The Marquess of Normanbyreferred to what he had stated a few weeks since, relative to certain facts at the Monaghan Assizes, which showed an absence of sincerity on the part of the Government, or of infidelity in obeying their instructions, when it had been declared that impartiality should be observed in setting aside juries, and he had stated that he had not brought forward his statement without information from most respectable, and, he believed, trustworthy sources. His noble Friend had thereupon read a letter from the Crown Solicitor of the Circuit, giving his own explanation of the circumstances, which he (the Marquess of Normanby) was surprised to find directly in contradiction to the information he had himself received. Three jurors, it appeared had been set aside. With regard to the first, it was stated, John Hume had been servant to a Ribbon man. This was not the fact.
§ Lord WharncliffeIt was stated that he was son-in-law to John Rice, who had been recently convicted at the Armagh Assizes.
The Marquess of NormanbyWith respect to his being son-in-law, he was not, and had not been intimate with him. Then with reference to Henry Caulfield, it had been stated that he had been at the head of a faction which had committed agrarian outrages, but he was a respectable farmer, and had never been so charged; and with respect to Edward Blakewell, it had been said, that his brother had been convicted of an offence, whereas he was a person who held a considerable farm, and had never been charged with Ribbonism or any other crime. He had made an inquiry into the truth of this information, and was told that they were all respectable and unobjectionable. He believed that there had been some mistake or other with respect to them, and he complained that Mr. Hamilton had not taken pains to inform himself of the facts. Seven Catholics had been excluded from the jury, and only one left on; the general impression being, that he was left on by mistake, especially as there was only one Protestant taken off, who was declared to have been taken off by mistake. With reference to Caulfield, so far from being at the head of an association for agrarian outrage, he understood that he was an opulent person, and a large farmer; that he had been a poor-law guardian, and, like Hume, had before served on juries, and the only ground on which the statement could rest, was, that between his brother and brother-in-law, there had been a dispute—yet the brother (the person actually concerned) had served on a jury at these assizes. He believed that all three were unexceptionable men, and he regretted that Mr. Hamilton had not obtained more accurate information before he wrote to his noble Friend.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that supposing all the noble Marquess had stated, were true, it did not impugn his statement, unless the noble Marquess asserted, that these persons were struck off the jury, because they were Roman Catholics. The noble Marquess forgot that the offence which was to be tried was Ribbonism, and it was known, that these societies were almost exclusively confined to Catholics, and it was therefore the more likely that the Crown would not leave Roman Catholics on the jury. If Mr. Hamilton was at the time satisfied of the truth of the circumstances represented to him, he was justified in passing these persons by; 79 that they were Roman Catholics, was the more probable from the nature of the crime.
§ Earl FitzwilliamAnd, therefore, because the offence was confined to Catholics, the prisoners were to be tried by an exclusively Protestant jury. That was the doctrine of his noble Friend. If he understood the institution of Trial by Jury, it was that the defendants might have some one on the jury who would give due weight to their good character; if, therefore, the parties to be tried were Catholics, it was the more necessary that Catholics should be on the jury. Would his noble Friend reverse the case? and if there should be a class of crimes confined exclusively to Protestants, would he have an exclusively Catholic jury? If his noble Friend would do that, he had not another observation to make.
§ Lord WharncliffeNo, he would not. He had been unfairly, he was sure, most unintentionally, misrepresented. He did not say that a Catholic should be tried by a Protestant jury, but if a Catholic were tried for a conspiracy, and if information was given to the party conducting the case, that any person on the jury was likely to be favourable to the conspiracy, it was right to strike him off. As this conspiracy was confined to Catholics, the objection was more likely to fall upon the Catholics than the Protestants, that was all. He denied that he had said they should be confined to Protestants.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, his noble Friend assumed, that this conspiracy was confined to Catholics. He doubted whether it was; but if it were, why was it? because seven-eighths of the whole population, and a still larger portion of the lower orders, were Catholics. When it appeared by the evidence that the Catholic priesthood did all they could to discourage these societies, it was not fair to say, that Catholics, as Catholics, should be viewed with suspicion when they came to the jury box. If his information were true, the Crown Solicitor did not do his duty when he set aside a person at the head of agrarian outrages, who was known to his neighbours as a respectable man, and who had before acted on juries.
§ Lord Wharncliffedenied that the noble Marquess had produced anything to falsify Mr. Hamilton's statement. In a dispute which had existed, this very person 80 had collected the mobs. In reference to the Ribbon societies, it appeared from the Report of the Committee, that they were almost exclusively confined to Catholics —he doubted whether they were not entirely.