Sitting of 12 February 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1o Process and Practice (Ireland).

TRANSPORTATION.
SIR R. H. INGLISwished to ask his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a question, in opposition to a statement recently made in the House. Is it, or is it not, the case, that such was the excellent character with which a convict ship lately approached the coast of Australia, that, even before the convicts were landed, almost all were engaged in the employ of respectable settlers, who came on board for the purpose; and this, in the case of convicts, when two, if not more, emigrant ships were already alongside? He referred to the convicts on board the Hasheemy, under the care of that distinguished officer Dr. Browning, whom, though he did not know him, he delighted to name; who had already made seven voyages as surgeon superintendent of convicts to the Australian colonies, and whose Christian course of instruction and of discipline had been blessed in former instances as in this, so that he had been enabled to land large numbers of men, rendered useful, instead of noxious, to society, by God's blessing on his labours.
MR. HAWESsaid, that the accounts which had been received stated that one of these convict vessels arrived in Moreton Bay at the same time with (he believed) two or three emigrant ships, and that the convicts were all engaged at good wages before any of the free emigrants. Since then we had had accounts of another shipload of convicts arriving, and they had all been engaged also, and their conduct, so far as he knew, had been satisfactory.

THE FACTORY ACT.
LORD ASHLEYbegged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the recent decision in the Court of Exchequer upon the meaning and power of the Factory Act, and to ask whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure declaratory of the meaning and intentions of the Legislature in passing the Act, or to take any other steps to obviate the very evil consequences of that decision?
SIR G. GREYreplied, that he had only received the transcript of the shorthand writer's notes of the decision in the Court of Exchequer just as he was entering the House that evening; and he, therefore, had had no opportunity as yet of becoming fully informed as to the grounds upon which the decision was founded. He was anxious last year to introduce an Act to reconcile the differences existing between the various clauses of the Factory Act; but he found that the persons who held extreme opinions on both sides were averse to any such interposition, and that they were anxious to have the decision of a superior court of law upon the interpretation that should be put upon the Act. That decision had at length been obtained; but, as he had already stated, he had not as yet had time to see upon what grounds it rested.

THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaid, that he had given notice of a Motion on the present condition of our colonies, the immediate necessity for a reform of our colonial system, and that the colonies should have the power of self-government. But on Friday night last the noble Lord at the head of the Government had wisely taken the subject into his own hands, and as a debate of considerable length had ensued, during which he (Sir W. Molesworth) had had an opportunity of stating his opinions upon the subject, he did not think he should be acting properly in taking up the time of the House with the Motion which he had upon the Paper for that night. He, therefore, would not submit to the House the resolution which he had intended. At the same time, he might be permitted to say, that although nothing could be, in his opinion, sounder or more liberal in its general principles than the plan of the noble Lord, yet he was sorry that the

713
noble Lord did not go to the extent which he thought desirable and necessary for the competent conduct of the colonies. He was sorry that the noble Lord only intended to revive the Bill of last year with regard to Australia; but still he would not offer any objection to the second reading of the Bill, as it recognised the principle of representative institutions in Australia, and he thought any form of representative institutions was better than none at all. He would, however, try to obtain two elective chambers and an elective government for them. The power which the Colonial Office at present possessed was a great grievance to the colonists; and he objected to such a measure as would keep up for the Colonial Office an arbitrary power of interfering in the internal management of colonial affairs. He should propose to denude the Colonial Office of the power, and he would try to draw a distinction between an inferior and a local parliament. He should likewise object to the details of the measure, because it did not include New Zealand, which was as ready for a constitution as any of the Australian colonies. However, he would not then detain the House by stating at any further length his objections to the details of the noble Lord's measure. He would withdraw the Motion he had given notice of, and move—
"For Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence between the Colonial Office and any of the Authorities in Australia, Van Diemen's Land, or New Zealand, relating to the removal of Mr. Sidney Stephen from the Bar of Van Diemen's Land, and his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand."
Motion agreed to.

JURY LISTS (IRELAND)—CALLANAN v. CAMERON.
MR. SADLEIR, in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the facts connected with the striking of the special jury in the case of "Callanan against Cameron," reminded the House of the circumstances which took place at the State trials in 1844, not very unlike those to which he had now to ask the attention of the House. A meeting was held in Ireland on the occasion of those trials in 1844 to protest against the exclusion of Catholics from the jury; and, among the names of the parties on whose requisition the meeting was called, were those of the present Attorney General for Ireland, Sir T. Wyse, Sir T. Redington,
714
and the Master of the Mint; and the present First Minister felt it to be his duty at that time to bring the circumstances before Parliament. He (Mr. Sadleir) did not wish, on the present occasion, to attack the Government or individuals, but to expose a vicious system—a system which every man who had a stake in the country was interested in putting an end to; and he would maintain, that while religious sectarianism was allowed to defile the jury-box, it could not be supposed that the Irish people would cease to have those prejudices which, he admited, his Catholic fellow-countrymen entertained, as regarded the spirit and principles of Protestantism. They had no just idea of the true and liberal principles of Protestantism; they considered it as Orangeism—as something intolerant—as bigotry under another name. The facts of the case to which he wished to call public attention were these:—In 1848, during the disturbances in the south of Ireland, Major Cameron, of the 3rd Buffs, felt it to be his duty to take possession of some houses in Carrick-on-Suir, the property of Mr. Callanan, a respectable Catholic trader of that town. Mr. Callanan commenced an action against Major Cameron for so taking possession of his houses, ejecting the inmates, casting the furniture into the streets, and occupying the place with his soldiers. Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, acting for the defendant, obtained an order for a special jury, and when the solicitors for the plaintiff and for the defendant came to strike off, as was their right, 12 names each from the list of 48 which had been obtained by ballot, Mr. Kemmis struck off 9 of the 10 Roman Catholics on the list, and the 10th probably escaped the insult merely by the accident that he was supposed to be a Protestant. These nine names were not in consecutive order on the list, but were picked out by Mr. Kemmis from various parts of it; and when he had struck them off, he had the indelicacy to say that it was a matter of indifference to him which were the three remaining names that he objected to. Now, he (Mr. Sadleir) was personally acquainted with those nine Roman Catholic gentlemen, and could bear testimony to their unblemished reputations and undeniable respectability. As for their social position, some of them were county magistrates and deputy-lieutenants; some men of large property and moderate political opinions—men who had served on grand juries for years—men who had

