( HI 
 
 . 
 
 :
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 THE 
 
 POWER OF JUDGES TO PUNISH 
 
 FOE 
 
 Contempt of Court, 
 
 AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE CASE OF 
 
 1882. 
 
 PREPARED BY THE GRAY INDEMNITY COMMITTEE. 
 
 " The power ought not to be vested in any judge." Ti>es, March 17, 1875. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 M. H. GILL & SON, 50 UPPER SACKVILLE STREET. 
 LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & Co., STATIONERS' HALL COURT. 
 
 1882.
 
 DUBLIN I 
 
 1' K I N T E I> 75 Y AV. J. A L I. K Y & CO 
 9 HYPER'S ROW, CAPEL STREET.
 
 HV 
 
 } 
 
 Ccmtmito, 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD MAYOR (CHARLES DAWSON, 
 M.P.). 
 
 MOST REV. DK. CROKE, Lord Archbishop of Cashel and Emly. 
 
 JOSEPH COWEN, M.P., Newcastle-on-Tyne. 
 
 JOHN DILLON, M.P. 
 
 HENRY J. GILL, M.P. 
 CHARLES S. PARNELL, M.P. 
 
 eo -, A. M. SULLIVAN, B.L. 
 >| GEORGE DELANY. 
 
 ^ V. B. DILLON, Junr. 
 
 THOMAS MAYNE, T.C. 
 
 JOHN MULLIGAN, T.C. 
 
 JOHN NAGLE, P.L.G. 
 ' . AMBROSE PLUNKETT. 
 7, ABRAHAM SHACKLETON, J.P., T.C. 
 a ALFRED WEBB. 
 
 THE LORD MAYOR, 
 
 GEORGE DELANY, * Hon ' ' J ' fe *'*- 
 
 ABRAHAM SHACKLETON, ) 
 
 ALFRED WEBB, j Ho "' Secretaries. 
 
 433359
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE . 
 
 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT of Case of the Commitment of the High 
 
 Sheriff of Dublin, on 16th August, 1882 . . . 7 
 
 POWERS OF THE JUDGES : Opinions of Charles Russell, Q.C., M.P., 
 
 and L. M. Aspland, LL.D. ..... 27 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS ON CONTEMPT OF COURT : 
 
 Cradock's case, March, 1875: 
 
 The Saturday Review . . . . 29 
 
 The Times . . . . . . . 30-31 
 
 The Spectator . . . . . .32 
 
 The Daily News . . . . . .32 
 
 The Scotsman ....... 33 
 
 The Manchester Examiner ..... 34 
 
 The Morning Post ...... 34 
 
 The Pall Mall Gazette ..... 34 
 
 M'Aleese's Case, March, 1873 : 
 
 The Daily News ...... 35 
 
 Powell's Case, August, 1874 : 
 
 The Law Times ...... 35 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN THE COMMISSION COURT, Dublin, 16th August, 
 
 1882, before Mr. Justice Lawson, and Commitment of Mr. Gray 37 
 MR. GRAY'S CONDUCT AS HIGH SHERIFF : 
 
 Mr. Gray to Lord Lieutenant, claiming right to be present at 
 any inquiry likely to be held into conduct of jury in Hynes' 
 case ........ 60 
 
 Lord Lieutenant's Secretary to Mr. Gray, informing him there 
 
 was no intention to hold a public inquiry . . . Cl 
 
 Mr. Gray to Mr. Justice Lawson, requesting answer to a letter 
 before opening of Commission, informing him of Mr. 
 Gray's contemplated absence from his Court . . J1 
 
 Mr. Justice Lawson's acknowledgment of same ... 61 
 
 Mr. Gray to Sub-Sheriff, requesting that he should be cleared 
 from the charge of having selected a special hotel for a 
 special purpose for the jury in the Hynes case . . 62 
 
 Sub-Sheriff's reply, clearing Mr. Gray from such an allegation 62 
 
 Mr. Gray to Dr. Whyte, City Coroner, asking whether a black 
 van was unsolicitedly offered him by the Government 
 authorities to convey Mr. Gray to Richmond Bridewell . 63 
 
 Dr. Whyte's reply, stating such to have been the fact . 04
 
 G 
 
 PAGI:. 
 SEI-ABATIOX OF THE JURY ix THE HYNES CASK: 
 
 Mr. Alfred Martin's affidavit relating to same ... 65 
 Mr. Hamilton's letter to Daily Express, relative to what 
 
