Lords Sitting of 29 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Criminal Law of England. 2a. Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity; International Copyright; Dean Forest Encroachments.
Private.—1a. Guildford Junction Railway; Norwich and Brandon Railway; Brandes Burton Inclosure.
Reported.—Cababe's Naturalization; Bury (Huntingdonshire) Inclosure; Ramsey Inclosure.
3o. and passed:—Ribble Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Clergy of Ely, from Hawkhurst, and Hayes, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Uxbridge, for Protection to Agrieulture.—From Derrygalvin, and by the Earl of Clare, from Guardians of Limerick Union, for Inquiry into the State of the Poor (Ireland).—By the Marquess of Clanriearde, for Inquiry into the State of Ireland.—From Debtor Prisoners in Maidstone Gaol, in favour of the Creditors and Debtors Bill.

PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES (IRELAND.)
The Lord Chancellormoved the re-appointment of the Select Committee of last Session to inquire upon the state of the Law of Marriages in Ireland, with a view of considering whether any
1598
and what alterations were required in them.
Lord Campbellentirely concurred with the noble and learned Lord that, as legislation upon the subject had now become indispensable, the re-appointment of the Committee would be a very proper course to take. In the case of the Queen and Millis, the numbers being equal for and against the appeal, the forms of their Lordships' House construed that equality into a vote in the negative, and thus the judgment of the Court below had been affirmed. But it should not be forgotten that if the case had come before their Lordships in a different form, namely, in a form affirmative of that view of the law, the effect of the equality of voices would have been to negative that proposition—in other words, to give a directly Contrary decision upon the subject to that which in accordance with the forms of the House had been given to it. He must say that he should have been better pleased if the decision of their Lordships had been on the other side of the question, and that they had confirmed the first marriage.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, that he could not quite concur in the view of the case which the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down appeared to take. The vote which had been come to was to all intents and purposes the judgment of their Lordships, and declared what the law was. He quite concurred in the propriety of reappointing the Committee on the subject.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it could not be denied that their Lordships having heard the case fully argued at their Bar, and having been equally divided in their votes upon it, the result necessarily had been that the judgment of the Court below had been affirmed. It was material, however, to bear in mind, that the decision to which their Lordships had come was in accordance with a very high authority in this House, and confirmatory of the judgment of the majority of the Bench in Ireland.
Lord Broughamsaid, he hoped that the Committee would be reappointed without delay.

CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord Broughamsaid, he begged to lay a very important document upon their Lordships' Table. He stood there merely as the organ of the Criminal Law Commission, from whom

1599
this document emanated; and he acted in such capacity the more readily, as he had the custody of the Great Seal at the time this Commission was issued, which had led the way to this important and satisfactory result. The Report of this Commission contained a digest of the whole Criminal Law of the country, that was, of England and Wales; but not extending to Scotland or Ireland. It comprised the complete code of Criminal Law, excluding procedure, which he thought was a branch of the subject which might much more conveniently and perfectly be treated of in a distinct measure. This measure, so framed, he begged to lay before their Lordships, asking of them the usual courtesy of a first reading for it; where upon he should be happy to consign it to their Lordships or to Her Majesty's Government, hoping that they would give it as much countenance and support as they might think it deserved; their Lordships, of course, not being in any way pledged to the adoption of it by allowing it to be read a first time. With respect to the separation of the law of procedure from the pure law upon criminal matters, they had the example of Napoleon's Code for such a mode of proceeding, and he thought there was a manifest advantage in adopting it. Again, expressing a hope that the Bill would meet with the support of Her Majesty's Government, he begged to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Lord Campbellsaid, he rejoiced to see a proposition made for establishing a criminal code; but he must say he had some apprehension as to the fate of this measure, from the irregular manner in which it had been introduced. His noble and learned Friend said that he presented this Bill "as the organ." He (Lord Campbell) expected to hear him go on and say "of Her Majesty's Government;" and he should have been very much rejoiced if he had said so; because, feeling very great anxiety upon this subject, he felt that no measure of the kind could hope to be carried into effect, except with the cordial assent and co-operation of the Government. But his noble and learned Friend did not say he stood here as the "organ of the Government," but as the "organ of the Criminal Law Commission." This was a position which he could not quite understand. The Commissioners, having been appointed by the Crown, had reported the result of their inquiries to the Queen's
1600
Government, and having done so, were to all intents and purposes, functi officio. They had nothing more to do with the matter. It was for the Government, if they thought proper, to introduce a measure in accordance with their recommendations. It would seem, however, that Her Majesty's Government had either not seen this Report or had not thought proper to adopt its recommendations in the form of a Bill. This task they had abandoned to his noble and learned Friend, who did not hold any office under Government at present. He (Lord Campbell), therefore, felt some alarm at the manner in which this Bill had been brought in, but still he hoped that it would meet with the support of Her Majesty's Government, and that the country would not long be suffered to remain under the disgrace of having no criminal code.
