud
cheers.) But there being a great Slate prosecution to vindi-
cate the dignity of the law-( Hear, hear)-a trial which was
to produce a great moral effect, an affidavit was put in by
the traversers agent imputing corruption to the mode in
wLit#l the jury had been constituted, whilst the Crown never
made the slightest inquiry into the charge. He thought this
course was likely to lower the respect and confidence of
the public in the fair and impartial administration of justice in
any case, but how much the more so was it the case the
present instance ?-( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He thought it
was Most essential that the Crown should have postponed
striking the special jury until the list had been made correct
according to the adjudication of the Recorder, but the person
acting for the Crown refu,ed to allow this. He felt con-
fident that no fair attorney, of ever such low practice,
would be guilty of such a course,-(Cheers, and laughter.)
But when-it was done by the law officers of the Crown, he
should ask the Right Hon.-Baronet opposite, was the Govern-
' anent a party to those foul transactions ? He cared nothing
about the distinction which was attempted to be drawn between
the thief and the receiver. You (said• the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, pointing to the Ministerial benches)
have availed yourselves of this disrepinable transaction.-.
(Tremendous cheering.) Was the majesty of the law vindi-
cated .by tampering with the jury list.-(Hear, hear.) He
should ask why take advantage of this irregularity and error ?-
(Cheers.) If such an instance were to occur in Westminster,
would my Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, the Attorney-
General for -England, take advantage of it ?-( Hear, bear, and
cheers.) What. would have been his conduct? Let West-
minster Hall answer that question.-(Cheers.) It would
have been that of an honourable officer of the Crow% vindi-
cating its dignity, and who remembered that no verdict in the
ease of a Government prosecution could produce any Ltr.oet
except the tribunal was beyond suspicisn -(Cheers.) h‘evny
-his Hon and Learned Friend in a trial last week
at-
torney for the defendant complaiird oft.
ap-
peared on behalf of the Crown tp recover re
someonce applied to the
proceedings, and his Right Hon. Friend)
es a The same straight-
forwardJtdge to put off the ti lat.-
ge most
a bene
adal, ewitfeesheent"ihne tttficial results arose from it, by the
p people
they got juatic,e.-
for they were satisfied „
obey-
ing the law,
and Learned Gentleman then proceeded
(Cheers.)
course had been pursu(ineeeon.aele:es,
apendettinh
the fo/lowing effect t-Several gentlemen whose names,
tete entitled to have their names upon the jury list, were in
to read an exTrhaectilforno.mthe affidavit of the traversers agent
attendance at the office of Mr. Bourne to prove the fact of
their claim not being allowed, and he refused to hear their
evidence, and innead drew the forty •eight names, when the
agent tutored his protest against the course. At the
end of the affidavit there appeared the names of fifteen
jurors who had been adjudicated upon hy the Recorder as to