Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
.
2
A HISTORY OF JURY PACKING IY TRe LAND.
BY THE ABBE PERRAUD.
(Tranelated from his * Etudes sur l’Irelande Contemporaine.”*}
RIAL by jury is not an achievement of modern times. As
far back as tho beginning of the middle ages, it was the
one institution which, in times of violence, secured justice,
and afforded protection to the weak and o) sed.
The vigor of this principle has never flagged in the British
Constitution, which,— inclined to mildness rather than to se-
verity, in order effectually to protect the accused against the
rigor of the law,—never admits a verdict unless nuanimons.
In England, this principle works freely enough: the jury is
ordinarily of the sawe race and creed ax the accused: preja-
dice does not necessarily act either for cr against him; hence,
every conflict of opposite and fixed conclusions, ends in the
triamph of the milder and more humane sentiment,
In Ireland, too, the unanimity ef the jury is essential tothe
yalidity of the verdict; therefore, when the accused is a
Catholic, and the government wants a verdict of guilty, it
Imost necessarily empannel an exclusively Protestant
jury ; or, if he be a Protestant of the national party, it must
empannel either men entirely devoted to English interests, or
members of the Orange faction.
But how is this to be done? By what means can the gov-
eroment infallibly get a jury upon whose verdict it can count
in avy decisive circumstance ?
In every Irish county, the task of selecting those qualified
to act as jnrors, devolves upon the justices of the peace at the
quarter sessions. As a general rule, every freeholder is ¢n-
tered in the jurors’ book.
It is the High Sheriff of the county—the nominee of the
Lord Lieutenant—tbat selects, before the assizes, a number
fn from tbe jurors’ book: this second list is what is
properly termed the jury panel.
‘The prerogatives of the sheriff,—-who is, of course, a gov-
isan, a large landowner, and very frequently a
Protestant,—are, in the matter of jury empannelliog, bri:
these: the power of entering names upon, or excluding them
from, this list, a power discretiouary and uncoxtroiled; dis-
cretionary and uncontrolled power of placing the names inthe
order best suited to meet a contemplated eventuality.
Out of two or three thousand names, for instance, entered
in the jurors’ book, the sheriff makes a panel (list) of one
hundred and fifty, taking care to head the list by forty or fifty
jarors whose opinions are known to him and upon whom the
government can count.
Before tbe trials begin, these names are culled over, in the
order in which they are entered. The accused bas a right to
challenge ; Lut he cau only challenge twenty of them.
= to the crown, its right of challenging is unlimited;
and the magistrate who exercises it in the name of the
crown challenges, accordingly, until the final list consists of
twelve names on whose possessors government has implicit
reliance.
Such is the proceeding known by the nume of jary-pack-
ing; a proceeding invariably had recourse to whenever gov-
ernment reason to believe that the desired unavimity
would not be found in a jury honestly empavnelled.
Of what do the Irish complain? ask the London papers,
with mock sincerity, Have they not got trial by jury like
o
urselves .
Earl Kussell shall answer this question, and complete the
quotation, of which only the first few words are given above:
“Tt i
Is it so,
etual matter of com-
plaint in Ireland, and more than once in England. On one
occasion I recollect that an honorable member of this House,
who in those days was accustomed to represent with great
force and eloquence the grievances of all who were oppressed,
whether in Europe or in America, Africa, or Asia, whether
the complaints were made by white men or black, 1 mean Mr.
Brougham, brought this complaint uw i
House in terms of very great strength and effect, in June,
1823, on presenting a petition complaining of the administra-
tion of justice in Ireland. Mr. Brougham then said:
“<The la England esteemed all men equal. It was
sufficient to be born within the King's allegiance to be enti-
tled to all the rights the loftiest subject of the land enjoyed.
None were disqualified by it; and the cnly distinction was be-
tween naturi subjects and aliens, Such. indeed, was
the liberality of our system in times which we call barbarous,
bai m which, in these enlightened days, it might be well
to take a hint, that even if a man were an alien born, be was
not deprived of the protection of the law. Jn Ire
ever, the law held a directly opposite doctrine.
which a man belonzed—the cas!
grounds on which the law separated him from his fellows,
and inured him to the endurance of a system of the most
cruel injustice.’