Lord Broughamdenied that there was any irregularity in the mode in which this Bill had been brought before their Lordships. His noble and learned Friend ought to be aware, that the Report upon which it was framed was a public one, and one to which, for the last twelve months, every Member of either House of Parliament could have had access. His noble and learned Friend seemed also to forget his constitutional law. The Constitution was one thing, the Government another. The Government might introduce Bills, but the Parliament passed them. He did not understand that there was any maxim of constitutional law which required that a Bill of this or any other nature should be introduced by the Government of the Crown. This might be the most effectual mode by which a Measure could be carried through Parliament; but there was not the shadow of a charge of irregularity in his (Lord Brougham) or any other Member of their Lordships' House bringing in any Bill which he thought proper. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend, in the hope that this Bill would be taken up with favour and consideration by Her Majesty's Government; but he had only to add, that if they did not, he should continue to take care of it himself.

DISTRESS IN LIMERICK.
The Earl of Clarepresented a petition from the City of Limerick, complaining of certain proceedings under the rate-paying clauses of the Irish Poor Law, by which districts

1601
were united within the elective boundary. His Lordship also presented a petition from the same city, complaining of the Distress which existed in that town: the petition described various features of the existing Distress, and particularly referred to the crowded and filthy state of that part of the town inhabited by the poorer classes. The noble Earl said, that he concurred in general in the prayers of this petition, and he was sure that the noble Marquess opposite, who was well acquainted with this town, would concur with him that it was a petition well deserving of the serious attention of their Lordships. [The Marquess of Lansdowne: "Hear, hear."] There was one of the prayers of the petition in which, however, he dared say their Lordships would not be disposed to concur; it was this—that an additional tax might be laid on absentees, in order to relieve the distresses of the poor. He had called the attention of the House to this petition, under a strong conviction that the grievances which oppressed Ireland were more of a social than political nature; and he hoped that Government would, with as little delay as possible, give their best attention to this subject.

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a subject which had only come under his notice to day. He should have wished to have given Her Majesty's Government notice of his intention to do so, but for the consideration that, as the Easter recess was so near, they would not probably have time to communicate with Dublin and receive an answer on the subject before their Lordships adjourned. Their Lordships would recollect that, about a month ago, he moved for a list of the appointments which had been made to the Stipendiary Magistracy of Ireland from the year 1841 down to the present time. His object in moving for this return was, that he had reason to apprehend that a most objectionable appointment had been made, or was about to be made, to the Stipendiary Magistracy, and he intended, should it turn out that such was the case, to call their Lordships' attention to the subject. On receiving the Return, however, the name he apprehended to have found in it was not there and upon see-
1602
ing this he was satisfied the appointment had not been made. In the course of the present day, however, he understood that the appointment in question had actually been made, and had been announced in the Dublin Gazette two days before the return to his (the Marquess of Norman by's) Motion had been made. He would not at present comment further upon this circumstance than to observe that he always understood that it was the practice of Government, when a Return was ordered by either House of Parliament, to make it out with the fullest and latest information which the subject admitted of. Her Majesty's Government would, perhaps, institute some inquiry upon the cause of this omission in the present case; and he (the Marquess of Normanby) would now proceed to make a few observations upon the appointment of which he had occasion to complain—namely, that of Mr. O'Brien. There years ago as an instance of his strong party feeling on this subject, he had refused to give the health of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the time being at a public dinner, on account of that Nobleman having declared that he could not apply any of the patronage of the Government in favour of any declared Repealer. But not only did Mr. O'Brien refuse to give the health of the Lord Lieutenant, and upon this ground, but he had written a letter to the Gentleman who was Member for the county where it tool place, which he should beg to read to their Lordships. The noble Marquess then read the following letter.