 "actually did occur at Imperial Hotel," on llth August . 66 
 THK HOTEL BILL : 
 
 Mr. Gray to Sub-Sheriff, requesting a copy of the Hotel bill 
 
 of jury in Hynes' case ..... 68 
 
 Sub-Sheriffs letter, enclosing same ... 68 
 
 Hotel Bill ........ 69 
 
 Mr. Hamilton's report of drink consumed ... 70 
 
 CONDUCT OF MR. MORPUY, CROWN PROSECUTOR : 
 
 Mr. Gray to Dr. Whyte, requesting copy of Mr. Morphy's 
 
 summons to him to court, on 16th August . 71 
 
 Dr. Whyte's reply, enclosing same, showing that the true cause 
 
 of his summons was not stated . . . .71 
 
 Mr. Lawler's letter proving that Mr. Morphy had thought it 
 
 worth inquiring into assertions regarding conduct of Hynes' 
 
 jury ........ 72 
 
 CONSTITUTION or JURIES at the Special Commission 3rd August, 
 1882 : 
 Mr. Gray to Sub-Sheriff, requesting an official statement of the 
 
 manner in which jury panel was made out 73 
 
 Sub-Sheriff's reply ...... 73 
 
 Constitution of County Panel ..... 74 
 
 Constitution of City Panel ..... 76 
 
 Mode of selecting a jury ...... 79 
 
 Constitution of the O'Connor jury 79 
 
 Constitution of the Hynes jury . . , . . 81 
 
 Constitution of Patrick Walsh's first trial ... 83 
 
 Constitution of Patrick Walsh's second trial ... 84 
 Constitution of Michael Walsh's jury .... 86 
 
 Declaration of Catholic jurors ..... 88 
 
 MEMORIAL TO THK LORD LIEUTENANT in the case of Francis Hynes 89
 
 THE POWER OF JUDGES TO PUNISH FOR 
 
 CONTEMPT OF COURT, 
 
 AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE CASE OF THE 
 HIGH SHERIFF OF DUBLIN.- 
 
 "The power ought not to be vested in any judge." Times, March 17, 1875. 
 (Cratlock's Case). 
 
 ON August 16th, 1882, Mr. E. Dwyer Gray, M.P., High 
 Sheriff of Dublin, and ex-Lord Mayor, was on the appli- 
 cation of Mr. A. M. Porter, M.P., Solicitor-General for Ire- 
 land, summarily committed to prison for contempt of court 
 by Mr. Justice Lawson then presiding at the Commission 
 Court, for three months, fined 500, and ordered to find 
 bail, himself for 5,000 and two securities for 2,500 
 each, to be of good behaviour for twelve months, or in 
 default to be imprisoned for a further term of three 
 months. 
 
 In accordance with that sentence Mr. Gray was 
 confined in Richmond Prison, Dublin, from that date 
 until the close of the Commission on the 30th September, 
 when Judge Lawson ordered his liberation on payment of 
 the fine. 
 
 It is necessary to explain that this Commission, which 
 was opened on the 3rd August, was the first under the 
 provisions of the Prevention of Crimes Act. That Act 
 made two new provisions for the trial of prisoners : it
 
 enabled the Attorney-General on his certificate to 
 have the venue changed, and the prisoners tried 
 by a special jury constituted under the Act, and 
 it enabled the Lord Lieutenant to order prisoners, 
 in capital and other cases, to be tried, if he 
 so thought fit, by a tribunal consisting of three 
 judges instead of by a jury. To this latter procedure it 
 is well known that the Irish judges had the strongest 
 possible objection. It is notorious that they urgently 
 remonstrated with the Government against having such a 
 duty put upon them, and that one of the most respected 
 of their number, Baron Fitzgerald, resigned rather than 
 undertake this new function. A number of prisoners 
 charged with capital and other offences, committed in 
 different parts of the country, were brought before 
 this Commission, to be tried by a special jury 
 under the Act, under the provisions for a change of venue 
 by certificate from the Attorney. General. Amongst 
 these were John O'Connor and others, charged with 
 attacking a house, and Francis Hynes, charged with 
 having committed a murder in the County Clare. The 
 proceedings of the Commission were watched with great 
 interest, and it was naturally assumed that if under the 
 new arrangements the Crown failed to obtain verdicts, it 
 would resort to the alternative provided by the Crimes 
 Act, and require the judges to try such cases without a 
 
 The contempt consisted in the publication of certain 
 letters and comments in the Freeman's Journal, of which 
 Mr. Gray is the proprietor. 
 