715
never taken part in any political movement or discussion—men deservedly respected for their exemplary conduct as grand jurors, as magistrates, and as private gentlemen. Among them was Mr. Bianconi, whose character was well known in that House, and who had gained universal praise from all classes of men for his probity and worth. English Gentlemen were utter strangers to such a system, and hesitated, naturally enough, to believe it existed in Ireland; but the facts were too notorious to he denied. A committee of Protestant and Catholic gentlemen had drawn up a report on the system which had prevailed in striking juries in Tipperary, from which it appeared that in 1839, out of a panel of 300, 118 were Roman Catholics, of whom 16 were among the first 50, and 38 among the first 100; while in 1843 the panel was reduced to 201, and the Roman Catholics to 37, of whom 4 only were among the first 50, and 9 among the first 100. He did not state these facts to excite religious dissension, but to extract from Government a substantial, intelligible, and conclusive explanation that would satisfy the Catholic people of Ireland that the representative of royalty had had nothing to do with an insult so wantonly and deliberately perpetrated against them, as well as their Protestant fellow-countrymen. He hoped the Government would make no vague or illusory declaration; and he implored them not to lead away the House from the main issue by raising some insignificant collateral question—to avoid all topics of irritation, and not to lose time in a vain endeavour to rake up any political pamphlet or postprandial speech of his in days gone by. He cautioned the Solicitor General against meeting the Motion in the spirit of a nisi prius lawyer. The Government ought to do justice to Lord Clarendon, to the law-officers of the Crown, and to those to whom the destinies of a great nation were practically delegated. An acknowledged organ of the Irish Government had dealt in no measured terms with the present case, and had declared it a most monstrous transaction, and one that required explanation and investigation. It had even gone so far as to say it was a case in which the conduct of the Government official had been highly censurable, and the Irish public were for a time deluded into a hope that such an investigation would be made. On the other hand, it had been contended that Mr. Kemmis, the official in question, as Crown Solicitor,
716
was bound to take the course best calculated to secure a verdict for his client, just as in an ordinary case; but he (Mr. Sadleir) denied such a rule was applicable in a case in which the Crown defended. It might be said, that according to the instructions issued from time to time by the late Sir Michael O'Loghlen, Mr. Justice Perrin, and Lord Chancellor Brady, a discretionary power was vested in the Crown Solicitor; but every one acquainted with the history of Mr. Kemmis must know that such a discretionary power in his hands would be exercised so as to operate as a practical insult to every Roman Catholic. He believed him to be a gentleman of great worth in private life, as well as a clever public officer; but he knew well the system in which Mr. Kemmis had been schooled—that he had been cradled in bigotry and intolerance, and that he was the son of Mr. Thomas Kemmis, who had been the official of one of the most rampant Orangemen that ever filled the position of first law officer of the Crown. He would beg to call the attention of the House to the evidence of Mr. Thomas, and that also of Mr. William Kemmis, with reference to the marks and numbers affixed to the names of certain gentlemen in the jury list which he held in his hand, certain of those gentlemen being described as proper loyal men. But what did those words mean? They meant that proper and loyal men were pliable men—men on whom the Government of the day might rely for support in the jury-box. So much for the way in which justice had been administered in 1812. A more recent illustration of the mode of its administration was to be found in the case which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Athlone brought under the notice of the House in the course of last Session. He (Mr. Sadleir) had no intention of then occupying the time of the House by repeating the details which had already been laid before them; but he could not help noticing the grounds on which the Home Secretary met the case that had been brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Baronet defended the proceedings then impugned by pleading the defects of the law; but there was no ground for that allegation, the law being, if fairly administered, quite sufficient for all the purposes which the case brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend demanded. Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Lord Chancellor Brady,

