§ Mr. Harveysaid, that the object of his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the land revenues of the Crown under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests having been answered, by the appointment of a Committee on the subject, by the noble Lord (Althorp) he did not mean to press his Motion, provided it was understood that the present Committee was to have power to enter into the whole question connected with the management and disposal of the Crown lands.
Mr. O'Connelltook that opportunity of asking the noble Lord whether it was true that, in an action tried some time ago between the Crown and the Primate of Ireland relative to those lands, the Lord Chief Baron had ordered the Solicitor of the Crown to pay five guineas to each of the Jury for their attendance; and whether, in fact, a sum of 378l. had been so paid; for, if so, nothing could have been more unprecedented or unauthorised? Should the inquiry be answered in the affirmative it was his intention, if nobody else did so, to bring the subject before Parliament, for as well might the Chief Baron have ordered the payment of a million of money as this sum.
Lord Duncannonin reply said, that the case had been removed from the Assizes of the county of Cavan to be tried in the city of Dublin, by consent of both parties. The 1275 trial took place in November last, and then a verdict was given against the Crown and for the Primate. The Government had perhaps no right to say any thing about the result of the trial, but they certainly had a right to complain of the manner in which it had been conducted, and the language used by the Court upon the occasion with respect to the conduct of the Crown. The Court endeavoured to convince the Jury that the proceeding was vexatious, and instituted to deprive the Primate of land that had been in his family for a long period. The case had undoubtedly occasioned much surprise; but, instead of the suit having been instituted by the present Government, its commencement had taken place during the former Administration; and it was not a little curious that it was Mr. Attorney General Joy who had advised it, although Mr. Chief Baron Joy had met it with such sweeping censure. He was aware, however, that a man might as counsel hold one opinion, and when made a Judge entertain another. It would, indeed, be unfair to bind a Judge to an opinion which he had given as counsel. The case of the payment of the money was under these circumstances:—When the Jury had been charged they retired, but the foreman returned into court, and said they would not give a verdict unless they knew who was to pay them. After some conversation the Solicitor for the Crown said, if the Judge thought the Crown ought to pay the costs, he would at once do so, and, the Chief Baron having assented, the 378l. were accordingly paid.
§ Mr. Shawwas not surprised when the hon. and learned member for Dublin attacked the Judges, but he must complain of the imputations which the noble Lord had cast upon one of the most exemplary men on the Bench in Ireland. He thought such conduct was not becoming in a member of the Government; nor was the noble Lord justified in stating that Mr. Attorney General Joy had done one thing, and Mr. Chief Baron Joy another. The noble Lord was not justified in giving any opinion on the subject; but, whether the learned individual alluded to were right or wrong, he, although professing to be ignorant of the merits of the case, was satisfied that a more honourable or upright Judge than Mr. Baron Joy did not occupy the judicial Bench in any country. Was the conduct pursued by the noble Lord such as to en courage public men to do their duty? If, instead of being supported, the Judges 1276 were to be aspersed in this manner by the Government, was it likely that impartial and honourable men would undertake an office so responsible.
Mr. Lefroywould be unworthy of a seat in that House if he did not rise in vindication of the learned individual who had been so improperly attacked by the noble Lord, and to assure every hon. Member who heard him that there was no foundation whatever for the imputations which had been cast on his learned friend. If there had been anything wrong in the conduct of the learned Judge an appeal was open to the party aggrieved; but, instead, of moving for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, or on any other ground which could be assigned in public court, what had the noble Lord done? Why he had come down behind the learned Judge's back, and brought a charge against him, well knowing that he could not answer it. If there were a Judge on the Irish Bench more learned, impartial, upright, and honest than another, it was the distinguished individual who had been that night so wantonly assailed.
Lord Duncannonsaid, he had made no complaint against the learned Judge, but had merely referred to his opinion as Attorney General, with a view of showing that the trial in question was not instituted by the present Government, but by their predecessors.
§ Mr. Harveywas astonished at hearing the language used by the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. He had always supposed that the Judges ought to be free from any control on the part of Government, and was, therefore, utterly astonished at hearing it said, that certain conduct on the part of Government, was but a slight encouragement to Judges to act correctly. If it were true that a Judge had compromised with a Jury, by giving them their expenses before they had returned their verdict, then he must say such a verdict was a corrupt one, and ought to be set aside.
§ Mr. Shaw, in explanation, said that he considered every Judge as a Ministerial officer, and so far acting with the Government. He wished to know from the noble Lord opposite, whether he had ascertained the correctness of the expression attributed to the learned Judge?
Lord Duncannonsaid, he had taken his information from the notes of a short hand writer who had been employed at the trial.
§ Mr. Harveywithdrew his Motion.