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

their qualification as special jurors. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man said there was an omission of only fifteen, but there was
in roint of fart an omission of twenty-seven names. The
special jury list was of course distinct from the common jury
hat. He had shown that fifteen were omitted from the special
jars list, but it seemed that twelve others were omitted from
the special jury list, but included in the common jury list, and
an uncommon jury they were. —( Laughter.) The fifteen names
that were not in the special jury list at all, were persons pro-
fessing the Roman Catholic religion.—( Near, hear.) The
deponent, from whose affidavit he had teed, also deposed to
having employed a competent person to revise and
take down the names of such persons who had been
admitted by the Recorder as persons qualified to
serve as special jurors.—(Hear.) That person having
made a return to him, he found that the subjoined persons,pro-
fessing the Roman Catholic religion, were passed by the Re-
corder as persons to be placed on the special jury list. The
whole of these names were omitted from the Sheriff'slist of spe-
cial jurors, and the names of such persons were as follow. ( Then
followed the names of twelve persons.) It therefore appeared
that the special jury list was deficient of twenty-seven names.
twelve having been placed on the wrong list, and fifteen that
were omitted from both lists. The deponent further stated that
he was present at the office of Mr. Bourne on the sth of Ja-
nuary, when the list of forty-eight names was drawn from the
ballot-box. He saw that list reduced to twenty-four by twelve
being struck off on each side. Mr. Kemmis attended on behalf
of the Crown, and out of the twelve jurors struck off by him
eleven were persons professing the Roman Catholic
they being the only persons out of the forty-eight persons whose
names were drawn from the ballot-box. The application con-
tained in the foregoing affidavit was not for the purpose of
creating delay, but because the deponent, in his consci-
ence, believed that, under the circumstances, the
traversers were placed under disadvantages and dis-
qualifications which the law did not impose upon them.
It was quite clear from the proclamation of the 19th January
that the Government were at the time cognisant of everything
which approached to conspiracy in the conduct of the accused.
It was said that only twenty-four names had been omitted.
On the other side it was asserted that sixty-five names were
accidentally left out.—(Cheers.) When the panel came to be
struck, it was evident to every man that the traversers could
not have a fair jury.—(Hear, hear.) Let it be said that the
omission of the ten Roman Catholics was as accidental as the
putting on of the twelve Protestants and anti-repealers. It
was now clear that the jury list was deficient in twenty-four or
twenty-five names. But it had been also clearly shown that
no irregularities bad occurred—(Cheers)—except those that
were committed on the side of the Crown. The traversers
swore they believed it to be essential to a fair trial that the
panel should be quashed. The Crown had got a list so imper-
fect (whether by design or not he would not stop to inquire),
with so few Catholics upon it that they had the entire com-
mand of it. Now he (Sir T. Wilde) did not hesitate to say
that whoever took advantage of a fraud was as bad as he who
committed the fraud.—(Loud cheers.) He who seeks to get a
man tried by a jury, which that man swears to be un-
fairly and illegally formed, and in which it is a material
point as between Protestants and Catholics, is guilty of unjust
and indecent conduct.—(Cheers.) What must be the cha-
racter of a Government that would thui try a man ? I say,
were I a member of it, I should be ashamed to belong to it
for one moment longer after such a transaction.—(Cheers.)
By doing so, I should consider my character and honour gone.
--(Great cheering.) They ought instantly to have conceded
the gnashing of the panel. —(Cheers.) He did not impute
dishonesty to the Learned Recorder for Dublin, but he did
charge upon him a mistake in his duty of the most grossly
grossly abominable character.—(Loud cheers.) This he would
not venture to have said except in the discharge of a public
duty. —( Hear, hear.) As the representative of the Crown, his
first care, his first thought, his first duty, was to see that there
was a fair jury, in order to have a fair trial; and in net seeing
to that, the Learned Recorder of Dublin had done less than his
duty.—( Great cheering.) Did net the Crown eagerly grasp at
the jury ? and would any one tell him that was of no importance?
The Crown thought it would suit the purpose, and the Crown
retained the panel, instead of quashing it. What bad the
Crown incurred for this ? Dishonour.—( Great cheering. )
What is the price they have paid for their Protestant jury ?
