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

the affidavit which had been produced upon the trial.—
(Loud cheers.) He did not know whether the Right
Hon. Gentleman was unapprised of the • nature of that
affidavit—(Cheers)—or whether he was absent from
Dublin at the time of the trials, but that 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 at-
torney for the traversers, and Mr. Mahoney stated that
on applying 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-
swer 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 Hon. 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, and that the answer was, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had 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
Hon. 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 to 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 he had since found. (Hear, hear.)
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
read the affidavit sworn by Mr. Mahoney, 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-Genartl 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 ; and that eventually an order had been made that
the trial should commence on the 15th 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 should 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 Bat 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 in
London?—(Hear.)
Mr. SHAW—Not the list.

Sir T. WILDE—The Right Hon. Gentleman may cavil at
the word list, or at any other name—bit that the list--
Mr. SHkW—N.. Not the list.—(Cries If " Order.")
Sir T. WILDE—Sir, it is named the list, and the list was
absent.

Mr. SHAW—I repeat what I have already stated.—(Cries
of " Order, order," and confusion.)
Sir T. WILDE—Then I will read from the affidavit spin.
" 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 T. WILDE—I tell the Right Hon. Gentleman again he
may carp at the word list—let him call it document of_Laper,
or anything else be pleases, the substance is the same. Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Is there any doubt of it ? as it
not been sworn to by the officer, who says-.." The documents
necessary for the preparation of the jury list the Recorder ba d
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 quilt 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, bear.) Who dared to behave so
improperly as to say that the Recorder. had the list in London
when he had not ?—(Loud cries of " Hey; hear," and ironical
cheers from the Opposition.) Why wb 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, he repeated
the question. He would again read from The aillislavit 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 orthe
special jury panel, and which should have contained the names
of all persons properly 9ualified to serve on the jury ; that the
Sheriff declined complying with deponent's application unless
with the consent of the counsel for the Crop; and the counsel
for the traversers." What • ight bad the Crown to interfere to
prevent the traversers from seeing the document ?—( Hear,
hear.) Why should the public officer interfere with the
Crown, or why should the Crown interfere to prevent the tra-
versers from obtaining 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 bad 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.—(Load 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 7.-( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, reels
if the law were all his own way, would surely not say that the
subject had not a right to see the jury list, which bad been
made out according to the Recorder's- adiiglication. What
Hon. Member would refuse it, or say it ought co be refaced?--
( Hear, hear.) What honourable or honest motive could there
be for the refusal ?—( Hear, hear.) What security could there
be for the independent discharge of their duty as public officers,
if they required the satiation of the public officers in order to
do their duty? Every step in this trial presented exactly the
same features.—( Hear, hear.) The deponent applied to Mr.
Kemmis for his consent, which he declined to give; and that
refusal was followed by so much irregularity—such
palpable irregularity—as not to leave any character
for fairness or impartiality in the proceedings. Tile
deponent next stated that he went to the offiee of Mr.
Walter Bourne, for the purpose of striking i jury, and Mr.
Whiteside applied for the traversers to have a postponement,
on the ground that they bad 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 bad been omitted from the special
jury list, who had been admitted by the Recorder at his revi-
sion ; and the deponent, in company with one of the traverser',
went again to the office of the said Walter Bourne, and yr°.
tested against any proceeding respecting striking a jury,
on the ground that there had been a gross suppression of
the names of persons qualified to be placed upon the
jury, and the deponent was convinced that a wilful and cer-
ruin suppression had taken place." This was a portion of the
affidavit of the traverser,' 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 ore,
was most anxious to have a fair jury list mad* out !—(.Loud
laughter.) He would ask, judging from the reports of what
had taken place in the Court, if ever any human being bad 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 had been
a common action for 51. in one of„ the miner courts,
if the attorney on either side milt-- an affidavit,
stating that there had been corrupt practices in striking
the jury, the Court would at once pat off the trial.—(Loud
cheers.) But there being a great State prosecution to vindi-
cate the dignity of the law—( Hear, hear)-,4 trial which was
to produce a great moral effect, an affidavit was pet in by
the traversers agent imputing corrufition to the mode in
vitich 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 rown should' have postponed
striking the special jury until the list hadbeen made correct
according to the adjudication of the Recorder, but the person
acting for the Crown refused 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=
meat 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 milled yourselves of this disreputable 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, hear, 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 Crown, vindi-
cating its dignity, and who remembered that no verdict in the
case of a Government prosecution could produce any effect
except the tribunal was beyond suspicion —(Cheers.) Why.
his Hon. and Learned Friend in a trial last week, when he ap-
peared on behalf of the Crown to recover. Pessi"' glege-
defoa.td
at-
torney for the defendant complained of some
proceedings, and his Right Hon. Friend
Jidge to put off the trial.—(
- cheers'? and the most belie.
straight-
forward course had been pursued in W.a es,
respecting and obey.
once c enage ltnothe
ficial results arose from it, by tthieofieoedePttlattheygot justice.—
ing the law,
ffidavit of the traverser' agent
to read an extract from the a
(Cheers.)
to the following effect •
.—Several gentlemen whose names,
Thefor t
Hon.hey wereaslLaaearned Gentleman then proceeded
were entit
• led to have their names upon the jury list, were in
attendance at the office of Mr. Bourne to prove the fact of
their claim not being allowed, and he refused to bear their
evidence, and instead drew the forty .eight names, when the
agent entered his protest against the course. At the •
end of the affidavit there appeared the names of fifteen
jurors who had been adjudicated upon by the Recorder as to