the accuracy of the statements of the hon. | an apathy in the matter.
and learned Member for Wexford had been
called in question, he thought the House
could not do better than grant the inquiry
asked for.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he thought the hon and learned Member for Wexford was right in asking for an inquiry, but the House ought to be careful not to interfere with judicial proceedings. The proposed inquiry would be too wide, and defeat its own object, as it would go over a space of seventeen years. The House should not interfere with the administration of justice, but he hoped the Government would prevent a recurrence of the circumstances which had been so properly reprobated by the judges.

MR. ROEBUCK said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken thought the inquiry would be too wide. In that he was right. But he was entirely wrong in supposing that an inquiry into the administration of justice was not within the functions of that House. If any question arose with respect to any of the judges, he was removable upon an Address by that IIouse and the other House of Parliament. In that case the conduct of the high sheriff was called in question. Now, the high sheriff really represented the Executive, and the only body that was supposed by its functions to have the power of keeping the Executive in check was that House. He would therefore suggest to his hon. and learned Friend not to withdraw, but narrow his Motion.

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, he could not but regret that the noble Lord had thought it necessary again to agitate the matter, because he himself had admitted that it had already given rise to a great deal of party feeling. The noble Lord had made use of extremely strong language, for he had stated that the high sheriff and sub sheriff of the county Tyrone had been tampering with trial by jury. [Cries of Order!] The noble Lord stated that these gentlemen had been tampering with and falsifying the jury panel. He (Sir Robert Peel) must say that he agreed with the remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, that if the accusation which had been levelled against these gentlemen by the noble Lord were true, he ought frankly and at once to have met the question by a Motion that their conduct should be inquired into. The noble Lord had said that the Government had shown

Now, so far

from the Government having displayed any
apathy, he thought they had acted a truly
constitutional part. The Government had
nothing whatever to do with either the
constitution of the grand or petty jury
panels, and it would be most unconstitu-
tional on the part of the Government if
they were to attempt in any way to inter-
fere with the duties which were imposed
by statute on the high sheriff. The sta
tute distinctly laid down what were the
duties of the high sheriff; and the judge
of assize was empowered, if he should
think fit, to set a fine upon the sheriff if
he returned on the panel the name of any
man not inserted in the jurors' book last
delivered. In that case Judge Christian
had stated, that upon consideration he
thought it was a wiser act of discretion on
his part to abstain from imposing a fine;
and in that expression of opinion he (Sir
Robert Peel) concurred. The noble Lord
had said that he apprehended a repetition
of the conduct that was the subject of com-
plaint, and he wanted to know what action
the Government were prepared to take.
The action taken by the Government was
that they had directed attention to the
fact, that a repetition of the alleged offence
would be held to be a wilful disobedience
of the statute, and that a fine would be im-
posed by the judge. He was not aware
what other action the Government could
take in the matter. He was not acquainted
with the high sheriff; but he was sorry
that such harsh language had been used
in regard to him, because he believed him
to be a gentleman of position and charac-
ter. He had given him a statement with
reference to his conduct and that of the
sub-sheriff, from which it appeared that
his noble Friend had been led into error.
After stating that he had not received the
jury book for 1862 from the clerk of the
peace, and that the late sub-sheriff had
not handed him the book for 1861 till
after the late assizes, and then only on
being threatened with an action if he did
not do so, the high sheriff went on to say
that the panel consisted of 150 names,
composed equally of Protestants and Ro-
man Catholics, and that all the persons
placed upon the panel were fully qualified
by station, and were of the most respect-
able and intelligent class. That he (the
sheriff) could vouch for from personal ob-
servation, and their verdicts gave general
satisfaction. Both the sub-sheriff and
himself were anxious that the fullest in-

he would add that he never entertained the intention of irritating the feelings of his fellow countrymen on religious questions.

MR. GEORGE said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon) had most ingeniously attempted to mix up with. the case before the House various other matters entirely disconnected with it, which had occurred from 1845 up to the present time, and had dragged in references to Orangemen and Ribandmen which were beside the question. The point to be considered was whether in that particular instance certain judicial officers had or had not violated the laws of their country. Something further ought to be done on the part of the Government than merely to express a hope that such a maladministration of justice as had been proved should not take place in the future. The majesty of justice ought to be reasserted. It was the duty of the executive Government to see that high sheriffs performed the functions of their high office as they were legally bound to do. Ile did not think that the reply given that night by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would prove satisfactory to the people of Ireland.