717
and Mr. Justice Perrin, very clearly laid down the existing state of the law, and, from their explanations, nothing could be more evident than that the law was abundantly sufficient to secure equal and indifferent justice. It had been said, that in those cases the Roman Catholic gentlemen had been set aside in a spirit of kindness, lest they should be exposed to injury on account of the manner in which they might discharge their duties as jurors. That assertion was a gross calumny upon the Irish nation. He next begged to refer to what the noble Lord at the head of the Government had said with respect to the case which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Athlone had brought forward in that House; and he hoped that the noble Lord would avail himself of the present or some other opportunity to explain his sentiments on the subject. In substance the noble Lord on that occasion said that Roman Catholics and Protestants, Repealers and Anti-Repealers, should alike be considered as fitting persons to serve on juries; but when men were found who aimed at a separation of Ireland from England, who were advocates for deposing the Queen—such men, the noble Lord said, were not fitting jurors upon State trials involving that very question of separation between England and Ireland: such an issue they could not be expected fairly to try; and, if the Attorney General had any reason to think there were men of that class upon the panel, and that they would not give a fair verdict, he had a right to remove them from the list. Those were the opinions expressed by the noble Lord, and to such sentiments every well-minded Irishman must assent. Nevertheless, something like insinuation was conveyed by the speech of the noble Lord, and it was an insinuation calculated to wound and irritate the Roman Catholic gentlemen of Ireland, seeming, he thought, to imply that there were those upon the list who sympathised with rebellion. He repeated his hope that the noble Lord would explain this speech—that he would explain what he meant, when he said that he believed that to be the case with those gentlemen whose names had been removed from the list to which the hon. and learned Member for Athlone had referred. He could not help now observing, that great professions were made of a desire to put an end to religious differences: he would, therefore ask the Government to devise measures for preventing a recurrence pf such cases. Their Sovereign, when
718
She went to Ireland, plainly intimated in a hundred touching and graceful forms, that She knew no religious distinctions. An acute observer of the Irish character, Sir John Davies, said that no people loved impartial justice more than the Irish; and it ought to be the study of the Government, by an equal and impartial administration of the law, to strengthen in the hearts of the Irish people that inherent love of justice for which the Irish nation has been at all times remarkable. The Government should labour to abolish in Ireland those religious distinctions which tended to perpetuate social dissensions, retarding not only the solid recovery of Ireland, but likewise the permanent prosperity and union of the two countries.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the facts connected with the striking of the Special Jury in the case of Callanan against Cameron."
Mr. SCULLYseconded the Motion.
Mr. HATCHELLwas quite prepared to admit that the hon. Member for Carlow, in bringing forward his Motion, was actuated solely by the desire to conciliate the people of Ireland, and reconcile those differences which had so long prevailed in that country. He lamented that anything should have occurred to lead to the suspicion that the striking and empannelling of juries in Ireland had been conducted unfairly. But the fact was that the case of Callanan and Cameron still remained untried, and he thought the House would agree with him in saying that it would not conduce to the strict administration of justice in that case at this moment to cast reflections upon the manner in which the jury had been appointed. The jury had been struck according to the forms of law, and they would necessarily feel embarrassed by an impeachment of the propriety of their selection. If the hon. Member's Motion were agreed to, a Committee of this House would be sitting and the trial itself be going on at one and the same time. It should be remembered that the case adverted to was not a question between the Crown and the subject in a criminal proceeding, but an ordinary case between subject and subject. It was quite a mistake to say that the striking of any gentleman off a special jury was casting any personal disrespect on him. It was not like the ordinary case of a juror being put by in open court when about to be sworn, but the attorneys of the respective parties having attended before the

719
officer at his chamber in Dublin, each of them is hound to strike off twelve from the list of forty-eight: he is bound to make a selection, and he merely says, "I shall strike off this person that I like the least of the two, otherwise I shall have to strike off another that I would like better." That was the whole case; and if ever there was a special jury competent to try a case, it was the jury impanelled to try this trumpery case about taking possession of two old houses in Carrick-on-Suir. It would have a very had tendency to grant a Committee of Inquiry in this instance, because, if they did so, they must expect to have every man having an objection to a jury coming forward with a similar complaint, and demanding an inquiry in that House. Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, was a gentleman holding an honourable position in his profession in the city of Dublin; and it was extremely hard that that imputation should be made against a person who had no opportunity of defending himself. But the spirit which the hon. Member for Car-low had shown might best be seen from his unnecessary reference to the transactions of 1812, and his thereby seeking to arraign the son for the conduct of the deceased father. As to bringing any charge against the Government respecting this transaction, the Government had nothing to do with it: it merely ordered the Crown Solicitor to defend Major Cameron, leaving the management of the case entirely to him, like any other private action between party and party. He would endeavour to satisfy the House that there had not been the slightest intention to cast any slur on the character, or offer any insult to the religion, of the gentlemen struck off the jury. The Lord Lieutenant directed the Attorney General for Ireland to obtain from Mr. Kemmis an explanation of how the matter occurred; Mr. Kemmis wrote a letter in reply on the 24th of August last, which he would read to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read Mr. Kemmis's letter to the Attorney General of Ireland as follows:—
"Sir—In compliance with your directions, that I should acquaint you, for the information of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, with the grounds on which I reduced the jury list in the case of Callanan against Cameron, and whether I had struck off any juror on that occasion because of his religious persuasion;
"I have the honor to state, for the information of his Excellency, that the case is a civil action brought by Mr. Patrick Callanan, a shopkeeper and boatowner, in Carrick-on-Suir, against Major Cameron of the 3rd Buffs, for an alleged forcible
720
occupation of two houses in that town by him and the military under his command, on the 26th of Juno, 1848, and few following days, at a time when that part of the county of Tipperary was on the verge of rebellion.
"In defending the action, counsel advised that the trial should not be had by an ordinary, but by a special, jury of the South Hiding of the county of Tipperary, and I obtained the necessary order for the purpose.
"In the case of a special jury it is necessary, as you are aware, for the solicitors for each party to reduce the list of forty-eight names by twelve each, and I took off twelve names so as to leave those on who, from my own experience and knowledge, I believed best calculated to find a fair and impartial verdict.
"Of the twelve gentlemen whose names I took off the list, I did not strike off any one of them on account of his religion, nor did it enter into my mind that several of them professed the Roman Catholic religion until I was informed that the matter had been mentioned in the House of Commons. The jury was struck in Dublin, and to convenience the attorney for the plaintiff the forty-eight names balloted for were reduced the day after they were drawn, so that I had no time to make any particular inquiry; but as the names drawn were generally of a very respectable class, I was well satisfied to leave on those whom I happened to have a knowledge of, and knew to be well qualified fairly to try the case.
"In the performance of this duty, I exercised my best judgment and ability for the interest of my client, in the same way as I am confident any respectable solicitor would have done. This was a civil case between party and party, and there are no official directions whatsoever to guide the Crown Solicitor relative to this duty. The law requires that twelve names shall be struck off, even without reasons; and that where special reasons have guided the Crown Solicitor to any particular juror, it has not been usual publicly to state the reasons which influenced him in the discharge of his duty, though I can and do conscientiously state that it was done by me entirely irrespective of religious distinctions, and solely for the benefit of my client, as I was bound as a professional man to do."
He (Mr. Hatchell) therefore thought, after reading such a document, that the House would agree with him that where they had a solemn repudiation of the charge of sectarianism from a gentleman of Mr. Kemmis's high standing and respectability, they were bound to take it that what he asserted was true, and not rest upon any surmise or conjecture. The hon. Member for Car-low had made a very ungenerous insinuation against Mr. Kemmis; for when he found that one of the names left—namely, that of Mr. James Archer Butler—was that of a Roman Catholic, and of the first respectability in the county, he said that Mr. Kemmis must have made this single exception to his rule of choosing Protestants only through ignorance or mistake. That, he thought, was carrying his hostility to