"Farfield. Oct. 20th, 1840.
"My dear Dillon Browne—The friends of Repeal in this great county, anxious at this present time to express, in the teeth of Lord Ebrington's Bill of pains and penalties, their firm adhesion to that now devoted question, have resolved to pay to you a tribute of respect as one to whose active services and chivalrous support Repeal is so much and deeply indebted, beg through me that you will name a day to meet your friends at a public dinner, to be given in Ballinasloe.
"There is no better time than the present for the people and their leaders, now that Lord Ebrington has given to the Repeal Question the hallowed tinge of persecution and all the attractive splendour of romance. His Excellency would seem to seek to uphold the Union by the same means that it was carried—the hopes of reward, the threats of persecution. He little knew the human heart, and less the Irish one, who supposed that from the

1603
hallowed watching we now hold over the tomb of our country we are to be routed by a Castle Proclamation.
"We will, by legal and peaceable means, show his Excellency that to dictate to a nation is but the golden lot of the few and thinly scattered. We flake him a present of his prophecy as to the impracticability of Repeal—we were educated in the school of Richelieu, who acknowledged no such word as fail.
"Your friend and warm admirer, O'Connell, keeping his eye upon the falling sands of the hour-glass, is terribly in earnest, and performing miracles under the pressure of advancing years. In truth, my dear friend 'Repeal of the Union' has become the national mandate of a people who, in the midst of ruin, have not time or temper to say more.
"I fear, my dear Dillon Browne, I have become prolix upon the subject, which it has been my happy lot often to have heard you dilate upon in private, with that eloquence which now has become the intellectual property of the many. Forgetting my own unworthiness, I rejoice that I am selected as the instrument through whom the Repealers of this county convey their high admiration of your patriotism and talent, and remain, my dear Dillon Browne, unalterably yours,
"THOMAS O'BRIEN.
"Robert Dillon Browne, Esq., M.P., Mayo."
[The perusal of this letter was greeted with repeated bursts of laughter.] Now, when it was recollected that this was the man who had been put over the heads of many deserving competitors, who had been long waiting for appointment to the magistracy upon the promises of Her Majesty's Government, the termination, "yours unalterably," was certainly a little remarkable. With respect to the change which had occurred in this person's politics since this epistle was written, he was informed that it was owing to Mr. O'Brien's having wanted to go, in the advocacy of his repeal notions, beyond the line of con-duet which was considered prudent by others of his party. It was then Mr. O'Brien seceded from them and became their bitter opponent. It was for their Lordships to consider whether the appointment of such a person to the magistracy, to preside over the disturbed districts of Ireland, was not very discreditable to those who made it. He hoped Her Majesty's Government, when they became aware how improper an appointment it was, would lose no time in correcting it. But at the same time he could not help observing that they had been warned, or at least might have beets warned if they had chosen, at
1604
the time they were making this appointment of the impropriety of it, the matter having been noised about and discussed in all the newspapers. As it was, the circumstance of which he now complained of was gazetted two days before this Return was made, it was not included in it. He should therefore conclude by moving that the Return be completed up to the present day.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that if the noble Marquess had confined himself to a complaint of the incompleteness of the Return which had been made in obedience to an order of this House, undoubtedly he (Lord Wharncliffe) would have had nothing to complain of in the course he had taken. But the noble Marquess had thought proper, also, to go into the whole merits of this appointment, and the character of the Gentleman in whose favour it had been made, and this without the slightest notice to Her Majesty's Government of his intention. He certainly thought it would have been more courteous, and more in accordance with the usual proceedings in their Lordships' House, if the noble Marquess had given some intimation of the course he intended to take, in order that Her Majesty's Government might have prepared themselves with all the information which the subject afforded. As it was, however, he (Lord Wharncliffe) would take care to inquire how it had happened that the name of Mr. O'Brien had not been included in this Return, and also as to the circumstances under which this appointment had been made.