Mr. O'Connellbegged to present a petition with which he had been intrusted by the noble Lord, who was one of the members for Kilkenny, who was prevented from presenting it by a domestic calamity. The petitioners complained of the tithe system in Ireland, and stated, that they paid more for tithes than they did for the land as rent, and that the clergy distrained continually for tithes, and sold not only their cattle and pigs, but also the very blankets from their beds. The Rector had generally a police force ready to support his demands, and in case of being aggrieved, the petitioners could only obtain redress by applying to the Ecclesiastical Courts, the expense and delay of which were so intolerable as to be a denial of justice, and forced them to submit to the exactions of the tithe-collector, however exorbitant. The petitioners went on to state, that unless some remedy was afforded to relieve them from the oppression they now suffered from the operation of the tithe-laws, they should be compelled to abandon their country, and take refuge in other lands. He understood from the noble Lord who had intrusted him with the petition, that the petitioners were respectable persons. 91 He would remark, that the allegation that tithe surpassed the rent of land, was a circumstance well worthy of the consideration of the House.
§ On the Motion that this Petition be brought up,
§ Mr. Cramptontook the opportunity of explaining, that all the assertions made in that House some time since, respecting the trial concerning tithes in Kilkenny, were unfounded. The House would recollect, that the case was a prosecution against certain persons for conspiring to compel a Protestant clergyman to lower his tithes; and it had been asserted by an hon. and learned Member, that the Crown Solicitor had publicly declared, that he had been instructed to exclude Catholics from the Jury, and that they had been, along with several liberal Protestants, excluded accordingly, and that the verdict was obtained by these means. This statement conveyed such a serious charge, that, at the instant, he had pronounced it wholly unfounded. He had since thought it his duty to inquire into all the circumstances of the trial; and, he was happy to say, his assertion had been completely borne out, that no such statement had been ever made, much less acted upon. The Crown Solicitor positively denied that he ever had, as was stated, declared, either in Court, or elsewhere, that he was directed by Government to exclude Catholics and liberal Protestants from the Jury. He could also state, that the fact was, one Catholic and several liberal Protestants were on the Jury, and that nobody was challenged on account of his political opinions, and also, that the traversers were allowed to put aside several persons, and do all that they pleased, without assigning any reason whatsoever. He would now take the liberty of reading a letter which he had received from Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, who was a most respectable gentleman, in corroboration of his assertions. That letter was as follows:—
Kildare-street, 13thAugust, 1831.Dear Sir;—In reference to my note of yesterday evening, relative to the trial of Blanchfield and Byrne, at the last assizes of Kilkenny, I beg you will state to the Solicitor General, that I never received instructions from any person whatever to challenge Catholics; nor did I ever declare at Kilkenny, or anywhere else, that I had received such instructions. On inquiry, I find that one of the Jury, but not the Foreman, as I mentioned 92 in my note, was a Catholic, and several of them liberal Protestants. Several were put by on the part of the Crown, for reasons I thought sufficient, but not because they were Catholics; and, although the traversers had not any right to challenge, they were allowed to do so, and, at their instance, several of the Jury were put by—the Crown allowing them to be set aside without calling upon them to assign any reason for so doing. It has always been my wish, and that of the counsel for the Crown, that the Juries in criminal cases should be composed of the most respectable persons, whether Catholic or Protestant. Except in very few instances, I do not know the religion of the gentlemen composing the Juries.I am, dear Sir, your's truly,W. KEMMIS.He had also the authority of two gentlemen of the Bar, who were present, to state, that the Jury was not packed, and that the trial was in all respects conducted with perfect fairness towards the traversers. His learned friend, the Attorney General, did likewise most positively deny having ever given any such directions as were attributed to him, or any directions which would encourage the packing of a Jury. Indeed, when Mr. Costello, the solicitor for the defence, objected to any Juror, without stating any reason for such objection, he was instantly put aside by the Crown. So that this Jury, so much vilified, was one which the traverser's solicitor himself approved. This system of preferring charges against individuals and public officers, in their absence, without notice, and upon hearsay evidence, was most objectionable; for often the charges were heard by persons who had no opportunity of hearing their refutation; and thus permanent injury was inflicted on the characters of innocent and meritorious persons. The same remark applied to the Maghera trials, which had also been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could positively assert, that the utmost fairness presided there over the formation of the Juries. It was true that the Protestants were acquitted, and the Catholics convicted. He was disposed to believe the acquitted parties were the most guilty of the two; but the one were found guilty on satisfactory evidence, and the others were acquitted for want of it. It was, therefore, impossible for any man justly to found charges, or to arraign Juries, upon the circumstances of these trials. In future, he hoped any hon. Members who were about to bring charges, would, at least, give notice of their inten- 93 tions, that inquiries might forthwith be made, and the answer promulgated at the same time as the accusation.
