§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the trial of the Queen v. Clancey and others, at the Leitrim Assizes on the 7th of March last, and the charge being one of unlawful assembly, the Crown Solicitor peremptorily ordered forty-two jurors to stand aside, and that the Catholic jurors in a body thereupon requested the judge to exempt them from further attendance, as they were unwilling to be subjected to the humiliation of being ordered to stand aside without any cause assigned, after they had been summoned under fine to attend; and, whether there is any precedent for the setting aside of so large a number of jurors?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)I find that at the trial referred to 42 jurors were directed by the Crown solicitor to stand aside. The case was one of unlawful assembly and riot, in which a great number of persons were involved, of whom 14 were to be tried—and to secure 568 an impartial trial it was necessary to put aside jurors connected with the accused or their comrades. Some persons were directed to "stand by" as being publicans; but no one was put aside on account of his religion. In fact, of the 42 rejected, a considerable number were Protestants. I am informed, indeed, that a publican, named Reynolds, and another juror, complained to the Judge of the course taken by the Crown solicitor; but the Judge refused to entertain their complaint. I see no reason to find fault with the Crown solicitor's exercise of the discretion reposed in him.