 They are given in full in the report of the proceedings 
 in Court appended.
 
 The event created considerable public excitement 
 throughout Ireland, and was the subject of much discus- 
 sion in the Press of the United. Kingdom, America, and 
 elsewhere. 
 
 In accordance with the practice, Judge Lawson com- 
 municated the fact of Mr. Gray's committal forthwith to 
 the House of Commons, which was still sitting, and his 
 letter was read by the Speaker to the House on the 17th 
 August. 
 
 The Premier, in moving that the letter do lie upon the 
 table, stated in effect that Parliament, which was about 
 to adjourn the next day, was not in a condition then to 
 deal with the matter or to refer it to a Select Committee, 
 but indicated his intention to propose that it be so referred 
 when the House reassembled. 
 
 In Dublin a committee was immediately formed to 
 receive subscriptions to indemnify Mr. Gray for the fine 
 of 500 imposed upon him. A larger sum was sub- 
 scribed than was required for that purpose. 
 
 The Committee have considered that they could not 
 better utilise portion of the surplus thus placed at their 
 disposal than by placing the facts of this extraordinary 
 case before the public in a more permanent and easily 
 accessible form than can be secured by ephemeral news- 
 paper reports. 
 
 They do so in the hope that a statement of this case 
 may help to bring about some restriction of the right now 
 claimed by judges to commit and fine for " contempt." 
 
 In the appendices will be found the full report of the 
 proceedings, including the publications which constituted 
 the alleged contempt of court, correspondence between 
 Mr. Gray and Judge Lawson, between Mr. Gray and
 
 10 
 
 the Sub-Sheriff, between Mr. Gray and the City Coroner, 
 into whose custody he was given on his committal, the 
 jury panels analysed, and some other documents eluci- 
 dating the case. The Committee also append notes of 
 some cases of punishment for contempt in Great Britain 
 which illustrate the extraordinary nature of the powers 
 claimed and exercised by judges. 
 
 The Committee consider themselves justified in sub- 
 mitting the following considerations in connection with 
 the case : 
 
 The articles consisted of, first that published on the 
 llth August, stating that in the case of O'Connor 
 and others the Crown exercised its right of challenge on 
 a wholesale scale. This article was published the day 
 after the case had concluded. 
 
 Another article, published on the 12th, with reference 
 to the jury in the Hynes' case, complaining of the 
 exclusion by the Crown of Catholics from the jury. 
 
 A letter from Mr. O'Brien complaining of misconduct 
 on the part of some of the jury in the Hynes' case, and 
 an article thereon published in the Freeman's Journal 
 of the 14th. 
 
 A letter from Mr. Finucane, of Ennis, and a letter 
 from Mr. Frost, the attorney for the prisoner, published 
 on the 15th, complaining of the exclusion of certain 
 evidence on behalf of the prisoner ; and a letter from Mr. 
 O'Brien, published on the same day, confirming his 
 previous letter. 
 
 The letter and article of which principal complaint was 
 made, viz., those of the 14th August, were published after 
 the trial was over, sentence passed, and the jury 
 discharged. The Committee is unable to find any prece-
 
 11 
 
 dent for treating comments such as these on concluded 
 trials as contempt of court, save only one created by 
 Judge Lawson himself in the case of Mr. M'Aleese, a 
 Belfast journalist. 
 
 The Committee do not believe that the publications 
 constituted in law a contempt ; but there is no legal means 
 of testing this, for against a warrant of committal for 
 contempt, if it be drawn up in legal form, it appears 
 that no appeal lies, the judges of appeal invariably 
 refusing to entertain any question of the legality of the 
 sentence, and thus in such cases rendering a writ of 
 Habeas Corpus unavailable. If Judge Lawson's conten- 
 tion be correct, to quote his own words when ordering Mr. 
 Gray's liberation, "it seems doubtful if there is any other 
 authority in existence which could deal with the matter." 
 Thus, it would appear that the self-created powers of the 
 judges supersede even the prerogative of the Crown. 
 The Crown may pardon a murderer, but not, according 
 to Judge Lawson, a man committed without having had 
 time for defence, for " contempt." 
 
