§
MR. KEOGH moved for the following returns:—
Returns of the names and description of the forty-eight special jurors, drawn by ballot, to serve on the trial of the cause the Queen against William Smith O'Brien, esquire, M. P., in the Queen's Bench in Ireland; and of the twenty-four who were afterwards, on the reduction of the list, struck off the number, distinguishing those struck off by the Crown and by the traverser; and also specifying which of the forty-eight were members of the Roman Catholic religion. And a like return in the case of the Queen against Thomas Meagher.
The hon. Member said that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he had been recommended to bring forward this Motion, as it was not probable that any more favourable opportunity would offer itself; and he was very anxious to bring under the notice of the House the wholesale exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury panel selected for the trials—a practice which was highly insulting to the Roman Catholics of that country. Now, he begged to state that he neither felt nor expressed any sympathy with the opinions of those gentlemen who had been put upon their trial. So far as their exertions were directed to obtain a repeal of the Union, he had always expressed his decided opposition to their object; but he could conceive no stronger argument for those who advocated that repeal than the practice of which he now complained—that of striking off from the special jury panel the names of many of the most respectable Roman Catholics in Ireland. He would now state briefly the circumstances under which this
1321
arose. In the cases of both gentlemen a special jury had been moved for by the Attorney General, and it happened that this year there were on the special jury panel 680 names; of those names forty-eight jurors were chosen by ballot, and then a time was fixed for striking off twenty-four of the forty-eight, twelve being struck off by the Crown, and twelve by the traverser. In Mr. Meagher's case, out of the forty-eight there were twelve Roman Catholics on the panel; and he might refer to the two hon. Members for Dublin, to confirm him in saying that number included some of the most respectable traders and influential merchants in Dublin; that there were amongst them five or six respectable Roman Catholics, who were not connected in any manner with political agitation is Ireland; and more particularly he should state, that amongst those twelve Roman Catholics there was not a single person directly or indirectly connected with the Repeal Confederation; but of those twelve the Crown officer struck off eleven, leaving as the only representative of Roman Catholic opinions upon the jury one gentleman, who was stated publicly in the office by both parties to be dead. He would not trouble the House by reading the names of all those gentlemen, but he would refer to two or three only; and every one acquainted with the principal persons in Dublin would be inclined to ask, when he mentioned the names of the Messrs. Campbell, and of Mr. Powell, a gentleman of large fortune and high position in the city, whose political opinions were of the most moderate character, what justifiable grounds could there be for striking off the names of parties so highly respectable? How could such a process of exclusion be regarded by the Roman Catholic population without feelings of deep exasperation at the conduct of the Government which practised it? He felt that as a Roman Catholic Member of that House he was entitled to ask the Government by whose authority it had taken place? Was it by the authority of the Secretary for Ireland? Was it by the authority of Her Majesty's Attorney General, himself a Roman Catholic? Was it with the sanction of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury? When similar practices were, in 1844, put in force by the Government to which the noble Lord stood opposed in that House, no one more eloquently condemned them than the noble Lord. The people of Ireland could not have expected that the Go-
1322
vernment of the noble Lord would itself have pursued such practices. On the present occasion, however, when Mr. Meagher was to be tried, they struck off men of the highest respectability, connected in no degree with party politics, while they had retained men of low degree, whose only qualification appeared to be the fact that they were the declared and bitter opponents of the parties they were to try. There was no stronger opponent of the opinions of the traversers than he (Mr. Keogh); but he must say that, if it was the object of the Government to put down those opinions, and put an end to the dangerous course they were pursuing, a more futile mode of obtaining that object could not have been devised. If it were to be obtained by a verdict of jurymen, what would the country say but that it was a verdict obtained by packing the jury? We might be told that it was perfectly accidental, or that it was done without the knowledge of the Attorney General, as it had been stated in a Government organ in Dublin, that it was altogether the work of an old established officer, the Crown Solicitor in Ireland. He, however, happened to know the Crown Solicitor to be a most respectable person, one totally incapable of travelling out of his duty unless acting under the directions of his superior. He could not see the slightest reason why the Crown Solicitor should thus act unless in obedience to orders; and without he saw convincing proof that it was that individual's work, he should be very slow to fix it upon him. Besides, Mr. Kemmis