721
Mr. Kemmis to a very unfair length. He must protest against the Motion for a Committee in respect of a case like this, which yet remained untried; and he called on the House to negative the Motion.
Mr. SADLEIRexplained that he had studiously abstained from adverting in any manner to the merits of this case; and as to his observations regarding Mr. Kemmis, he appealed to the House whether he had not gone out of his way to acknowledge Mr. Kemmis to be a perfect gentleman, and of great amiablity of character in his private capacity.
MR. SCULLYconsidered the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland no answer to the arguments of the hon. Member for Carlow. The hon. and learned Gentleman rested his argument merely on this—that this was merely the ordinary case of a civil action; but the real question was, whether the practice of selecting none but those who were called "pure and loyal men," professing only one religion, was to be continued or not. He could state, from personal knowledge, that that practice had prevailed in the county which he had the honour to represent (Tipperary); and although he admitted that it offered no insult to particular individuals, it was still a wrong to the Catholic religion, and as the representative of a Catholic county, he felt bound to protest against the system. At the trial of Mr. Smith O'Brien, at Clonmel, in September, 1848, among the first one hundred names called, there were found only five Catholics; but at the spring assizes for the same year, when there were no political charges, out of the first seventy-five names called, twenty-three were Catholics. The only remedy for the evil was to give strict instructions to the Crown solicitor to state in open court fairly and manfully his objections to any juror, and see if the objections were sound or not; and if an Act of Parliament was necessary for the purpose, one should be passed. The present partial system weakened the respect for the law in Ireland, where a man, even although he might have been fairly convicted of murder, was looked upon as a martyr, if he had been tried by a sectarian jury; and until a total change in the jury system was introduced into Ireland, discontent and social disorganisation must be expected to continue.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the precise question before the House was this—a special jury was applied for in a civil action. The
722
panel in the Crown Court and the special jurors' book were constructed on an entirely different footing. The names of all the gentlemen competent to act were placed on the special jurors' book in alphabetical order. The sheriff attended the striking of the jury, which was done in this manner: certain numbers were put into a box, and on being drawn out, a reference was made to the book to ascertain the names, and forty-eight names were thus selected by ballot out of the whole special jurors' list to serve on every cause tried by a special jury. Then what did the law allow? He agreed in the observation, that Ireland ought to have the benefit of English institutions. The same law was applicable to both countries. Out of the forty-eight names so selected, the law allowed each party the legal right to object to twelve, without being answerable to any tribunal; and it was the duty of the attorney to strike away the twelve which he considered the most objectionable, and leave the rest. If there had been any fraud, the court ought to have been appealed to on affidavit; and he decidedly objected to the system of pretermitting the opportunity of going before the judges, and involving the House of Commons in a religious discussion, when the facts were not fully before it. He thought Mr. Kemmis had exercised an honest discretion, and on every ground he should think it his duty to vote with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland.
MR. W. FAGANadmitted that it would be difficult to contradict Mr. Kemmis's denial in his letter of having been influenced by any religious bias; but he considered that the charge of partiality was justified, when they remembered that in a list of forty-eight gentlemen for the county of Tipperary, out of ten Catholic names upon it, nine were struck off, and that some of the nine happened to be some of the most influential and leading men in the county. He had great respect for those at present intrusted with the administration of affairs in Ireland; but he must say that the system of jury packing had prevailed in that country during the last two years; and the present case arising out of recent political events, Mr. Kemmis, who was known to have strong feelings against the Catholics, was believed to have been influenced in this instance by his religious prejudices. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had found fault with

