§ Mr. Bellewrose to put the question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, of which he had given notice, on the subject of the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Juries in Ireland. In the recent trial in the county of Monaghan, of the "Queen v. O'Halloran, M'Kenna, and others," which was a charge of Ribbonism, there were twenty Jurors returned, of these eight, being Catholics, were challenged by the Crown. The result was, that of the twelve Jurors sworn, only one was a Roman Catholic, and the 1068 general impression on the public mind was, that the Catholic Jurors had been challenged solely on account of their religion. In that case, there was no question of Repealer or anti-Repealer; the case was one merely of Ribbonism. He wished to ask if the noble Lord could state why the Catholic Jurors had been thus struck off. He also wished to put a question respecting the employment of the Crown witness. It appeared that the the Crown witness had been employed as an approver before the late assizes. He had been out on bail, and during that time, and while he was in communication with the police, he had continued to attend Ribbon Associations, and he had admitted that he had taken an oath of secresy at a meeting of a Ribbon Association since he had been in communication with the Law Officers of the Crown. He wished to ask the noble Lord how it happened that the Crown had excluded from the Jury all Roman Catholics except one, and how they could justify the employment, as the approver and principal witness for the Crown, of a person so calculated to bring the execution of the laws into disrespect?
§ Lord Eliotregretted that he was not in a position to give so full and satisfactory an answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions as he could wish. On the day on which the hon. Gentleman had given notice of his intention of asking the questions he had written to the Crown Solicitor on the North-Eastern Circuit on the subject. He had received an answer from that Gentleman stating that he was still on the Circuit, and had not the papers with him which would enable him to return a satisfactory answer, but that he should return to Dublin on Wednesday, when he would furnish the necessary papers; but he declared at the same time, as a Gentleman, that no Juror had been set aside solely on the ground that he was a Roman Catholic, but that he should he able to assign good and valid reasons for the rejection of every one that he had set aside. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the instructions on this subject issued by Chief Justice Brady in 1839, and which had been laid on the Table of that House, were still in force, and the Attorney General for Ireland, and the other Law Officers of the Crown in that country, had addressed circulars to the Crown Solicitors on the various Circuits, requesting that those directions should be strictly 1069 adhered to; so that if there had been any deviation from those instructions the responsibility rested with the Crown Solicitor, and not with the Government. Mr. Maxwell, the Crown Solicitor alluded to, however, was a gentleman of high respectability. He had been appointed in 1831, by the Marquess of Anglesea, and had held the office ever since, having given satisfaction to the different Governments, and he would not believe that he had failed to exercise a judicious discretion in the present instance. With regard to the last question, as he had received no notice from the hon. Gentleman on the subject, he was not in a condition to return an answer.