would not have been likely to take such a responsibility upon himself without special orders, as under a Roman Catholic Attorney General, whose duty it was to prevent any such unfairness, he might have been sure of his dismissal. What, however, became of the plea of it being accidentally done, when immediately afterwards, in the case of Mr. W. Smith O'Brien, the same thing was repeated? [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Mr. Smith O'Brien was the first.] It did not make the slightest difference which was first to the argument. Two panels were thus struck; but again, on the trial of Mr. Mitchel, two more panels were struck in a similar manner. He had not the smallest sympathy with the opinions and conduct of Mr. Mitchel; but he was strongly of opinion that if that or any other individual were to be tried, the jury ought to be a fair one. No jury in Ireland could be fair unless it were a mixed jury. If they were to im-
1323
pannel all the political and religious opponents of a defendant, and thus obtain a verdict, that would not be a due administration of the law. The people of Ireland could have no confidence in such an administration of the law. What ought to be the practice? The noble Lord at the head of the Government, when, in 1844, similar practices were put in force by the late Government, in referring in that House to the state of Ireland, used some most remarkable expressions. The noble Lord said that " the Government of Ireland was maintained by force and not by opinion. Why had they no reason here to fear any Government? Because the verdict of a jury stood betwixt every man and tyranny —because trial by jury' secured to every Englishman his just rights." The noble Lord then went on to condemn the Government, because in a panel of forty-eight persons, ten of whom were Roman Catholics, the whole of those ten were struck off by the solicitors for the Crown; and the noble Lord added, that that "deprived those proceedings of any weight or value." Those were the opinions of the noble Lord in 1844; and he (Mr. Keogh) must ask whether similar conduct in the present case did not deprive the proceedings of which he complained "of any weight or value?" If there had been a conviction, what weight or value would that conviction have? But the circumstances were somewhat different in these two cases; but the comparison, in his opinion, was against the more recent. The noble Lord had held that, in 1844, the Government were quite justified in their proceedings in the case of eight Roman Catholics out of the ten struck off the panel, because they were active members of the Repeal Association. ["No, no!"] So it was stated by the noble Lord himself, in his speech already quoted. The present Secretary for Ireland, when examined before a Committee of the House of Lords, attributed all the improvements that had taken place in the state of Ireland to the practice, under the Whig Government, of not excluding Roman Catholics from juries. On that same occasion the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Sheil) had said, that as far as trial by jury was concerned the Catholic Emancipation Act was a nonentity; and no sooner was the panel of 1844 struck, then away went the hon. Member for Dungarvan and others to Dublin, to hold an aggregate meeting to protest against the conduct of the Crown Solicitor. [The hon. Mem-
1324
ber here quoted the requisition calling that meeting.] That requisition was signed by the present Under Secretary of State for Ireland, the present Attorney General for Ireland, by Thomas Wyse, and by Richard Lalor Sheil, now Master of the Mint. His object in bringing forward this subject was to obtain an explanation from Her Majesty's Government; and he also desired to call the attention of Parliament to the facts of the case, in the hope that that might put an end to the practice for the future. Ireland was not likely to make any progress if there were not a just administration of the law—if the people had no confidence in the juries by which they were to be tried. He believed that the general opinion in the House and out of it was, that there had been a good deal of blundering in the late proceedings on the part of the law officers of the Crown. Amongst other mistakes, nothing could have been more unfortunate than the selection of this jury. If the law officers of the Crown had not struck off the Roman Catholics whom they did strike off, and had struck off the Roman Catholics whom they left on, they would certainly have obtained a verdict. Who was the person they left on? Why, he had been chairman of a Repeal Association just four days before the jury was struck; and no sooner was the verdict of acquittal pronounced, than he went down to the Repeal Association to boast of what he had done. He was a person of no note or standing; and the reason he was left on was because he was a vestry clerk at St. Mark's Church; and it was thought that he was necessarily a Protestant. But in Ireland singular contradictions often happened. The Protestant vestry clerk turned out a very excellent Roman Catholic. He had discharged his duty in bringing the facts under the notice of the House. Great interest was felt on the subject in Ireland; and, unless Her Majesty's Government were able to give a satisfactory explanation, the Roman Catholics of Ireland would feel that a gross insult had been offered them. But whether the Government could explain or not, he trusted that, having called the attention of Parliament to the subject, that would be sufficient to prevent a repetition of such disgraceful practices.