quiry should take place, and they would give every assistance to elucidate the facts. It had been stated, the letter continued, that Mr. John M'Crossan was placed on the grand jury panel, to the exclusion of other gentlemen in the country better qualified, and who were in the habit of attending the assizes. The fact was, that Mr. John M'Crossan was the twenty-third on the grand jury list, and the last on the panel save one. Every gentleman was summoned who was in the habit of attending, or who had the right by property to do so, except those who had written to say they could not attend. The high sheriff knew of no law that excluded practising attorneys from serving on grand juries when their property entitled them to do so; and Mr. M'Crossan's property would have entitled him to have been placed higher on the list than he was. As high sheriff, he could not know that Mr. M'Crossan was employed to prosecute in several cases; and if he had known it, he doubted whether the fact would have disqualified Mr. M Crossan for serving on the grand jury. Magistrates acting on grand juries were often interested in the success of the prosecutions, and had often expressed judicial opinions in cases MR. SCULLY observed that the only which came before them as grand jurors; question for consideration was whether Mr. and until the law laid down that profes- John M'Crossan, while acting as a grand sional gentlemen were to be excluded, he juror, was also acting as attorney to the saw no reason why he should deviate from prisoner, and to that a most distinct denial the course he pursued at the last assizes. had been given. Those who made the acThose assizes were attended by the two cusation were bound therefore in vindicaMembers for the county of Tyrone, neither tion of their own characters, to prove its of whom remonstrated at the time. A truth. member of the grand jury had volunteered MR. CORRY said, that the hon. Memthe statement that in Mr. M'Crossan they ber who had just sat down appeared to had a valuable acquisition, and, though think that the statement made by the hon. there was a prejudice against him at the and learned Member for Wexford-namely, first, he had by his good sense and strict that Mr. M'Crossan had not practiced duimpartiality won the good opinions of the ring the Spring Assizes in the Crown Court whole body. That letter he (Sir R. Peel) -was a complete answer to part of the case thought was very satisfactory. He did laid before the House from his noble Friend not believe that the circumstances com- and Colleague; but he was in a position to plained of would occur again, and he would deny the accuracy of that statement, and request his hon. and learned Friend to let on the best possible authority, which was the whole matter drop where it was, and no less than that of Mr. M'Crossan himto withdraw his Motion. He had given self. Mr. M'Crossan had rendered valuno notice of it, and it was a novel proceed-able service in the grand jury room during ing to urge a Parliamentary inquiry into the transaction of fiscal business; but after a subject like that before them without notice. Their time could be better occupied, particularly at the present period of the Session. It would be far better to allow a question to drop which admittedly had given rise to party and religious feeling. After what he had heard that night,

the Judges had arrived, and bills of indictment were sent up, he requested his (Mr. Corry's) permission to absent himself, on the express ground that he was retained in several of the cases, and could not, therefore, be considered an impartial grand juror. But that was not all-on the fol

the grand jury had been actually discharged, and therefore no remark he might have made to the high sheriff could have had any reference to that transaction. With respect to the Motion with which the hon. and learned Member for Wexford had concluded, he courted the fullest inquiry; but he thought, more especially at so late a period of the Session, it would be absurd to enter upon so extensive an investigation, and one having no especial reference to the case which had been brought to the notice of the House by his noble Colleague.

MR. HENNESSY suggested that the object would be attained by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford striking out the first part of his Resolution.

LORD NAAS said, he thought that the only points in the late occurrence as to which inquiry was asked were admitted by both parties; namely, that Mr. M'Crossan acted on the grand jury in the court in which he was also practising, and that the sub-sheriff, not content with the Crown list, added twenty-nine names to the list on his own responsibility. These gentlemen, having admitted that they had done wrong, defended themselves by making a cross charge as to the grand jury of the county of Tyrone for some years past. He thought that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance of the Government, that such an Occurrence as that complained of was not likely to occur again.

lowing day Judge Christian sent up to it, He must also say that the challenge him (Mr. Corry), as foreman of the grand of the panel did not take place until after jury, to say he desired to speak to him in the court; and on going down, the Judge showed him a bill which had been found a true bill, and asked him whether Mr. M'Crossan had been a party to the finding, which he was desirous of knowing, as Mr. M'Crossan had been retained in the case. He was enabled to inform the Judge that Mr. M'Crossan had not taken part in the finding of the bill, and so the matter dropped. With respect to the assertion of the hon. Member for Wexford, that Mr. M'Crossan could not obtain a copy of the jurors' book for 1862 from the outgoing sheriff, he would read extracts from a letter from Mr. Rogers, the late sub-sheriff, which showed that he had never applied to that gentleman for the book, and also that Mr. M'Crossan had admitted to Judge Ball in the Civil Court that the book for 1862 was actually in his possession before he struck the panel. The whole case lay in a nutshell-was the course adopted by the sub-sheriff legal, or was it not? and no one, he thought, could deny that it was in direct violation of the statute, and so satisfied was the judge of this, that he could not allow a prisoner to be put on his trial before a jury so constituted. There were four courses open to the sub-sheriff. He could have demanded the jurors' book from the clerk of the peace - he could have demanded it from his predecessor, under a penalty, in case of refusal, of £100-or, failing these, he could have framed his panel from the book of the previous year; MR. CONINGHAM remarked that he but, instead of adopting any of these thought a case for inquiry was estabcourses, he did that which was in direct vio-lished. lation of the statute. He invented a panel of his own, thereby subjecting himself to a penalty under 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 9, s. 33, if the Court had seen fit to impose it. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had read a letter from the high sheriff, in which it was stated that he (Mr. Corry) had testified to Mr. M'Crossan's ability and impartiality as a grand juror; and he did not hesitate to say that Mr. M'Crossan, who was a gentleman of ability and conversant with country affairs, had rendered valuable service so long as fiscal business was under consideration; but he did not think that any gentleman ought to be a member of a grand jury who was open to the suspicion of having a personal interest in any bill of indictment which might come before