723
his (Mr. Fagan's) Friend the Member for Carlow for bringing forward this question pending the cause; but it was not brought to trial because the plaintiff had no confidence in the jury—not because the jury were not respectable, for he (Mr. Fagan) believed they were—but because he was under the conviction that justice would not be done in consequence of the mode in which the jury had been struck. He (Mr. Fagan) hoped, however, that such conviction would be removed from the plaintiff's mind by the discussion of that evening. He admitted that the statement of Mr. Kemmis had in a great degree removed from his mind the impression that he was actuated by any sectarian feeling; but when there were only nineteen Catholics altogether on the sheriff's special list in Tipperary, it must be admitted that list was not fairly made out, for certainly there were more than nineteen Catholics in the county of Tipperary who were entitled to be put on the special jury list.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must join with his hon. and learned Colleague the Solicitor General for Ireland in requesting the hon. Member for Carlow not to press this question to a division. He protested against the House at all entertaining a question of this description except there was a direct charge of corruption brought against the public officer. It was not to be contended that that House should sit as a court of appeal upon his acts on the ground merely that he exercised his discretion on the part of his client, for he could not fairly exercise that discretion if his acts were to be made the subject of inquiry in that House or elsewhere. They would fetter his discretion, which should be left totally unfettered, for otherwise he could not act fairly and justly towards his clients. He had assisted in the trial of many political offenders, and had often given instructions to strike the names of gentlemen off the list of jurors; but there never had been the slightest discussion in that House as to the undoubted right of those who acted for him to strike the names of twelve persons from the list. He wished the same mode of law to be applied to the two countries. If there was to be a Select Committee, let it not be to investigate a particular case; but let it be an inquiry bearing on some general measure applicable to the two countries, and if the system was defective, then have one general measure for the reform of the law in both countries. At a period when
724
English proprietors were about to embark their property in Ireland, it seemed to him that, in entertaining this question, they were taking a course that was highly calculated to shake their confidence. They did not hear of such complaints being made in England, and nothing could so shake the confidence of those men who might become the purchasers of land in Ireland as to suppose that in the case of a trial before a jury, on the mere assertion of parties, the matter might be brought before the House of Commons. He implored of the House, whenever there was a matter exciting public interest in the country, and when the minds of jurors should be calm, not to further excite the minds of parties in the neighbourhood by provoking discussion in that House. Let them not do it now at the very moment when this case might be about to be brought forward before the tribunal that was to try it. He did not draw any distinction between public and private cases, but objected that the House, except in cases where there was a charge of corruption, should discuss such questions at all. He trusted the hon. Member for Carlow would be satisfied with the disavowal of Mr. Kemmis, and that the discussion would be allowed to terminate.
MR. HUMEthought it was unwise, impolitic, and improper to bring forward any judicial question in that House except on specific grounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General asked who complained of such a thing being done in England; and his (Mr. Hume's) answer was, no one; because in England the juries were justly struck; but there was no comparison to be made in that respect between England and Ireland. Why had Sir Colman O'Loghlen made a regulation that no man should be challenged as a juror on account of being a Roman Catholic, but because the fact of a man being a Roman Catholic, was formerly deemed a sufficient ground for striking him off the panel? Wherever such acts were committed, or where there was even a suspicion of such acts having been committed, the Government should not wait until they were goaded on by individuals, but should voluntarily do their best to remove all grounds of complaint. The fact of the Orange party being allowed to trample under foot the Roman Catholics, had been the cause of great discontent, and he trusted he would see the time when that system would be put an end to—when Protestant and Catholic would alike enjoy the civil rights they were entitled to, and

725
when all suspicion of injustice would be removed. With regard to the present question, the matter being under judgment was a sufficient reason for not pressing the inquiry.
MR. SADLEIRfelt he ought not to take a division on the subject that night, not precisely on account of the reply which he had received from the Government, but from the thin state of the House. The Solicitor General for Ireland had abandoned the broad constitutional ground on which he (Mr. Sadleir) had put the question, and had endeavoured to lead the House away upon collateral and technical issues, and had said that the Irish people never should have heard of what went on in the office of the gentleman whose duty it was to preside over the jury ballot. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman was a man of mature experience, he had grown gray in years, and was familiar with the prejudices and feelings of his countrymen; and yet he had endeavoured to mislead English Gentlemen, and to delude them into the erroneous notion that in an action in which a private individual Roman Catholic was plaintiff, and the Crown was substantially the defendant, the mode of procedure adopted by the Crown officer in striking the jury could be cushioned in Ireland. Knowing, as the people of Ireland did, that the practical working of the system enabled the Crown to exclude Roman Catholics from the jury box, every Irishman looked with anxiety to the conduct of the Crown Solicitor in such a case as that of "Callanan against Cameron." Secrecy in Ireland in such a case was an utter impossibility. He (Mr. Sadleir) disclaimed casting any imputation on the conduct of Mr. Kemmis as a private gentleman, or saying that there had been any legal defect in these proceedings; but, as the law stood, a discretionary power was vested in the Crown Solicitor, and the charge he made against Mr. Kemmis was that he had not exercised that discretionary power wisely, fairly, or justly. He (Mr. Sadleir) felt he had a right to complain that he had never received a copy of Mr. Kemmis's letter, although the subject was brought by him before the House last Session, and had since been much discussed in Ireland. Mr. Kemmis had represented that he was not aware of the religious opinions of the nine gentlemen whose names had been struck out of the jury list, and that he had not taken off those names because they were Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Sadleir) supposed he
726
must give his credence to that gentleman, and must believe those two statements; but he must tell the House that neither one statement nor the other would be believed in Ireland. Mr. Kemmis was between 70 and 80 years of age, and had been 50 years attending the assize—many of those years at Clonmel, where some of those nine gentlemen acted as grand jurors; and to tell the House that the Crown Solicitor was not aware, that Mr. Scully, the Messrs. Doherty, and the Messrs. Power, were Roman Catholic gentlemen in the county of Tipperary, was what would not be believed in that county, or in the whole province of Munster. Then, as to Mr. Kemmis not having struck off the nine gentlemen because they were Roman Catholics, the House would bear in mind the statement which he had already made, and which had not been contradicted, that Mr. Kemmis went up and down the list, and one after, the other took from it the names of those nine gentlemen, and having done so, he proceeded to take off three Protestant gentlemen. To say that this was all done by accident, was a statement which would not be believed in Ireland. He would not divide the House, but would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
MR. KERbegged to make an observation with respect to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, in reference to the Orange party in Ireland. He begged to enter his protest against that party being supposed to have any association with, or to be affected by the acts of the Solicitor General of a Whig Government in Ireland. It was possible that the Orange party themselves might hereafter be found complaining, and for the same reason that the Roman Catholics complained on the present occasion.
Motion negatived.

PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. NAPIERmade an appeal to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, on behalf of some of the officers of the Irish Court, who had been appointed to their offices during good behaviour, which was considered equivalent to a freehold; but who, under the 37th Clause of this Act, were to receive compensation at the mere discretion of the Commissioners of the

727
Treasury. This clause had created the greatest alarm in Ireland, and he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would consent to alter it in Committee.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwas disposed to admit that there was a great deal of force in what his hon. and learned Friend had urged, and he had no doubt that the Treasury would accede to the claims of these Gentlemen. He could not, however, give any promise on a subject which it was not within his province to determine. He should propose to commit the Bill pro formâ, and introduce several alterations, before it underwent a discussion in Committee, and he would, therefore, fix the Committee for the 25th inst., upon the understanding that a later period should be taken for the bonâ fide committal of the Bill.
Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday, 25th February.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. TURNERsaid, that he was as anxious to avoid the delays and expense incurred in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and he would add, of the Court of Chancery in England, as his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; and he hoped, either immediately before Easter or immediately afterwards, to introduce a remedy for the delay and expense occasioned by the proceedings in the Court of Chancery in England. Having made that statement, he would mention also that the remedy which he desired to see applied was a sound, safe, and practical remedy. But on looking into this Bill, he must say that it appeared to him, as well as he could form a judgment upon it from the time which he had been able to bestow upon its consideration, that the remedies which it contained were calculated to do more mischief in the Court of Chancery, to create more delay, and occasion more expense, than under the present system. He spoke on that subject without the slightest prejudice, for he could assure the House that the very scheme of the proceeding by petition on which this Bill was founded, was the original scheme which he himself entertained for a reform of the Court of Chancery in England, and to which he had given the most anxious attention. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to base
728
the whole jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in Ireland on proceedings by petition and affidavit. Now, what was the difference between his hon. and learned Friend's proposition and the course which was now pursued? Did the present proceeding by bill differ from the proceeding by petition, which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to substitute for it? Taking into account the fact that the Bill proposed to give the petitioners power to annex interrogatories to their petition, it seemed to him that it was merely giving another name to a similar course of proceeding, with this additional inconvenience, that whereas, in the proceedings by bill, the signature of counsel was a guarantee for the statements which it embodied, a petition might contain any allegation which a solicitor chose to insert, thus losing the security afforded by the attention and care of counsel to the introduction on the record of that only which was material to be stated for the consideration of the court. Again, by this proceeding by petition and affidavit, the advantage—not a very great one, but still not to be left out of sight—of cross-examining witnesses, was lost altogether, and the court would be called upon to adjudicate on claims to property of an enormous amount—50,000,000 l. at least—by a petition verified by affidavit only. He did not mean to say that proceedings by petition ought not to be adopted in any case; but he would assert that in many cases such proceedings would lead to great loss, and that after all the expense of it had been incurred, recourse must be had to the third clause of the Bill, which empowered the Court of Chancery to direct a suit to be instituted. He would also beg the attention of the House to the fourth clause, which provided that if any party, at any stage of the proceedings, objected to the course of proceeding by petition, he might apply to the court to stop the proceedings, and direct a suit to be instituted in the ordinary way; whereupon the court was to make such order as should seem to be just. His hon. and learned Friend might take what measures he pleased to shorten the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, and he (Mr. Turner) would assent to them, provided the proceedings were really shortened; but the course pointed out by the Bill would certainly lead to greater delay than at present. The next branch of the Bill proposed a remedy which, if fully and properly carried out, he had the greatest anxiety to see

729
brought into operation. One of the great evils of the Court of Chancery was, and always had been since the foundation of the court, that it would do no justice unless it could do complete justice; and the consequence was, that when a question arose on the construction of a deed or will, the Court of Chancery ordered that the whole accounts of an estate should be taken before it pronounced an opinion. Day by day cases came under his consideration as counsel, in which he could give no opinion till this process had been gone through. The result was, that the estate went into the Master's office, and hundreds of pounds were spent before he could determine whether the residue was vested or not. He alluded to that part of the Bill which empowered persons to present a petition for the opinion of the court upon a special case; but he must see that this clause was carried out with safety to the rights of married women and infants, as it was well known that all sorts of contrivances were resorted to to defeat the claims of such parties. The ninth clause provided that a party might file a petition, praying for the opinion of the court upon a special case, and that it should be lawful for the court to give judgment upon such petition, which judgment should bind all such persons as the court should direct, and in default of such direction, should bind all such persons as presented the petition. In the absence, then, of any direction by the court, the petitioners would be bound by the result of that petition, and nobody else. But then the clause went on to enact as follows:—
"And when the opinion of the court is desired in any matter in which any infant, idiot, lunatic, married woman, or any person uncertain, unknown, or not to be found, is interested, it shall be lawful for the Master of the court in rotation to direct the presenting of such petition by way of special case, on behalf of the infant, idiot, lunatic, married woman, or such other person, and such direction of the Master shall be conclusive to all intents and purposes."
If, then, any hon. Member of that House happened to have a child abroad in Italy or in France, anybody might go to the Master of the Court of Chancery and present a petition in the shape of a special case, upon which the Master's direction would be conclusive; and when the infant returned to this country he might find all his property gone without the sanction or concurrence of anybody who had the least right to interfere in his concerns. Now, this was not the manner in which
730
the House ought to legislate. Acts of Parliament ought to be more carefully prepared when they came before the House in the shape of Bills, than was the case with the present measure. On looking into the next branch of the Bill, he found it proposed that the court should have power, when any petition was presented with respect to the administration of the estate of a deceased person, the foreclosure and redemption of mortgages, the appointment of new trustees, and the allowance and maintenance to infants, and also with respect to such other branches of the jurisdiction of the court as the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with the assistance of the Master of the Rolls, should by any general order from time to time direct, refer the petition to the Master, without notice to any other parties, either generally or with such special directions as to the court might seem fit. Let the House only conceive the state to which these provisions would reduce the Court of Chancery. He would take the case which constantly occurred, of eight, ten, or twenty parties going before the Master, all represented by one solicitor. The House would observe that, by the thirteenth clause of the Bill, the Master was empowered to give such relief as the case might require, and was to have the same jurisdiction as might have been exercised by the court in a suit. The court was thus enabled to escape from the responsibility of adjudication on matters referred by parties to its decision, and the powers of the court were given to the Master, who must be set in motion by the solicitor; and in every case when there were eight, or ten, or twenty parties before him, there might be as many propositions before the Master as to what he should do. Bad as the existing system was, it was twenty times better than that which the Bill proposed to establish. He wished his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to understand that he made these observations with a full regard to the other duties which he had to discharge, and to the impossibility of his minutely considering the language and details of the Bill. But he pressed his objections with the greater force on account of an Act passed in the last Session, which the House found it necessary to pass another Act to suspend, and it was therefore, he said, that this Bill was quite a disgrace to legislation. The thirteenth clause, which was the one now in question, provided that the Master should exercise the powers which it conferred