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he did not think that his noble Friend was open to any charge of unfairly attacking Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. On the contrary, the attack was against the clerk for having omitted the name of Mr. O'Brien; and if Her Majesty's Government thought that this was a matter which could be allowed to remain where it was they were very much mistaken. He had intended himself, having heard of the appointment some days ago, to have brought forward a substantive Motion upon this subject, giving due notice to Her Majesty's Government of his intention; and all he could say was, that if this appointment were practically sustained, he should still drill it his duty to do so. There was no One subject so importantly affecting the interests of Ireland as that of the appointment of the Magistracy, and the

1605
appointment of this Gentleman as a stipendiary magistrate, passing over, as was clone here, persons well qualified, of undoubted respectability, who had invariably conducted themselves in the most exemplary manner, was not likely to give satisfaction to the people, but on the contrary, it was calculated to bring into disrespect the justice which was administered by those functionaries. The charge which his noble Friend had brought was one which could not be contradicted; and when Her Majesty's Government said that they did not know anything about the matter, it was only a repetition of the old excuse, that they did not read the newspapers. There Was no newspaper in Ireland in which this appointment had not been noticed: and there was not One, not even of those which had printed Mr. O'Brien's letters against Mr. O'Connell, in return for which it was understood that this appointment had been given, that had ventured to say one word in favour of it.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I must say that this debate is irregular, in consequence of the want of a notice on the part of the noble Marquess of his intention. If the noble Marquess had given notice respecting the inaccuracy of the Return which is now upon your Lordships' Table, inquiries should have been made into the reason of the omission of the name of the Gentleman among the list of Stipendiary Magistrates, who had been appointed within the period of' the noble Marquess's Motion. Then followed another noble Marquess with his observation condemning the appointment, and mentioning that it had been severely commented upon in the Irish newspapers. Now, as regards that part of the speech of the noble Marquess, I must plead guilty to the charge, for I have not read one of the newspapers, and I have never heard before this evening of the name of Mr. O'Brien. I must say, that I am sorry that the name of the Gentleman who received the appointment complained of was not inserted in the list, seeing that his name had appeared in the Dublin Gazette two days before the list was Made out. I beg to repeat, that if the noble Marquess had given notice of his intention, inquiries should have been made info the cause of the name being omitted in the list which has been furnished.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had always
1606
thus far concurred with this Gentleman—of whose existence until now he had been utterly ignorant—upon the subject of persecution,—without using the highly figurative eloquence about the "hallowed tinge" attending it; he had always objected to proscribing men for political opinions, and had disapproved of Lord Ebrington's declaration of his determination not to extend patronage to Repealers, because he knew the effect would be favourable to the cause; looking on Repeal of course as the greatest of all absurdities—as all men of sense in either country knew it to be; but he thought his noble Friends of the Government had taken a far better course, and were dealing with Repeaters in a more "hallowed way" in promoting them instead of proscribing them; and he thought the process (so pleasing) would have perhaps a pretty effect on the "repealing minds of Ireland," to whom it. would unquestionably appear a fat more "hallowed" way of doing the thing, plating Repealers as it did in a much more comfortable predicament than that of persecution. Nor was this course without precedent, for he remembered that a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shell), who sometimes used figurative language of a species similar to that of this Gentleman (though of a higher kind, perhaps), had been an ardent Repealer, and was by the late Government "hallowed" into the Vice Presidency of the Board of Trade, and what was exceedingly observable was, dolt the right hon. Gentleman had never uttered a syllable about Repeal ever since. A far more comfortable, gracious, and pleasing triode this of dealing with Repealers than persecuting them—a process, which no doubt, this Mr. Dennis—what's his name?—preferred, just as the right hon. Gentleman did. What could be the objection to his appointment, if he had been converted from his Repeal opinions? The Gentleman had given up his "unalterable attachment" for substantial reasons, arid others would be equally happy to do so, if they had reasons equally strong. God knows, however, that everything connected with the administration of justice was a very serious matter. But he really thought that anything connected with it should be discussed in a solemn, serious manner. They ought not to discuss it in an attack upon an individual, without giving him notice of their intention to assail

