Lords Sitting of 26 February 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Private.—1a. Bow Brickill Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Chancellor, etc. Of University of Cambridge, against Union of Sees of St Asaph and Bangor.

CATHOLIC PRIEST—EXPLANATION.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that in the course of the observations made on a former evening by a noble Marquess opposite, that noble Marquess had stated, that a poor priest in Ireland had been suspended from his duties for a month by his Bishop, because he refused to collect the Repeal tribute. Now, he (the Marquess of Normanby) had received a distinct contradiction of that statement. No doubt, the noble Marquess, when he mentioned the case, believed that his information was correct. But he had received a letter from the right rev. Dr. Cantwell, the Bishop of the diocese in which the circumstance was alleged to have happened,
272
who positively denied that any such thing had occurred.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, all he knew about the matter was, that the circumstances to which he had referred were quite notorious throughout the country. After what the noble Marquess had stated, he should, however, say nothing more on the subject until he had made further inquiries. Perhaps the error was one of time, and not of fact.

POLES IN PRUSSIA.
Lord Broughamwished to put a question to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on a question of considerable interest. Some time ago a number of refugees from Russian Poland had sought shelter in the dominions of the King of Prussia. They were allowed to take up their residence in Posen, which, as their Lordships all knew, formed a part of Ancient Poland, but by the partition of 1773, was annexed to Prussia. Recently some ill-feeling was excited against those persons, and the Prussian government had thought fit to issue a proclamation commanding their immediate departure from that place. No sufficient reasons were adduced for such a proceeding, and it was exceedingly unlike the government of the illustrious prince who ruled that kingdom to take such a step, unless some great necessity seemed to demand it. It was most improbable, that such a proceeding would be lightly adopted; and one would be led to suppose, that it must arise from circumstances that had not yet come to the knowledge of the public. It was to be hoped, that extreme measures had not been adopted against the whole of these persons on account of the misconduct of some individuals. He should feel obliged to his noble Friend for any information that he could afford on the subject.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas obliged to his noble and learned Friend for the intimation which he had given of his intention to put a question to bins on this subject. He was not, however, in a condition to afford the information which his noble and learned Friend required. He was aware, that the Prussian Government had taken steps for the removal of the Polish refugees; but he knew not the peculiar circumstances which led to that determination. He however, agreed with his noble and learned Friend in thinking, that it was not likely—that it was very improbable,

273
that the Prussian government would do anything harsh or unfeeling, unless they had reasons which they could allege in justification.