Such was the statement of Mr. Brougham, in those days
when Mr. Brougham was the advocate of the oppressed. Was
this the statement of a man ignorant of the condition of Ire-
land ; of a person who was stating that for which he hid not
sufficient foundation; who had been misinformed by enthu-
siasts and grievance-mongers? Not at all. Facts of the
same description were stated in the most positive language
by Sir Michael O’Loghlen, in his evidence before the House
of Lords, in 1839. He said that he had been in the habit for
nineteen years of attending the Munster Circnit. On that cir-
cuit, he said, it was the custom of the crown toset aside from
the jury all Roman Catholics and all liberal Protestants; and
he stated it as his belief that this practice was carried to a
still greater extent on other circuits. @ stared one case of
this practice occurring as late as the year 1834, when Lord
Wellesley was Lord Lieutenant, and when Mr. Blackburne,
the present Master of the Rolls, was the attorney-general.
He stated that in that case, not a@ political case, forty-three
*This great work was published in 1862 in 2 vols., 8 vo., (Paris,
C. Douniol, Rue de Tournon.) It was preceeded by a letter o:
high commendation from the celebrated Bishop of Orleans, Mgr.
Dupanloup. Its terrible indictment ot English misrule in Ire-
land has never been refuted by any English writer. Indeed, as
its facts are exclusively taken from docum
ritish Government, and from
di
ard authorities, it belongs (like all true recurds of English rule
in Treli e order of controversial books which the French
charactenz “8 pplique”—unanswerable. The ent
at
trial of Haynes shows tbat the system of jury packing,
tory is detailed by the eloquent Abbo, is still in full to
land. The Abbe is now Bishop of Antun, one of the immortal
forty of the French Aeademy.
whose his-
rce in Ire-
REDPATH’S ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY‘
persons had been set aside, and that thirty-six of those were
Roman Catholics, and seven Protestants, Amongst them
were magistrates, aud leaseholders; and persons of considera.
ble property. * * Now, are these the laws of England?
Does this at all resemble what takes place in selecting a jury in
Kent, or Sussex, or Yorkshire, or Lancashire? ° Are these the
laws, the just and equal laws, which Mr. Pitt promised should
be extended to Ireland? Is this the fulfilment of the promises
made at the Union? Is it not ratber, as Mr. Brougham said,
the distinction at once of sect aud party—the separation of
those who call themselves Protestants—which is, in fact, in
Treland, a political denomination from the rest of the commu-
nity it not supremacy of political Protestants cor-
rupting the sources of justice. and defrauding the people of
that right of trial by an impartial jury which was declared due
to them by the constitution of this country?”
The writers of the national party, or, as it is known on the
continent, Young Ireland, stoutly maintain that the system of
ary Packing is .an essential part of the machinery of the
British Govermwent iu ‘the sister isle.” One of them one
day told us, not without some appearance of reason, it must
be confessed, that the instruments of oppression there are
generally in harmony, with the form of government which
. An absolute government which need not trouble
itself about public opinion may, without avy immediate in-
lose everything. On the contrary, by jury packing appear-
Bces &re saved, constitutional forms seem to be respected,
legality is not outroged, and the end is obtaived, more slowly
it is true Lut more surely.
One would be inclined to look upon these accusations as the
habitual recriminations of theyvavquished, aud the avgry pro-
testations of nn impotent minority did examination 0: facts
not clearly prove that it is no paradox. » Jury packing is an
essential part of the machinery ot the English government in
Ireland. It is used in the nineteenth quite as effectively as it
asin the sixteenth century, and forthe same purpose.
Whilst on most other points no two things can be more di-
vergent than the policy of Whig und Tory, packed juries have
the privilege of uniting in an astounding concord adversaries
abitally irreconcileable, as though it were a matter settled
beyond the possibility of discussion that without jury packing
government is an impossibility in Ireland.
In his curious dialogue of Eucoxus and Iremens, written in
1596, Spenser very nuively sets forth the necessity incumbent
upou the Evglish of watching over and regulating this insti.
tution (which in Evgland required no superintendence), in
very much the same way as certain revolutionists enlighten.
and regulate universal suffrage, to. prevent i! ing any
grievous mistakes, The fault lies with Irishmen, eays he;
for whenever they eat on a jury in a trial where the accused
was ou Eoglishuan, he was doomed to destruction. ‘They
ma more scruple to passe against an Englishman, and
the queene, though it be to stragn their oathes, than to drink
milke unstrayned.” .
‘Lhe law then was in itself excellent; but the Irish obliged ;
them (the Eugvish) to look after aud regulate its working.
The edy was evidently for the officers of the
crown, judges, aud other magistrates to take care im empan-
neling juries to get a majority of Englishmen, and to select
such Irish as were Of the ** soundest judgment and disposition.”