1607
him, and without affording to the Government that had appointed him the means of defending him. If there was any objection to the character of the individual appointed, and if that objection were connected with the Administration, it became a very serious matter, and tended to throw discredit upon the Government, and they should he afforded the opportunity of replying to it.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, the subject was undoubtedly a grave one, and if noble Lords opposite could shew that this person was fitted for his situation in any one respect, he should be satisfied with their negativing his Motion.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that in spite of the amusing and sarcastic speech of the noble Lord, he thought this a very serious subject, and it was greatly to be regretted, that, when his noble and learned Friend entertained the opinions he did, as to promotion being preferable to persecution, he did not impress these opinions upon the Government at the time that they dismissed the local Magistrates in Ireland,—not the paid Magistrates, it was to be observed,—for their Repeal opinions. As to the appointment of his right hon. Friend, he really did not think that his noble and learned Friend would have made that charge against the late Government, when he knew that the appointment had taken place many years after the opinions expressed by him on the subject of Repeal had been abandoned—for opinions expressed, and a part taken by him as a Member of the Legislature; and then he must own that he was still more surprised to hear his noble and learned Friend declare, that Mr. Sheil's appointment had never been objected to, that no objection had ever been urged against it. Surely, when his noble and learned Friend said this, he must have forgotten, that for two long years of his noble Friend's (Viscount Melbourne's) Administration, at every meeting of what was called Conservative gatherings there was nothing heard but the denunciation of the appointment of Mr. Sheil. It was one of the grounds of attack against that Administration. Now, as to the appointment of Stipendiary Magistrates, he must again state, that he considered it one of the most important which the Irish Government could make. He now, then, put it to their Lordships whether the person, whose letter he had read, could be
1608
considered one in the exercise of whose discretion any confidence could be placed; and whether a Government who made such an appointment was not to be considered responsible when they adopted a person who had committed himself to such sentiments. He had been accused of bringing forward this Motion without notice. The Motion was a mere matter of course. It was one he had heard moved a hundred times without the slightest objection being offered to it. No objection was urged against it in the first instance; and if the Gentleman had not been appointed at the time, then the Return he moved for would be the best defence of the Government. There was, it ought to be known to noble Lords, an Irish Office in town; and though his noble Friend (Earl de Grey) had declared that he never read the Irish papers, yet still in the Office to which he referred there ought to be the information which he sought. This subject had been a matter of discussion for the last month; and, from the objections that had been made to the appointment, and seeing the name omitted in the Return he had moved for, he considered that the appointment had not taken place. It was, then, under these circumstances, that his attention was called to the subject that morning, and if the appointment had been made when he proposed his motion, he could not conceive how it could be objected to. It was a matter of course—a thing that had been done a hundred times. When he said a matter of course, he recollected that when he was in Office, questions were put day after day, and week after week, by noble Lords opposite, and they were always expecting to have answers at once given them. He was not aware that there was anything irregular or unusual in the course that he had pursued. He was satisfied that he had done his duty in calling attention to the point, and he was glad to hear that it was now in the hands of his noble Friend, should the Government persist in their ill-advised appointment.