731
upon him, within the limits and subject to the restrictions and regulations therein provided. Now, he had searched through the Bill, and he had not been able to find what limits or restrictions or regulations there were by which the Master was to he guided. He would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend the propriety of either withdrawing this Bill, and bringing in another in a more efficient shape, or of referring it to a Select Committee, where it might be moulded into a form fit for the wants and exigencies, not only of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, but in England also. He could assure him that every notion that had crossed his (Mr. Turner's) mind on the subject of reform in the Court of Chancery, would be quite open to his hon. and learned Friend, if he desired it. His (Mr. Turner's) own Bill was in the course of preparation, and, as he had said already, he hoped to be able to lay it on the table of the House either immediately before or immediately after Easter.
The SOLICITOR GENERALconfessed that he was a little taken by surprise at the warmth exhibited by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry, but he was quite aware that this was only the beginning of a great deal of opposition which the Bill would have to encounter. He could not say, however, that the observations of his hon. and learned Friend had quite convinced him that the Bill was so defective as he represented. His hon. and learned Friend said that the proceedings by petition was objectionable, because it was nothing more than proceeding by bill. If so, it certainly would not be more objectionable than the present mode of proceeding. The objection that a petition had not the sanction of counsel's signature might be obviated, when the Bill got into Committee, by requiring counsel's signature to a petition. His hon. and learned Friend said that statements might be introduced into a petition which would not appear in a bill; but it should be borne in mind that the Court of Chancery had the power of striking out any portion of the proceedings which was not relevant to the matter in issue, and of making the parties pay for the improper introduction of that matter. Their jurisdiction extended as much over petitions as over proceedings by bill in this respect. And it should be recollected that the costs of the proceedings by bill were in proportion to its length, which was not the case in petition; and one of the greatest reforms in the Court
732
of Chancery would be to make it the interest of the practitioner not to make the proceedings of great length. Another objection put forward by his hon. and learned Friend was, that there was no cross-examination of witnesses. That objection was open to a double answer. In the first place, the Bill provided that the parties who proceeded by petition might annex interrogatories to the petition, while the respondents also might file interrogatories, to be answered by the petitioners. The court also had power given by the Bill to direct evidence to be taken vivâ voce. But the system of the examination of witnesses in the Court of Chancery was so preposterous, that the late Mr. Bell stated, when examined before a Committee on the subject of reform of the Court of Chancery, that in the whole course of his experience he never had cross-examined a witness, unless he had examined in chief, or unless he could be cross-examined on the ground of interest. The reason for this caution was obvious to those who were acquainted with the practice of the court; the witness was cross-examined without its being known what he had deposed to in his examination in chief. The consequence was, as all practitioners of the Court of Chancery knew, that a cross-examination was very likely to prove an adversary's case. Another objection urged by his hon. and learned Friend was, that the 9th clause provided that the opinion of the court upon a special case bound the parties by whom the petition was presented, and also those parties who were under disabilities, if a petition was presented in their name. But in the latter class of cases the sanction of the court or of the master must be obtained before the question could he argued. Then counsel appeared, and argued on behalf of the party disabled, and whether that party was in England or in France was of no more importance than whether he was in the next street or at the sea-side. No special case would be sanctioned by the master if a mere stranger interposed. Some reliance must be placed on the judges of the court, and their knowledge of the principles and practice of equity. He did not pretend to say that the phraseology of this Bill was exact in every particular, and he should be only too happy to avail himself of the results of his hon. and learned Friend's knowledge and experience when he brought forward his Bill; but he must say that the present system of the Court of Chancery amounted to a denial of justice in a very

733
great number of cases, since it had been stated by so high an authority as Mr. Pemberton Leigh, that no man recommended a recourse to the Court of Chancery unless the matter in dispute was of the value of 1,000 l. That was a disgrace to the English system of procedure; and as it was essential to alter this cumbrous system, the Legislature could not well do otherwise than trust to the discretion of the judges to make such orders as they thought fit to issue for that purpose. His hon. and learned Friend objected to the clause by which certain classes of petitions might be referred summarily to the master, even without notice, and by which he was empowered to determine what the parties themselves wished to refer to the decision of the court. He admitted that the court ought to determine all those matters which should be decided before a reference to the master, and therefore the Bill gave a permissive and not a compulsory power. The clause specified four particular classes of cases. Now, let it be supposed that a man filed a long Bill stating a will, and other proceedings, under which he was interested. In the ordinary course of things there would be a Bill, an answer, an amended Bill, a second answer, a replication, and so on, till five or six counsel were retained to conduct the proceedings in court, and then one of them would get up and say, "My Lord, this is a common administration suit, and I ask for the usual decree." Now, he (the Solicitor General) would say, "Get the usual decree at once, and abolish proceedings which are of no use whatever, except to put money in the pocket of the practitioner." So, again, with respect to the foreclosure and redemption of mortgages; it was proposed that these matters of course should be referred to the master in the first instance. Very considerable steps had already been taken in that direction, as the working of the Joint Stock Companies Act evinced. The master took the accounts, which was the only matter in issue between the parties, who had, nevertheless, the power of appealing to the court from his decision. A power was also reserved to the court to substitute the old mode of proceeding, and to parties also to apply to the court for the same purpose, at the peril, it must be admitted, of costs. There might, perhaps, be objections to the wording of the Bill, but he felt that he was justified in calling on the House to support him in carrying it into Committee, He must now beg permission
734
of the House to say one word on a matter personal to himself. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry alluded to what he was pleased to call disgraceful legislation as regarded a Bill which was brought in and passed last year, and with respect to which, towards the end of the Session, another Bill was introduced to suspend its operation until a late period in the present year. The Bill which passed last year through both Houses, would, he believed, be found highly beneficial, and he was not aware until a late period that objections were entertained to some of its provisions in certain quarters. He might have stopped the Bill at any of its stages, as was well known to the hon. and learned Member for Newark, but he preferred allowing it to pass, and bringing in a short Bill to suspend its operation for a certain period; he, therefore, did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was justified in using the expression "disgraceful legislation."
MR. TURNER, in explanation, said, that he did not allude to the Bill of last year, but to that of the present year. He did not intend, in the hasty expression he had used, to give any personal offence,
Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Bishop of Down and Connor, and Dromore.
PUBLIC BILLS. 1o Acts of Parliament Abbreviation. 2o County Cess (Ireland).