An excellent remedy, doubtiess, hud not the inevitable dis-
advantage of making the ** Irish partie crye out of partialitie,
and cou:plaine h no justice—he is not used as a sub-
ject, he is not suffered to have the free benetite of the Jaw.”
For the last three centuries, indeed, they have thus appre-
ciated jury packing, without, however, having been able to
revent its continuance.’ But what human institution would
stand, if its abuses were made an. unanswerable argument
against it in spite of priceless advantages, which are quite as
highly appreciated by the ministers. of Queen Victoria as by
the counsellors and adwirers of Diizabeth?
e w with what energy the lieutenant of Charles I.,
Viscount Wentworth (afterwards Lord Strefford), turned jury
packing to accou:t in the royal interest of England. The
jawyers, whom the viscount took over with his soldiers, dis.
covered that the whole of Connacht had no other lawful
owner than his majesty, With an imposing force to back it,
this decision of the lawyers was being universally and. ser.
vilely received, when the triumph of the spoiler met with an
unexpected check in the county Galway. Stravgely enovgh,
Wentworth did not meet this resistance with the sword.
legal seruple obliged him to have recourse to a jury. To
twelve jurymen was accordingly committed the task of decid.
ing between the inhabitants of Galway, who wanted to hold
their lands, and the crown, which coveted them.
No pains were spared to extort from this jury a verdict in
the king’s favor. But, notwithstanding all Wentworth’s ef.
forts, the verdict confirmed to the inbabitants the possession
of their domains. Darcy, the sheriff, was immediately ar-
rested on the charge of having empanneled a bad jury—
Wentworth asked for his head. Sentenced to a fine of £1,000,
Darcy died in prison of ill-treatment. As to the jurymen,
they appeared before the star chau:ber of Dublin, and were
sentenced to pay a fine of £4,000 each; and, besides, to de-
clure, upon their kuees, before the viceroy, that not only they
ad been mistaken in their verdict, but that they had been
guilty of actual perjury. They unanimously refused to sub-
anit to this hamiliation. .
After having punished, in this exemplary manner, the bad
oa
6 none
judgment and disposition.” ‘This good jury did, in fact, give
4 good verdict, deciding that the County Galway, like the rest
of Connacht, belonged to the king.
When, some time afterwards, Strafford appeared before
Parliament, his:violence in Darcy’s case, and that of the first
jury, figured amon; counts upon which he was con-
demued. Not a word, however, is said of the packing of the
second jury; whether it be that this appeared slight in com-
parison with the other charges, cr whether the advantages re-
sulting from the proceeding exculpated him in the eyes of
Parliament.—To be continued next week.
was informed, two weeks ago, that the
TRINITY CHURCH Vestry of Trinity Church had ordered
AND repairs to be wade at once on its foul
118 TENEMENTS, and child-murdering tenement houses,
id not believe the story, but I have not
had time to verify it, and therefore I shali give this hoary-
headed and heartless sinner, the Trinity Corporation, the
benefit of the doubt until I have a little leisure to investigate
the facts. A contributor is preparing a history of Trinity
Corporation for this journal.
A DISTINGUISHED ERISIE PATRIOT,
BY PATRICK J. MEEHAN.
LEXANDER MARTIN SULLIVAN is the second son of
Mr. D. Sullivan, of Dublin. ‘Tho father of the subject
of our sketch, though longa resident of the Irish Capital,
was one of the old sept of the O’sullivan’s of Beare, on the
southwest coast; aud at Bantry, in 1830, his son Alexander
as born, snd there amid the mountains and the rugged
cliffs of his native province be grew to early manhood. The
life of an artist seems to have possessed strong attractions for
him in his youth—no doubt due to the beauty of the scenery
upon a poetic temperament. At an early age—before tl
“rising” of ’48—he had espoused the cause of ‘ Young Ire-
land; and, although he played »o prominent part in thst
movement, he was wu warm admirer of the band of earnest
and patriotic men who had enrolled themselves under the
banner of the National resurrection. Previous to the abor-
tive outbreak in 48 William Smith O’Brien made a tour of
the southwestern and southern counties, in order, no doubt,
satisfy himself as to the feeling of the people. i
this tour he received an ovation on the coast between Glen.
gariffe and Bantry.