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON said, he had not the slightest objection to an inquiry into the particular case, but he thought it absurd to go back for fifteen years.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he should contend that no sufficient case had been made for a Committee of Inquiry. It appeared that Mr. M'Crossan did not act as a grand juryman in any of the bills in which he was interested; and though he was far from saying that it was right for a gentleman to be on the grand jury and to practise in one and the same court, he thought that the judge was the proper person to decide, and to punish in such a case.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN said, there had been a clear miscarriage of justice.

1

MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-1a West India Incumbered Estates Acts Amendment; Merchant Shipping Acts, &c. Amendment; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Sale of Spirits; Artillery Ranges; The Queen's Prison Discontinuance; Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amendment. 2a Jurisdiction in Homicides; Discharged Prisoners Aid.

3a Oxford University; Retiring Pay, &c. (British Forces, India); Universities (Scotland) Act Amendment.

COURT OF CHANCERY-ORDER RESPECTING PRINTING. - PETITION.

LORD BROUGHAM presented a Petition of Law Stationers, Law Writers, and

The House divided:-Ayes 84; Noes Copying Clerks of London, praying for

Committee report Progress; to sit a member of a firm which had been estabagain on Monday next.

to do, would pass a Resolution which | Bill was to shut up the Queen's Bench would at once have the effect of repeal- Prison. The Prison of which the present ing the Order of the Lord Chancellor and building was the representative originated the other Chancery Judges.

Petition to lie on the table.

LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

[BILL NO. 81.] COMMITTEE. House in Committee (according to Order)

THE.MARQUESS OF BATH complained of time being wasted in the discussion of these petty measures, which Session after Session were introduced. The Bill was intended to extend the powers of several Acts of Parliament, which had not been passed without the most mature consideration.

in very early times; it was probably coeval with the Court of Queen's Bench itself. At a very early period there were three principal prisons in London-the Queen's Bench Prison, the Fleet Prison, and the Marshalsea. The Queen's Prison was appropriated to prisoners committed by the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Exchequer, and Court of Common Pleas. The Fleet Prison received prisoners from the Court of Chancery; and the Marshalsea from the Lord Steward's Court, the Palace Court, and the Admiralty. The first fruits of the measure passed in 1842 for the abolition of arrest for debt on mesne process was to enable Parliament to reduce the three prisons to one, the Queen's Prison being substituted for the Marshalsea and the Fleet. The present Queen's Bench prison was erected in 1759; it had accommodation for 300 prisoners, and occupied an area of ground between two and three acres in extent. He understood that the value of this space of ground was estimated at between £200,000 and £300,000. It was there

THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS remarked, that the former Acts enabled the present owner of a settled estate to borrow of the Government sums, not exceeding £5,000, for the improvement of his property. The measures had worked perfectly well, and under its provisions great improvements had been effected in all parts of the kingdom, and the money advanced had been punctually repaid to the Go-fore no mean gift to the nation if a provernment. The object of this Bill was to extend the operation of the existing Acts to those districts of Ireland in which distress prevailed, by increasing the lending powers of the Commissioners of Public Works to the additional amount of £3,000 over and above any sums they may have actually advanced, or be authorized to advance, under the provisions of those Acts. One result, it was hoped, would be to afford additional means for the employment of the people.

After a few words from the Earl DONOUGHMORE,

Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3 To-morrow.

perty of this value could be converted to public purposes of greater utility. The sum hitherto voted by Parliament for maintaining this prison was between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, the whole of which would ultimately be saved to the country; although their Lordships were well aware that a measure of the kind could not be taken unaccompanied by some allowances and continuances of pay, which would prevent the whole of the money being at once available to the of public exchequer. For the power of shutting up the prison they were indebted to the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Act of last year, the object of which was really to abolish imprisonment for debt, unless that debt were contracted fraudulently. How effectually the Act had accomplished that object might be seen from a comparison between the state of the three prisons in Middlesex and within the precincts of Westminster, in October, 1861, and at the present time. On the 1st October, 1861, when the Bankruptcy Amendment Act came into operation, the aggregate number of persons imprisoned for debt in the Queen's Bench, Horsemonger Lane, and Whitecross Street prisons was 324. By a return made on Saturday last it

THE QUEEN'S PRISON DISCONTINUANCE
BILL (1862).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he rose to submit to the House a Bill, which he hoped it would read a first time, though its object was to put an end to one of the most ancient institutions of the country. But he thought their Lordships would agree with him in thinking it was an institution with which they would willingly part when he told them the object of the