Lord Wharncliffedid not object to the Motion, but he did to what he must call the untimely and uncourteous nature of the attack made upon the Government, of which not the least notice was given, either to the Gentleman appointed or to the Government, so that it was impossible either to defend the appointment, or reply to the attack made.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that he, for one, did not complain of the noble Marquess because he had proposed a Motion, but for his speech—not a simple statement—but a very violent speech. A Gentleman speaking was not always aware of his own violence; but he said that the noble Marquess had made a most bitter attack upon the Government—a most severe attack upon the Lord Lieutenant. The insinuation amounted to this, that the Lord Lieutenant had kept hack the name of this Gentleman. If it were not so meant, that at least appeared to be the insinuation. Certainly no one who heard the noble Marquess, but must feel that a very serious attack had been made—it might be a deserved attack upon the writer of the private letter—the ridiculous letter that had been read; but then all this was done without notice. He did not complain of the Motion, which was a mere matter of course, but he said that no Government, conducted howsoever wisely or well at an instant, if an attack were thus made upon it, could possibly give an explanation. His noble Friend talked of reading newspapers—he seemed to consider it to be a duty to pick up all sorts of stories. He did not know how much idle time the noble Marquess had to read the Irish papers—nor how he could spare the time to go through them day by day; but this he knew, that a man who was engaged in public life found it impossible to read them. Whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was to be objected to, because he did not read the Irish newspapers, and search out all the things that might be complained of in those voluminous documents, he did not know; or whether it was conceived to be a part of his duty upon every single appointment he made, to ferret out in the Irish newspapers whether it was approved or disapproved of. As to the Motion it was all very right; hut he did think that at another time it would be more fair to all parties whom the noble Marquess meant to condemn, to give them notice of his intention to do so.
The Marquess of Normanbyhoped, that at another time the occasion might not occur for finding so much fault as at present. His noble Friend opposite had said that he found fault with the Lord Lieutetenant with respect to the Return. He had made no attack upon the Lord Lieutenant as to the Return. He did, however, find fault with him as to the appointment,
1610
and when the occasion occurred would show just grounds for so finding fault with him. At the same time he did not hold him responsible for the Return. There was, however, the appearance of blame somewhere, if there were an omission in the Return. His noble Friend complained of his having made a violet speech. The facts were strong, and he left the facts to speak for themselves; and if there were any violence in his speech, that was to be found in the facts he had stated. His noble Friend had said, too, that it would not he convenient to hold the Government responsible for not reading the Irish papers. He attached no such responsibility to them; but there was the Irish Office in London, and the Government, through the means of that Office, ought not now to be without an answer. When his noble Friend, Lord Morpeth, was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he was never unprepared for the defence of any appointment cot that had been made. This was a point to which public attention had been very generally directed. The matter was one that had occupied a considerable space in the discussions on Ireland, and it was therefore impossible that the local Government of Ireland could be ignorant of it; that they could not be able to answer upon that which was a matter of notoriety.
The Earl of Riponobserved, that if the noble Marquess had brought forward his Motion on Monday, he could have been answered satisfactorily and fully. He presumed it was not the convenience of the noble Marquess to wait till Monday. Probably the noble Marquess was going out of town, and that was the reason for their having a premature discussion, and when Government could not have time to answer him.
Lord Wharncliffe: hear, hear.
The Marquess of Normanbyremarked that such a defence of the Government must he exceedingly satisfactory to the noble President of the Council, when he cheered it so loudly.

JURIES IN IRELAND.