1 hat the whole trial is involved in suspicion, injustice, and
wrong.—( Great cheering.) The Crown manifested that they
did not think it safe to trust to a jury in which Protestant and
Catholic might be fairly chanced together. The Noble Lord
said, in common cases, did not an attorney strike off names,
and deal with a case so as to win for his client? Yes ! and his
complaint was, that the Crown had played to win.—(Loud
cheers.) His complaint was, that the Crown had taken every
advantage, had availed itself of every circumstance, whether
proper or improper, fraudulent or honest, to do that which the
£4oble Lord said attorneys did in common practice, namely, to
win.—( Cheers.) Would any man tell him that Mr. O'Connell's
acquittal by a jury of Catholics and Protestants jointly,
if the people were satisfied that the trial was a fair one, would
not have done more good for the country than his conviction
as it then stood 2—(Cheeis. ) The law would have been laid
down, the eyes of the public would have been opened, the
diligence of the Government would have been shown, Ire-
land would have seen the law administered with dignity.
Under those circumstances Mr. O'Connell's acquittal would
have been a piece of good fortune for the country rather than
otherwise. What was he indicted for? Among other things,
for endeavouring to withdraw the confidence of the people
from the courts of justice. What have you done ?—( Loud
cheers. ) You hare done infinitely more to destroy the confi-
dence of the people of Ireland in the administration of justice,
than Mr. O'Connell ever did. The Catholics believed that
they had marked them, and that it was part of their policy to
try Catholics by Protestant juries.—( Loud cheers.) Mr.
Thompson, one of the jury who tried Mr. O'Connell, was a
member of the Town Council of Dublin when Mr. O'Connell
made his motion on Repeal. Mr. Thompson on that occasion
was his strong opponent, and moved the counter-amendment,
to the effect that the union should be supported by every pos-
sible means. —(" Ne, no," from an Hon. Member on the Mi-
nisterial benches. )
SHEIL—He seconded the amendment.

Sir T. WILDE—The Honourable Gentleman shall have all
the benefit of my slight mistake. He did not mean
to say, of course, that Mr. Thompson had supported
such an amendment since he bad ceased to be a member of the
Town Council, but this facility of denial made it extremely
important that the facts should be ascertained. He believed,
from information which he had, and which he did not take
from first, second, or third statements, that Mr. Thompson
was the gentleman who seconded that amendment. He was
also told that several of the jury were voters against Mr.
O'Connell. But be stood upon this, that it was a Protestant
urv—that it was a Protestant jury, by the Crown insisting on
taking advantage of the improper conduct, neglectful or frau-
dulent, of the public officers who made up that list. By the
opposition made by the Crown to the quashing of that panel—
by the doubt, the discredit, and the suspicion it incurred by
that trial the Government had shown that it would sooner lie
under that suspicion, than run the chance of an acquittal by
having Catholics on the jury. Could this trial be presented to
the Irish people as a vindication of public justice? Could any
man be satisfied that Mr. O'Connell had not been convicted
on this most complicated indictment—this extraordinary mass
of evidence, composed in a manner that no ordinary jury could
possibly disentangle it, or distinguish the guilt of the several
men brought together ?—( Hear, hear.) Could ahy weight
attach to the verdict ? But there wanted no verdict.
He could not help thinking that the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Attorney-General for Ireland, now that he had time to consider,
now that he was away from the excitement of the place, and
that moment he thought he must be as satisfied of the danger
to which he bad put the country by the course he had taken as
any gentleman in that House could be. But would it have
any effect in allaying agitation ? Would it have any effect in
producing confidence in the Irish people in the administration
of justice? It would be the very reverse.—(Loud cheers.)
Send Mr. Connell to prison if they please-'. Let the Court
refuse a new trial if it thought fit. Let the writ of error be
over-ruled, and the judgment affirmed, still Mr. O'Connell had
not had a fair trial, and had a right to complain of the
Crown as having been tried without all that protection
the law gave him. Such a man had a right to treat
the verdict obtained against him, as one that was illegal—as
one for which he could have no respect. Now they saw what
the last year had added in point of policy, of credit, and of
honour to the present Government with regal dto Ireland. Was
it for their extraordinary diligence in putting down these meet-
ings by the lawful means of a proclamation, if it required one ?