§ MR. ANSTEY seconded the Motion. He considered that the conduct of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland had been marked by a most unhappy and fatal course 1325 of error, and that the Government ought to direct their serious attention to the reformation of the proceedings of which his hon. Friend complained. He also considered that the Ministers were bound to afford the most fill and ample explanation of the conduct of their subalterns with regard to this matter; and, if they could not defend that conduct, it was their duty to punish it.
§ LORD J. RUSSELL: I could have wished that the hon. Gentleman had postponed his Motion till we could have made more particular inquiries in Ireland with regard to the circumstances connected with the striking of these juries. What I have to say on the subject at present will only comprehend that which is known personally to myself, and the information I have received from the Lord Lieutenant. I certainly did not expect that any charge of partiality could have been made against Her Majesty's Ministers on the ground of the exclusion of Roman Catholics. I entertain now the same opinions I held in 1844—that the exclusion of Roman Catholics, as such, unless they were members of Repeal Associations, and had distinguished themselves by the violence of their conduct in such associations, would be an extremely wrong and unjustifiable proceeding. I certainly did not expect that the present Government would be accused of partiality on that ground, it being notorious that among the appointments they have made, Roman Catholics have received as much of the favour of the Crown as Protestants, according to their fitness for the different offices for which they have been selected. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Attorney General. It happens that the Attorney General for Ireland is a Roman Catholic, and the Under Secretary of State for Ireland is also a Roman Catholic. My right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint, and one of the Secretaries of the Board of Control, are also Roman Catholics; and many other Roman Catholics might be mentioned who have received appointments under the present Government. These facts show at least that Her Majesty's Ministers entertain no distrust with regard to Roman Catholics on account of their religion; and I certainly did not anticipate that any charge of this nature was likely to be made. When I first received from my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an intimation that it was the determination of the Government to prosecute several persons for sedition, 1 wrote to 1326 him immediately to say, that I trusted no ground would be afforded for any charge with respect to unfairness in the composition of the jury, and that I would much rather see the persons acquitted than that any unfairness should be practised. My noble Friend expressed the same opinions; and when it was first said in Dublin that Roman Catholics of respectability, against whom it could not be charged that they had been violent in favour of repeal, had been left out of the jury, my noble Friend wrote to me stating that it was entirely a surprise to him, and was altogether contrary to his wishes and directions. Having said thus much, I cannot, I confess, pursue the question into its details. I can only state that the Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Monahan, assured the Lord Lieutenant that there had not been—at least by his direction—any Roman Catholic left out of the jury merely on the ground of his being a Roman Catholic. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the conduct of the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Kemmis, and he has paid a tribute to that gentleman of which I believe he is deserving. I believe he is a most respectable gentleman; but, with regard to the grounds upon which he proceeded in the striking of the jury, I have not received any information which would enable me to make a statement to the House. I have certainly, more than once, written upon this subject; and I think it would be only fair that the House should suspend its judgment till we know what statement Mr. Kemmis has to make. All I can say is, that neither I, at the head of the Government, nor the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, nor the Attorney General for Ireland, had any wish or desire that any person should be left out of the jury on the ground of his religion, or that the jury should be composed exclusively of Protestants. That the juries were not well selected or packed—if the purpose was to pack them—I think the hon. Gentleman has himself shown; for it is notorious that there was upon one of the juries a person who had been chairman either of a Repeal Committee or of a Repeal Association, and who, according to the hon. Gentleman, was not only opposed in opinion to the majority of his fellow jurors, but who considered that it was not a matter in which he was bound by any oath, but one in which he was solely bound to regard the interests of the faction to which he belonged. With respect to the Motion, I believe it will be impossible to 1327 comply with the latter part of it, as there is no formal record of the religion of the parties. I think that part of the Motion ought properly to be left out; but I have no objection to the other returns. I can only say, in conclusion, that when I receive any further information of what actually took place with regard to the striking off of these names, and the reason for striking them off, I will immediately state that information to the House for its satisfaction. I again repeat that, whatever example may be given by others of disregarding their obligations, and making the part which they have in the administration of justice a matter of politics and not of duty, the Government will be the last persons who will either set or follow an example of that kind. Their desire is to have respectable persons upon juries, and to leave the administration of justice in their hands, quite irrespective of the religion of the different parties of whom such juries may be composed.
