Glasgow Courier. — 1844-09-05 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

THE IRISH STATE TRILLS :NORSE OP LORDS, MONDAY, SPAPT. 2. This morning, at ten, having been appointed for the delivery of the judgment in the writ of error pleaded by Mr. (Memel' and the other prisoners at present in the Richmond Balidtentiary, the counsel engaged and the parties interested were in attendance for ' some time before that hour. The Lord Chancellor arrived at the House of Lords at a quarter before ten.„ and was followed by most of the Judges shortly afterwardariz., the Lord Chief, Justice Denman, Chief Baron Pollock, Chief Justice 'Andel Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Baron Gurney, Mr. Baron Aldeasew, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Wightman, and Mr. Justice Mania. The Judges absent were, therefore, Mr. Justine Coleridge, Mr. Justice Erskine, Mr. Justice Cromwell, and Mr. Baron Rolfe. Prayers having been read by the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, the gallery was at a quarter past ten opened, when most of the Judges were present, also Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Redesdale, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Boston, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Strangford, Lord Beaumont, and several other Peers. The Lord Chancellor remained for some time on the floor of the House in conversation with the Judges and Peers. The strangers' gallery was crowded with strangers, as was also that portion of the gallery ordiaarily occupied by Members of the House of Commons. At twenty-five minutes past ten, the Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack, the Judges sitting at tables on his right sad left, with the; exoeption of Lord Chief-JAkse Tindal and the Chief-Baron Of the Exchequer, who eat ea* top of die elatioo ease of Samuel Grey v. the Queen wee then called on ; upon which Mr. Justice WOMITMAN proceeded to read his opinion upon the question which had been submitted to the Judges. The particulars of this case are well known. It was an indictment for shooting at and killing • man, and the principal question submhted to the Judges was, whether a person charged with treason or felony had the right of challenging the jury peremptorily. The authorities which the learned Judge had consulted were in favour of the right in all cases of felony whatsoever, whether the punishment was capital or not, and he was therefore of opinion that the Court ought to here allowed the privilege of • peremptory challenge. Mr. Justice COLTMAN was of the same opinion. Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Baron Gurney, and Mr. Justice Patteson, also read their opinions serialist in favour of the challenge. Mr. Baron PARRS said it was with regret that he differed from his brothers. It was a question purely of common law, but he did not think any of the statutes could be so construed as to give the right of peremptory challenge in cases of treason, felony, or murder. The learned Judge then proceeded at great length to cite the authorities upon which he had come to the conclusion that the right did not exist in such eases as the present. The Comm Bsaon of the EXCHROUNR, on the other hand, thought the challenge ought to have been allowed. • Chief-Justice Monet. was also of opinion that it was the duty of the Court below to have allowed the challenge. On the motion of the LORD CRANOILLOB, the ease was adjourned until Wednesday; andpit was agreed, on the motion of Lord Baouonsis, that the opinions of the learned Judges should be printed.  O'