Should the Government have taken the responsibility of allow-
ing these meetings to continue ? Why had they not tried the
experiment of a lawful proclamation ? What if such a procla-
mation had been issued, and Mr. O'Connell had continued to
bold his meetings ? No better evidence could have been af-
forded, that he did not mean to pay obedience to the law.—
( Hear, hear.) But they had not adopted this course. Some
persons were set to watch the sayings of that scan of master
mind—not always, he would say, master of himself in a great
assembly, on a great public question, in which his country's
interest was concerned. They added to his sayings the com-
ments of newspapers ; and they thus placed him in a situation
in which no Englishman ought to be placed on his trial. It
was not that species of prosecution which any Government in a
free country ought to institute_ Looking, therefore, at
what had been the state of lreland,and looking at the close of this
prosecution, what did they expect to follow ? They could not
expect that anything like peace and order would be the effect
of this prosecution. Would they be told that an improper part
was taken in investigating these proceedings? It was a stale
thing for one party to impute to another, " Why you are
causing or aggravating the mischief which you talk of.' Such
conduct had often been marked, and, as Mr. Burke said, it
was generally the mark of very shallow people.—( Hear.)
It was the duty of every Member of that House to discuss the
state of Ireland, and, in particular, to discuss what related to
the administration of justice.—( Hear, hear.) Especially was
it their duty, when they found that the law bad
been wrested, and that a course of proceedings
had been adopted which could not have been imported into
this country in days when liberty was not so safe as it is now.
He did not for a moment doubt the Government were the ad-
vocates of public liberty, however they might take measures
which in their practical consequences might he destructive of
public liberty. He did not suppose that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet was a less zealous guardian of public liberty than any
Hon. Gentleman in that House, but he said that if the course
which had been taken in Ireland were to be adopted in this
country there was not a single great public question which the
people would be able to discuss. The judges, sitting as they did
in a calm atmosphere, were apt to ask, on reading public meet-
ings, whether that was calm discussion—fair reasoning ?
The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) said the jury was their pro-
tection. Yes, but fairness of spirit was essential to the value
of trial by jury.—( Hear, hear.) Though agitation might be
quieted for the moment, let them not suppose that it was at an
end. Ireland had too long complained of a want of due share
in power; she had too long complained of her religious state ;
she had too long felt appiehensions that the party now in power
were unfavourable in their dispositions to the liberty of Ireland,
to be quieted by such measures as had been adopted in that
country. The question was, what was their object for the
future? Did they mean to hold Ireland by the force
of troops Cries of " Hear, hear.") They were
told that the agitation of Ireland was an old
story. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), when he
introduced the Catholic Emancipation Bill, thought that if the
story was old, it was well worth attending to. They bad now
witnessed many years of distraction in Ireland. Concession
while it fell short of justice, would not be considered a boon'
till it reached its utmost limit.—(Cheers.) A statesman might
mistake once in his life, but he who
continued to be unwise
spite of experience, would find that however high character,ai
Minister.
another H e
be Would never gain the reputation of a
would call the Right Hon. Baronet's attertoean to
sage of his own, to show under what circumstancespali
was expedient to concede. What was conceded
to justice would, in the case of a generous
people like that of Ireland, he received with gratitude, and he
bad no doubt gratitude would be followed by obedience. This
was not a party question unless in the sense of its having been
brought forward by the party from whom all measures for the
benefit of Ireland had emanated. The Irish people had gained
emancipation for themselves by means of agitation,
and by agitation in that House they had with
the.,other aid of that party contrived to receive be-
neficial measures. No body expected that that motion would
lead to a change of Government. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man at the head of affairs was surrounded by supporters who
were banded together upon questions of a far different descrip-
tion from the present, so as to prevent anything like apprehen-
sion of his being removed from office upon this question.
There could then be no such motive for bringing it forward
as the hope of effecting a change of Government. But if it
would lead to any improvement in the state of Ireland, they
would be content to let their opponents have the honour of it.
His Noble Friend had not contented himself with finding fault