How warmly Smith O'Brien remembered this incident {to use
the words of Mr, Sullivan himself) .‘‘even amidst the gloom
of a conviction for high treason,” was shown by his forward.
ing to him from his prison cell, (previous to his expatriation),
the music of a favorite soug, with this inscription :—‘ Pre.
sented to Alexander M. Sullivan by William S. O'Brien, in
remembrance of his excursion by water from Glengariffe to
Bantry, on board the yacht Independence, in July 1848,
when this song was sung by ayoung iady. Richmond Prison,
March, 1849,”
While prosecuting his studies as an artist in Dublin and
ndon, abont ii
w
after the traitorous desertion of Keogh, Sadleir & Co.,
Charles Gavan Duffy departed for Ausiralia, Mr. Sullivan be-
came sub-editor of the Nation, John Cashel Hoey occupying
the post of editor-in-chief. In 1857 Mr, Sullivan became ed.
itor and sole proprietor on the retirement of Hoey.
latter part of that year he spent a few mouths’ travelling in
the United States, of which he gave an interesting account,
ina pamphlet subsequently published, one of the chief fea-
tures of which “The Story of Wyoming,”—~giving the true
particulars of the barbarous British massacre, in that peace-
ful Pennsylvania valley, of the families of the American
patriots, in 1778,—was published in the Irish-American Al-
manac, in 1875, dis not only the most graphic but the
Most authentic narrative of that event of the Revolutionary
war extant.
On the death of Lucas and the emigration of Duity to Aus-
tralia, Mr, Sullivau was left almost single handed to fight the
national battle in Dublin. It is true that he had the active aid
(as he always enjoyed enjoyed thecontidence, ) of those eminent
Irishmeu who have since passed away, Archbishop MacHale,
Father John Kenyon, Johu Martin, George Henry Moore, and
nen of that stamp; but these men were remote from Dublin ;
and the cupital was still the battle ground of Ireland as it was
in the day of St. Lawrence O'Toole; and there the young
journalist maintained his fight against the most desperate
odds ; sustained only by the knowledge that he was carr: ing
on the battle handed down to him from his patriotic fore.
fathers, and by the firm resolve of his race never to surren-
der. Every effort to elevate the Irish name had his sympathy
and advoca‘y, and many of them.were carried out at his sole
expense, Through the friendship of the late Mr. Donegan,
the patriotic jeweller of Dublin, he was enabled, (and, in fact,
induced.) to start the Morning News, which was, during its
brillant existence, the ablest (pponent of the attempt made
y the Whigs and the rempant of the Keogh and Sadlier
clique to Wert Britonise Irish public opinion, The death of
Mr. Donegan, and the hostility of the late Cardinal Cullen,
opinion a firmness of national tone that no subsequent € ent
have been able to alter. For this the credit ie due mainly
to the zeal and perseverance (under all difficuities,) of Alex.
prder M. Sullivan, sacred can never be sufficiehtly grate.
ful to a son whose lity to her bas J i
a een y produced such wagnifi.
__ In February, 1868, during the existence of the feeling aris~
ing out of the execution of the “ Manchester Martyrs,” Mr.
Sullivan—alovg with John Martin, James J. Lalor, and ‘1 homas
Gracken— was indicted by the governmentona charge of sedi-
lous assembling, for their participation in th i
monument to Allen, Layki and 0 B fen." n thie ebarge the
not On this indictment— although.
at the tine of publication of the matter complained of, bang
ot even read it—he wars sentenced to 51x
bi
was ofered, bur declined, election as Lord Mayor—he was re-
aa ;
Eo
as an initiatory subscription to the erection of the noble
statue of Grattan, by Foley, which now adorns Colege
Green.
ir. Sullivan, who was present at the inception of the Home
Rule Association, which was a meeting at the Bilton
Hotel, Dublin, m May, 1870, bas strenuously. by voice and
pen, advocated that policy ever since. In 1874 be was re-
turned to Parliament for the county of Louth in tbat district,
defeating one of the leading Mivisters cf the Cr. wn, the ght
Hon, Chichest r Fortzscue, President of the Board of ‘Trade,
porsessed of very great personal, politicul and pro.
prietorial influence in that county, ir. Sullivan's ay pear-
ance in the house was distinguished by a display of exiruor-
dinary oraterial power. On the publication of hia maiden
speech the House was complimented by the English Press up-
on the acquisition of Mr. Sullivan to theirranks. His speeches
are always teliing and to the point. On the election of Mr.
Parnell for Cork, Mr. Sullivan was chosen by a triumphant
majority to succeed him as Member for Meath, which Position
18 release a@ committee was formed to present.
Sa
W
|