§ Petition read.
§ Mr. O'Connell moved, that it be laid on the Table, and would take the opportunity of making some observations with regard to the case of Maghera, which had been alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman; the simple facts of which were, that the Catholics were tried for an assault, and immediately convicted. On the following day, eight Protestant Yeomen were tried for having committed the most atrocious outrages in the village, and acquitted. The Catholics were sentenced to several months' imprisonment. He had not charged the Jury with having returned an improper verdict, but he impugned the punishment as exorbitant, while no measures had been taken to punish the persons who had been guilty of such enormous and wanton cruelty, as well as the Magistrate who had headed them. In no other country than Ireland could such acts have been committed with impunity, and he would continue to remark upon such conduct until justice was done on the perpetrators. With regard to the Kilkenny case—the statement was made, not by him alone, but also by the noble Lord, the member for Kilkenny, whom a domestic calamity unfortunately prevented from being present; and these statements, then made by the noble Lord as well as himself, were only contradicted by the letter read by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. He regretted, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have proceeded in the absence of the noble Lord, and thought that, as a matter of justice, Government should have the case thoroughly investigated. His authority for the statements he had made was the information which he had received from persons totally unconnected with each other.
§ Mr. Cramptonsaid, he had never accused the hon. and learned Member of making statements without authority; he had only said, that the hon. and learned Member was in the habit of making strong assertions, and preferring serious charges against individuals, upon private letters from heated partisans, which were proved generally to be without foundation. But the charges obtained currency, because they could not be contradicted when they were made. He hoped that the discussion 94 on this case would induce hon. Gentlemen not to lend themselves in future to such practices.
Mr. Sheilsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General had used much unnecessary warmth of expression. The charge was, that the Jury were composed wholly of Protestants, and that Catholics were expressly excluded. The answer received to this was, there was one Catholic upon the Jury—one out of twelve—and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman considered this a triumphant answer. It was not their object to complain of one particular case, but of the working of the whole system generally. He, therefore, hoped, that the Government would take measures to prevent the recurrence of these complaints. In doing so they would be pursuing a better course than that of finding excuses for them.
§ Petition laid on the Table. On the Motion that it be printed,
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that he objected to the House giving currency to petitions which contained matter of a libellous nature. This petition stated, that certain individuals broke open doors, and ill-treated persons whom it named. Now he thought that that House ought not to be an ulterior court for the redress of evils, that, if capable of being substantiated, might be made the subject of inquiry in a court of law. The hon. and learned Member stated, that the petitioners declared they paid more in tithes than in rent. He had referred to the returns consequently, and he found it there stated, that the income of a clergyman, who, he said, had been alluded to, was not near so great as it was imagined. The aggregate amount of the tithes was about 440l., and the glebe about thirty-one acres. The clergyman besides, it should be recollected, had been a resident in his parish since 1806. He, therefore, trusted the House would not sanction the publication of such statements.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he was unacquainted with the facts himself. The petition had been sent him by the noble member for Kilkenny, who had, at the same time, assured him they were correct.
§ Mr. Lefroysaid, that every unprejudiced man in the House must be satisfied, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had, by a calm and plain statement of facts, utterly upset the charges which had been made upon former occasions; and 95 he had no doubt, if he was to take the trouble of inquiring into the merits of the petition now before them, he would find the allegations contained in it equally unfounded. He recommended the hon. and learned member for Louth to be more cautious how he found fault with the Irish Jury system; such observations did great mischief to the proper administration of justice.
§ Petition to be printed.