The Marquess of Lansdawnehad, he said, to move tier copies of any instructions given to the Crown Law Officers of Ireland relative to the Challenging of Juries in Ireland. Having received an intimation from his noble Friend opposite that there would be no objection to the Return he moved for, it

1611
would not be necessary for him to detain the House with more than a few observations. All he intended then to say, was to justify him in pressing upon their attention, whilst the general observations that he had to make should be delayed until the period when they would have under discussion that Motion on the state of Ireland, of which his noble Friend the noble Marquess had given notice, and which, in the exercise of that which, he must say, was a wise and sound discretion, he had determined upon delaying until at least after the short recess which was about to take place. The Motion, however, which he himself was about to make—it was one in which he sought for information, and that information he considered it was most important to the public in Ireland that they should be put in possession of as soon as possible, and that, too, in the most authentic shape and form. Everything connected with the administration of justice was important; but that which, of all other things, was the greatest feature in the due administration of justice, was the appointment and selection of the Juries. In this country and Ireland the greatest importance was naturally attached to that subject. It was, then, calculated to excite their serious attention, when they found that an apprehension was entertained that a mode was adopted by which certain persons or classes were excluded—it was calculated to produce the greatest possible alarm, when it was believed that this was done in the selection of Jurors. When the prisoner or the culprit was called upon in those solemn forms which were, however, so full of meaning; when in the ordinary or commonest trials a man was called upon to state how he chose to be tried, and in answer to that question was advised to say, that he would be "tried by his country," what was the meaning of that choice—what was the meaning of the declaration thus put into his mouth but this—that he was willing to be tried by persons partaking of the same sympathies, of the same feelings, of the same habits, with himself. Unfortunately it had been for a long time the practice in Ireland not to give to the persons tried that advantage which was thus intended for them, and the result was, a permanent want of confidence in the administration of justice. It had been the habit in using those powers and those forms, which in the hands of the Crown were intended for other purposes—it was the habit in using them to exclude the great majority
1612
of the people of that country from taking that share in the administration of justice which was their right. This had formerly prevailed to a great extent throughout Ireland, and to such an extent in some parts, that there were corporate cities (in which the corporations were now happily defunct) in which, for a series of years, not one Roman Catholic had ever sat on a Jury. In the present state of things, however, a better view of the subject was taken by those who had the superintendence of the administration of justice. By the precise orders given on the subject by his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Normanby), and by the noble Earl who was then absent (the Earl Fortescuc), who had lately filled the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the practice had been virtually abandoned, and since 1820 Catholics as well as Protestants had been admitted to serve on Juries, and the late Chief Baron Joy, although of what was called Orange politics, when Attorney General, seeing the advantage of having mixed Juries, had issued distinct orders on the subject, and the result was found to be most advantageous. If their Lordships looked to the various Reports upon their Table—if the Reports of their Committees upon the state of Ireland in 1824–1825 were referred to, they would see that the happiest effects had been the result, from the moment it was understood that Roman Catholics were allowed to enter into the composition of the Juries. He could quote the authorities of the most eminent Judges, of the most eminent Officers of the Crown, of the most eminent Crown Solicitors, and the most eminent Magistrates, all concurring in the opinion, that from the moment it was understood that Catholics were to act upon Juries, the administration of justice was improved, and that Roman Catholics did their duty in that respect in an exemplary manner. Such was the opinion of Mr. Justice Day, a most eminent and profound Judge; such, top, was the opinion of Mr. Barrington, the eminent Crown Solicitor; and of that useful and active Magistrate, Sir R. Becher. In short, every person of experience in the country testified to the advantages derived from this change in the old jury system. After this it was found necessary to have still more efficient rules laid down for the admission of Roman Catholics to Juries; and to prevent the powers of the Crown from being used for the purpose of excluding them, various instructions, having that object in view, were

1613
given by Judge Perrin; they were acted upon by Sir Michael O'Loghlen, and the matter was afterwards reconsidered by Chief Baron Brady, and various instructions were given, so as to insure that Catholics might be admitted on Juries. When that Return was before the House, it would be seen what had been done with respect to the admission of Catholics on Juries. He should rejoice to hear that the present Government had issued instructions to the same effect to their agents, and if it were so, the promulgation of those orders to that effect would, be believed, prove of the greatest possible advantage to them. The promulgation of these instructions would show that the power of the Crown was not to be exercised for the exclusion of persons on account of their religion: but equality was to be ensured. It would he useful to have that understood throughout the country—that it might be felt that exclusion would not attach to any person by reason of his religious opinions, but that if he were a person of respectability, he would be as likely to be left on a jury, as a person of any other religion. Circumstances to which it was not necessary for him to advert, but that were notorious to the whole country—admitted facts, which were known to the whole country—there were cases, he did not now mean a particular case, but there were certain trials that had lately taken place in Ireland, in which Catholics stood as criminals, and the jurors were exclusively Protestants. That may have been but an accident.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected that he did not consider that that was a proper subject for observation at that time.