MR. R. O'GORMAN.
Lord Campbellwished to call their Lordships' attention to the case of an individual who felt himself aggrieved by something which had occurred a few evenings ago in their Lordships' House. The gentleman to whom he alluded was Mr. Richard O'Gorman, who was one of the Grand Jurors before whom the indictment with reference to the late State Trials in Dublin was placed. In the course of his speech on the Motion of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby), Lord Roden stated, as reported in The Times newspaper, that the question was considered in Ireland as a question on the decision of which depended whether the Protestant or the Roman Catholic Church should preponderate.
"Such (said the noble Earl) being the prevalent opinion, it was quite natural, without at all impeaching the oaths of Roman Catholics, or imputing it to them, that as Jurors, they would not return an honest verdict—it was natural to suppose, that such an impression must necessarily produce some bias in their minds. In this point of view it was impossible to suppose, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland could act upon a Jury without being more or less biassed in their opinions. As a case in point he would instance what had taken place in the Grand Jury upon the finding of the bills. There were three Roman Catholics upon that Jury, and one of them came into the Jury-box after the bills were found, and though he had been sworn to keep his own counsel as well as that of his fellow-Jurors, declared, that he for his part, dissented from the finding."
Here, according to the report, there were cries of "Hear, hear." The Earl of Roden stated, with that openness and candour which belonged to him, that this conduct on the part of Mr. O'Gorman was calculated to inflict a great blow against reposing confidence in the Roman Catholics, as connected with this Trial. Now, the fact was, that when this finding was returned, it was signed by the foreman, "A true bill, for self and fellows;" and, thus signed, it conveyed the notion that all the Grand Jury had concurred in the finding. Mr. O'Gorman was then in Court, and he wished it to be understood that he dissented from the finding, and he stated the fact. Now, the noble Earl
274
(Earl Roden) seemed to think, that in acting thus, Mr. O'Gorman had been guilty of a violation of his oath, because he had been sworn to keep his own counsel as well as that of his fellow-jurors. Now, the noble Earl seemed to have mistaken the nature of the oath which the Grand Juror took, which was, that the evidence given before the Grand Jury should not be disclosed, so as to interfere with the interests of justice, or with the verdict that might ultimately be returned. The examination of Grand Jurors was not, however, without precedent. In the 7th volume of the State Trials a case was reported, where the whole of the Grand Jurors were openly examined at the Old Bailey as to the grounds on which they had decided. And there was another case in which Lord Kenyon allowed a Grand Juror to be examined. So that it appeared that Mr. O'Gorman had not acted in any way that was censurable.
The Lord Chancellor: By whom were the Grand Jurors examined?
Lord Campbell: By the Judges.
The Lord Chancellor: That was by no means unusual: but it was a very different thing when a Grand Juror came into Court and declared, without being required, what course he took.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was a very great mistake, if it were supposed that his noble Friend, who was not present, having been obliged to leave this country in consequence of distressing illness in his family, had harboured the slightest intention of throwing out any accusation against Mr. O'Gorman, or had meant for a moment to insinuate, that that gentleman had violated the sanctity of his oath. His noble Friend was, at the time, arguing with respect to the propriety of striking Roman Catholics from the Petty Jury; and he observed, that so much was this considered to be a party question between Catholic and Protestant, that a most respectable gentleman, Mr. O'Gorman, was so alarmed that it should be supposed abroad that he had coincided in the finding of his fellow-jurors, that he took the very first opportunity of declaring his dissent in Court. But his noble Friend had never insinuated, that in thus acting, Mr. O'Gorman acted contrary to his oath. Now, he should say nothing with respect to the nature of the oath; but this he would say, that he thought a Juryman, whether a Grand Juror or a Petty Juror,

275
was bound in honour to his fellows not to disclose what passed in the Jury-room, unless required under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances, such as the requisition of the Judge, to declare the counsel of himself or his fellows. Grand Jurors and Petty Jurors were bound in honour to their fellows, independent of any oath, not to disclose what had passed in the sanctuary of the Jury-room. If a Judge questions them, this, of course, absolves them from the obligation. As to Mr. O'Gorman, he was known to be a most respectable man, a most loyal man. He was brother to Mr. Purcell O'Gorman, than whom a more honourable man did not exist. They were both ardent in the cause of Catholic Emancipation. But, when that great Measure was carried in 1829, they deemed it proper, as a matter of principle, to abstain from all further agitation.
Lord Campbellsaid, that he had not asserted, that the noble Earl (Earl Roden) had intended to charge Mr. O'Gorman with the violation of his oath.
The Marquess of Westmeathrose to bear testimony to the high respectability of one of the Messrs. O'Gorman, who had for some time filled the office of assistant barrister in the county in which he (the Marquess of Westmeath) lived—no gentleman could have acquitted himself more honourably or more efficiently in that situation than had Mr. O'Gorman. He would merely add, that he had himself frequently sat upon Grand Juries, but he had never before heard of one of the Jurors going into Court afterwards and stating the part which either he or his fellows had taken in the matter. He thought it exceedingly improper that anything should go forth to the public which would tend in the least to encourage an idea of the propriety of such a course upon the part of a Grand Juror.
Lord Wharncliffewas quite sure, that for a Juror to declare in open Court, the course he had taken upon a bill brought before them, was quite at variance with the practice in this country.
Lord Campbellwas far from saying, that it was proper for Jurors to do so; but this was a case in which, in consequence of the foreman signing the bill, "A true bill, for self and fellows," implying that the Jury were unanimous in finding it, a gentleman thought it necessary to declare his dissent from a judg-
276
ment in which he would otherwise have been deemed concurrent.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that in Ireland, it was the invariable form for the foreman to sign bills, "For self and fellows."
Subject dropped.
House adjourned.