 Assuming that the publications were " contempt," the 
 writers of the letters were amenable. One, Mr. Frost, 
 was the defendant's solicitor, and of course, an officer of 
 the court. Another, Mr. O'Brien, actually attended in 
 court, avowed the authorship, and was desirous to testify 
 on oath to the facts set forth in his letter, but by order 
 of the judge he was summarily removed from the 
 court. While the judge thus refused to entertain 
 any evidence on behalf of the incriminated state- 
 ments, which he avowed that he utterly disbelieved 
 arid treated as "inventions," and which he, as well as 
 the Solicitor-General, stated could not be inquired into,
 
 12 
 
 he, in fact, speaking from the bench, disclosed that to a 
 certain extent he had inquired into them, for he said 
 (p. 53) that he "understood they were based on the hear- 
 say of a waiter." 
 
 The Solicitor- General said that the truth or falsehood 
 of the statements of Mr. O'Brien could not be inquired 
 into. It appears, however, that the Crown Solicitor 
 for Clare, Mr. Alexander Morphy, by whom he was in- 
 structed, had actually personally inquired into them two 
 days before (see correspondence between the High Sheriff 
 and the proprietor of the hotel, p. 72), and sat silent 
 in court during the very time that the Solicitor-General 
 stated that no inquiries could be made, and when the 
 judge stated that he treated the statements as inven- 
 tions, and sentenced Mr. Gray for publishing them. As a 
 matter of fact the Attorney-General in the debate in the 
 House of Commons, on the evening after Mr. Gray's com- 
 mittal, gave an undertaking that inquiry should be made 
 into them, and subsequently the Lord Lieutenant did 
 institute an inquiry into them, which was what the article 
 in the Freeman's Journal asked for. 
 
 The statements of Mr. O'Brien were supported by 
 a number of affidavits (eleven in all), sworn by 
 visitors, waiters, and others who were in the hotel 
 on the night in question. The committee understand 
 that counter affidavits were subsequently sworn by 
 members of the jury ; affidavits were also sworn by the 
 bailiffs and policemen in charge of the jury. As the com- 
 mittee have no means of procuring the counter affidavits 
 of the jury, which have not been made public, 
 they abstain from publishing the affidavits sworn in 
 support of the statements contained in Mr. O'Brien's letter ;
 
 13 
 
 but most of them will be found in Hansard's report of the 
 debate in the House of Commons on August 17, 1882. 
 Whether these statements were true or false, or exagger- 
 ated, may have been of great importance in connection 
 with the question of whether the capital sentence ought 
 to have been carried out hi the case of Hynes ; but they 
 have nothing to do with the question of the propriety or 
 impropriety of the sentence passed upon Mr. Gray, because 
 the judge refused to inquire into the truth or falsehood 
 of the statements in Mr. O'Brien's letter, so that whether 
 they were literally true or absolutely false made no 
 difference so far as the judge's view of Mr. Gray's offence 
 was concerned. 
 
 Although, solely for the reason stated, the Committee 
 refrain from publishing the sworn affidavits made in sup- 
 port of the allegations contained in Mr. O'Brien's letter, 
 with reference to the amount of drink consumed by the 
 jury, they print the letter of Mr. Hamilton, one of the 
 jury, in which he gives a very different account of the 
 matter. They also give the hotel bill and the summary 
 of the affidavits of the bailiffs and police in charge of the 
 jury. 
 
 But the separation of the jury and their mixing with 
 the public is not questioned. The Committee, therefore, 
 quote (page 65) portion of the affidavit of A. Martin, 
 dealing with this particular matter, which, of course, 
 is the most essential. 
 
 It appears to the Committee to be the manifest duty 
 of a journalist to call public attention to alleged mis- 
 conduct on the part of a jury, more especially when a 
 human life is at stake. Assuming that a jury did mis- 
 conduct itself say, to take an extreme case, that it
 
 n 
 
 Accepted bribes to give a false verdict what would be 
 thought of a journalist who suppressed a letter accusing 
 them of it, written by a correspondent whom he knew 
 and in whom he had confidence ? 
 
 If the statements were false, the jury had their remedy 
 by civil action or criminal indictment, so also had the 
 Crown. 
 