Lord Broughamobserved, that it was one of the grounds on which the Return was moved for.
The Marquess of Lansdownedistinctly declared he did not mean to refer to an impropriety committed in a particular case. He desired to be understood as giving no such opinion. These things might have been the result of accident, and he did not contend that they were not. But some cases had occurred—which might not be known to his noble and learned Friend, if be did not read the Irish papers any more than Her Majesty's Ministers—a course had been taken by Her Majesty's Government, he believed, not with the intention or for the purpose of excluding Roman Catholics, but the result had been that the elief existed, and it was taken up by the provincial papers, and the consequence was,
1614
that great excitement, particularly in the counties of Monaghan and Tipperary, founded upon the suggestion, that it was the intention legally, nevertheless improperly to exclude Roman Catholics. They must see, then, that there was a necessity to set the people's minds right upon this matter—to make known the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. He said this, because he felt that the existence of the Trial by Jury was not only valuable, as a means of arriving at conviction—not as a means of arriving at criminal punishment; but he considered it valuable and important, as producing between man and man regard and confidence in the administration of justice. It was a most important privilege of the subject—it was one of which he ought not to be deprived, but be permitted to share in equally with his fellow subjects. He believed it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to exclude Roman Catholics from that privilege. He sincerely believed that Her Majesty's Government had no such intention—that they would feel obliged for the opportunity being given of disavowing such an intention. Possibly they would take advantage of this opportunity. At the same time he wished to impress upon the House and the public that, in submitting this Motion, he did not impeach the conduct of the Government upon a particular trial—that he did not make reference to anything that had passed in a particular case; but generally he wished it to be known, that the instructions that had been given, and which were entitled to such pre-eminent praise had not been withdrawn—that it was the intention of the Government to pursue the same course in this respect with their predecessors—that this was their intention, and this was done without meaning to cast a reflection upon individuals, whenever they might be found to exist, who had it bias in conducting prosecutions, if they were not restrained, and bound down by the directions of the Government to which he had referred.
The Motion having been put,
Lord Wharncliffewho was almost inaudible, was understood to say that a Return was made to the House of Commons in 1842, containing a copy of the instructions given to the Crown Solicitor, regarding the striking of Juries in Crown cases, and that the last instructions given were issued, as the noble Marquess observed, by Chief Baron Brady. He now held in his hand a circular which the pre-

1615
sent Attorney General for Ireland issued on this subject when he came into office. The circular referred to several matters besides that of striking Juries, and so far as it related to the instructions given by the Attorney General for the striking of Juries, he had no objection to lay a copy of it on the Table; but he did not think it would be convenient to produce a complete copy, because, as he had said, it contained some matters which were in no way connected with the present Motion. He would read that part of it relating to the striking of Juries. It was as follows:—
"The Attorney General presents his compliments to the Crown Solicitor for—,and having read the instructions given by Chief Baron Brady, as to the mode of striking Juries on the part of the Crown, requests the Crown Solicitor to continue to observe these instructions."
He trusted that, the noble Marquess would now feel satisfied that Government had made no alteration on the subject.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that as the noble Lord had promised to lay before their Lordships extracts from the circular bearing on the particular point, he would not, under these circumstances, further trouble their Lordships.
Lord Broughamfelt bound to say as he had objected to his noble Friend bringing on this Motion for fear of its leading to an unnecessary discussion, that nothing could be more fair or more correct than the manner in which he had brought it forward. The Motion referred only to Crown cases, and had nothing to do with Special Juries, the challenging of Crown Jurors and the striking out individuals from Special Juries being totally different.
Lord Campbell said,there certainly was a marked distinction between challenging Jurors in Crown cases, and striking off Special Jurors, but he hoped the instructions would not be confined to Crown cases, but that the spirit of them should be, that no man should be struck off from a Special Jury because of his religious opinions.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that although it was true the instructions referred only to Crown cases, he should be very sorry that any person should be struck off from a Special Jury on account of his particular faith. He felt that as strongly as any man.
Motion agreed to.—House adjourned.