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ABBREVIATION.
LORD BROUGHAM, in presenting a Bill for abridging the wording of Acts of Parliament, observed that he had made frequent attempts in that House—he was going to say with more or less success, but it was hardly possible to do so with less success, unfortunately—to amend the only manufacture which had received no improvement for the last 150 years—that of Acts of Parliament. We went on from one generation to another without improvement, thereby causing the greatest evil to the subject, to the law, and to the courts of justice above all things. He had intended to introduce very large improvements in the law, but he would be contented to accept even the smallest possible improvement, which he had pleged himself to introduce in his letter to Sir J. Graham; and with that view he begged to lay before their Lordships a Bill for shortening the language used in framing Acts of Parliament. One clause now introduced into every Bill he proposed to supersede altogether, for it was a ludicrous one—"That this Act may be altered, amended, or repealed during the present Session of Parliament"

709
—the ground on which it had been heretofore used being, that every Act was supposed to be part of one Act, all the Acts of a Session forming one statute. He proposed to enact that every Act should be alterable, repealable, or amendable during the Session. Another proposition was, that no necessity should exist of constantly repeating words "and further enacting;" but that each section of each Act should follow the word "that," which would be perfectly sufficient. Another very important improvement had been often suggested to him by special pleaders. At present you only cited a former Act by saying, "by virtue of an Act, entitled an Act to do so and so," &c, giving the title and the year of its passing. He meant to propose that in future you should be enabled to refer to any Act, merely stating the chapter and section, with the year of the king's reign. This, and one or two other points, might have been considered by the great Bentham as mock reforms, because they were of very small amount, but it did not therefore follow that they were of very small importance.
Bill read 1a.

THE CAPE COLONY.
LORD STANLEYhad to present to their Lordships two petitions from the Cape of Good Hope, one signed by 4,000 persons, the other from the district of Port Elizabeth, signed by 8,000. The petitioners entered at considerable length into the case of the convicts sent out from this country. It was not his intention to refer to the Order in Council, or the conduct of Government concerning it, inasmuch as he believed it had been withdrawn in deference to the unanimous feeling of the colonists. He would only express his regret that the order should have been issued before it was ascertained that the colonists were willing to receive the convicts, thereby placing the Government in a very inconvenient situation. He hoped that no attempt would be made to renew the order, and should wish to hear an assurance to that effect from the noble Earl opposite.
EARL GREYhad no difficulty whatever in giving the noble Lord the assurance he required. He could not conceive that there could exist, under present circumstances, any intention of again passing an Order of Council on this subject. As the whole course of the Government was fully explained in the despatches laid on the table, which, he believed, had now been distributed,
710
he should follow the noble Lord's example in abtaining from comments, adding only one observation with reference to the passing of the Order in Council, that it was not intended to act upon it, except in one special and particular case, until the sentiments of the inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope had been ascertained. It would be seen by those despatchss, that Her Majesty's Government were placed in a situation of extreme embarrassment with respect to the disposal of certain convicts who were at Bermuda, having been sent there in consequence of offences committed during the unfortunate famine which had prevailed in Ireland. The objections to sending them to any other colony were extreme, and the course adopted was considered upon the whole the least objectionable of any. But, undoubtedly, it was never contemplated by Her Majesty's Government to establish, as a regular system, the practice of sending convicts to a colony not originally established as a convict colony, without the consent of the great body of the inhabitants.
LORD BROUGHAMmust again enter his protest against the conduct of the inhabitants at the Cape of Good Hope. A most unjustifiable course, he felt bound to say, was pursued by them. It was neither more nor less than harsh and cruel to treat in this way persons who, though criminal, were suffering a most cruel punishment, having been already confined for three months on board ship.
LORD STANLEYcertainly thought the colonists had gone far beyond what they were justified in doing, and did not mean to vindicate their conduct in all points.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwished to draw attention to one circumstance connected with the lot of the persons whose transportation had produced such extreme excitement at the Cape. The captain of a ship engaged by contract to carry convicts to their destination was bound to have on board a quantity of provisions and water far exceeding the probable consumption of those on board. In this case it appeared that whilst the ship lay at the Cape, the water was expended, and only 4001bs. of beef remained, there being hardly any other provision on board. Had there been a gale off the Cape, the probability was that every one of these persons would have died of famine.
EARL GREYdid not know that there was any reason to find fault with the manner in which the contract had been performed

711
in this case. Very probably the small quantity of provisions on board was to be accounted for by the extraordinary long passage of the vessel, which, on many accounts, was most unfortunate. The ship left Bermuda on the 22nd April, and arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on the 19th September, a period very considerably longer than the average passage from this country to New South Wales.
Petitions to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Thursday.