 It has been argued that Mr. Gray, as High Sheriff, 
 was responsible for the care of the jury. No doubt, he 
 was nominally responsible ; but was he criminally re- 
 sponsible ? He had been in London for days before the 
 trial. As is shown by the correspondence between 
 him and the judge (p. 61), he had the judge's 
 sanction for his absence. He spoke in the House of 
 Commons on the Irish Postal Contract on the evening 
 the jury was locked up, and did not return until after 
 the jury were discharged. Nevertheless, Judge Lawson 
 said more than once that he held Mr. Gray personally 
 responsible for the care of the jury, although policemen 
 and bailiffs were sworn by the court to take charge of 
 them ; Mr. Gray was not in Dublin at all at the time. 
 
 Some English journals have gone so far as to suggest 
 that Mr. Gray, as Sheriff, connived at the selection of a 
 special hotel, which they call a Land League hotel, in 
 order to entrap the jury, and that the whole affair was a 
 conspiracy. 
 
 As a matter of fact, Mr. Gray left all these matters to 
 the Sub-Sheriff, and knew nothing whatever about them. 
 The hotel selected the Imperial, in Sackville-street 
 is a very respectable one, situated in the principal street 
 of the city. But in any case Mr. Gray had nothing tn
 
 do with its selection. It was selected by the Sub-Sheriff, 
 and the reasons of the selection are given in his letter. 
 
 Mr. Gray did not even make any special selection of 
 his own Sub-Sheriff. This gentleman (Mr. James 
 Campbell) is a well-known solicitor in Dublin, who has 
 been Sub-Sheriff for a series of years. Mr. Gray selected 
 him for this reason, and because he was warmly recom- 
 mended by the late High Sheriff, Sir George Owens, a 
 strong Conservative. 
 
 Although Mr. Gray was charged as a journalist, it is 
 manifest, from the statements of the Solicitor- General and 
 of the judge, that a portion of the criminal punishment 
 inflicted upon him was in his capacity of High Sheriff. 
 Notwithstanding this, the Lord Lieutenant did not comply 
 with Mr. Gray's application for an investigation into his con- 
 duct as High Sheriff, though no steps have been taken to 
 remove him from office, which, the Committee submit, 
 should have been done if Mr. Gray were guilty of the 
 acts imputed to him. (See correspondence, p 60). 
 
 Of course the High Sheriff might have been properly 
 held civilly responsible for neglect or misconduct on the 
 part of his subordinates, if such occurred, but this would 
 have involved an acknowledgment of the charges which 
 the judge called inventions. 
 
 In passing sentence, the judge did not discriminate 
 between the various publications, but held them all to 
 be in contempt. The Solicitor-General, after reading the 
 article of the llth August, declared that it, taken alone, 
 constituted a gross contempt. It is submitted that that 
 article is a bald record of fact which the liveliest imagina- 
 tion could not construe into anything more. 
 
 The opinion of Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., M.P., and
 
 16 
 
 Mr. Aspland, LL.D. (p. 27) show that the power of com- 
 mittal for contempt is practically unlimited and that there 
 is no effective appeal against it. 
 
 It would appear that such is the extraordinary state of 
 the law that if Judge Lawson had sent Mr Gray to 
 prison for three years, or thirty years, instead of three 
 months ; if he had lined him 50,000 instead of 500, 
 or held him to bail for 1,000,000 instead of 10,000, 
 there would equally be no legal remedy against so 
 monstrous an injustice. 
 
 Although the question of the propriety or impropriety 
 of the publications in the Freeman 's Journal for which 
 Mr. Gray was sentenced should be considered separately 
 from that of the propriety or impropriety of the capital 
 sentence upon Francis Hynes being carried out, still the 
 Committee have deemed it desirable to append (p. 93) the 
 memorial addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, by the prisoner's 
 attorney, Mr. Frost, in which are quoted cases in which, 
 when jurors separated, the sentences were not carried out, 
 thus showing the vital importance of the questions raised 
 in the publications constituting the alleged contempt. 
 
 Various other memorials were addressed to His 
 Excellency, praying for the commutation of the capital 
 sentence on Hynes, but they were unsuccessful, and on 
 September the 1 1th he was hanged at Limerick. 
 
 The Freeman's Journal pointed out and it condemned 
 the exclusion of jurors of a certain religious persuasion. 
 
 A tabular statement of the names of the jurors, drawn 
 from the ballot box, to serve upon these particular trials, 
 showing the religious persuasion of each, and indicating 
 those ordered to stand aside by the representatives of
 
 the Crown and challenged by counsel for the prisoner, 
 respectively, is appended. 
 
