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.
§ 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.