§ MR. M. J. O'CONNELL expressed his satisfaction at the declaration of the noble Lord, which he was sure had been most gratifying to the House—that he was anxious that the law should be administered in Ireland in a spirit of fairness and justice. On the occasion of a somewhat similar trial a few years ago, Roman Catholics were totally excluded from the jury; and the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion had said that that exclusion was strongly protested against by Mr. Wyse, his right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint (Mr. Sheil), and the Attorney General for Ireland. But there was one distinguished Roman Catholic name which he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) did not remember seeing among the protesters—that of William Keogh, a Roman Catholic member of the Irish bar. He would contend, notwithstanding all that had been said to the contrary, that the blundering to which reference had been made, ought not in any respect to be attributed to his right hon. Friend Mr. Monahan. It was too much the fashion to accuse that learned Gentleman of committing mistakes; but he must take the liberty of saying that in Ireland, amongst Conservatives of the highest character, Mr. Monahan received, and had earned, the greatest approbation for the temperate and judicious tone of the statements which on recent occasions lie made to juries whom in the discharge of his duty he was called on to address. He was convinced that if there was any blundering, it 1328 would be traced to Mr. Kemmis, and not to the Attorney General.
§ MR. REYNOLDS remarked, that there was nothing new in the packing of juries in Ireland. Even the hon. Member (Mr. Keogh) had himself been perfectly silent under the packing of former Administrations. He hoped that a searching investigation would take place, with a view of placing the saddle on the right horse; for nothing had occurred in Dublin for the last twenty years which had occasioned more dissatisfaction and indignation in persons of all creeds than the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the recent juries.
§ SIR G. GREY would not have risen, were it not that he feared by his silence to be held as acquiescing in the imputations which had been thrown out against Mr. Kemmis. He would ask hon. Members to suspend their judgments on this point until they were put in possession of further information on the subject. From the information he had received, he could not believe that Mr. Kemmis was liable to the charge which had been made against him. He should deeply regret if it should turn. out that, in striking the jury, any insult had been offered to Roman Catholics, or any general distrust exhibited towards them as jurymen. He had hoped that the religion of the Attorney General would of itself have protected him from such a charge; and he felt it due to that right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that throughout the trials of the special commission, which he conducted with great judgment, forbearance, and ability, in no single instance did he exercise the right of setting aside a juryman on account of his religion or otherwise. He allowed the juries to be struck without interference, the majority of them being Roman Catholics. It ought to be remembered, however, that they were bound to set aside some jurors; and that although instances could easily be adduced of persons being set aside who were perfectly competent, that was no proof that any wrong had been done. The original panel consisted, of course, of forty-eight; and as each party had the right to strike off twelve, leaving twenty-four to choose from, it was obvious that there might be many gentlemen of great respectability among those so struck off.
§ Motion, with the Amendment suggested by Lord J. Russell, agreed to.
§ House adjourned at a quarter to Two o'clock.