 An analysed list of the entire jury panel is also appen- 
 ded (p. 74) . The letter of the Sub-Sheriff (p. 73) will show 
 how this jury panel was drawn up. The procedure for 
 the constitution of the jury panel is a purely mechanical 
 one, and precludes all possibility of unfair selections. 
 So, too, with the drawing of the names from the panel by 
 ballot, to serve on any particular jury, which is a mechani- 
 cal and necessarily absolutely impartial operation. Bub 
 the Crown has an unlimited discretion to order jurors so 
 drawn to "stand aside." Manifestly by exercising this 
 power to a sufficiently large extent, it can by a process 
 of exhaustion get a jury of a certain type, provided only 
 twelve men of that type are on the entire panel after the 
 prisoner has exhausted his challenges. How that p6wer 
 was exercised in Dublin at the late Commission will be 
 seen by a reference to the analysis of the various cases. 
 
 There were four cases involving five trials of charges 
 of an agrarian character at this Commission, under the 
 Attorney- General's certificate for a change of venue. 
 These were O'Connor and others (the Kerry outrage 
 case) ; Francis Hynes, murder ; Patrick Walsh, murder 
 (two trials) ; and Michael Walsh, murder. 
 
 The analysis shows that while the entire jury panel 
 contained 193 available names, of which 112 were Pro- 
 testants, 80 Catholics, and one was a Jew and while the 
 names drawn to serve on the particular juries were in 
 somewhat a like proportion, the Crown, by exhaustibly 
 exercising its right to order jurors to stand aside, 
 excluded Catholics absolutely from every one of these 
 juries.
 
 18 
 
 The precise number of Catholics ordered to stand aside 
 cannot be ascertained, for in the case of the first trial of 
 Patrick Walsh the jurors were ordered to stand aside by 
 number and not by name, but the names are given of 
 66 Catholics, many of them of the highest respectability, 
 ordered to stand aside in the other four cases ; and, as has 
 been stated, not a single Catholic was permitted by the 
 'Crown to serve upon a single one of these five juries. 
 With the exception of one Jew they were composed 
 exclusively of Protestants. 
 
 The judge stated that the suggestion that men were 
 excluded from sectarian motives was an atrocious one. 
 
 The Attorney-General, in the House of Commons, 
 stated that he carefully abstained from inquiring into the 
 religion or politics of any single individual member of the 
 special panel, and his instructions, given to the Crown- 
 Solicitor, were to take care that impartial juries be 
 empanelled. " They did not know, nor did they hear 
 anything as to their religion or politics." 
 
 But the facts speak for themselves. The Committee 
 may be pardoned for quoting in justification, if any be 
 needed beyond the facts themselves the charges of the 
 Freeman's Journal, so indignantly repudiated by the 
 Solicitor-General, that Catholics were excluded because 
 they were Catholics ; the open declaration made by the 
 Daily Telegraph of 3rd October, in a leading article. The 
 Telegraph says, " We must, to convict murderers, secure, 
 by hook or crook, by law or challenge, metropolitan 
 Protestants and Foyal juries," and the acknowledgment 
 made in that same journal that there were " wholesale 
 challenges," and that Catholics were set aside because of 
 their supposed greater sympathy with agrarian crime. On
 
 19 
 
 juries empanelled to try other cases at the same Commis- 
 sion, Catholics were permitted to serve by the Crown ; 
 but the Committee cannot too strongly emphasise the fact 
 that in every one of the agrarian cases every single 
 Catholic was set aside and every single jury was composed 
 exclusively of non -Catholics, and they refer to the 
 analysed lists to show that this fact is beyond question. 
 
 It will be seen on examination of these lists that the 
 jurors challenged by the prisoners were exclusively Pro- 
 testants. These prisoners came from different parts of 
 the country and were advised by different attorneys. 
 They themselves could have had no knowledge, and it is 
 probable that then' attorneys had not much knowledge of 
 the individuals composing the jury panel. 
 
 The fact of their challenges being Protestants is, how- 
 ever, very significant as proving that generally on the 
 part of the accused and their advisers there was an 
 impression that Protestants were likely to take a more 
 unfavourable view of their cases than Catholics. Whether 
 such an impression were true or false it emphasises the 
 action of the Crown in excluding Catholics from every 
 one of the juries, and so far as facts can prove anything 
 it proves that the Crown took the same view. It is 
 utterly impossible otherwise to explain away the fact of 
 the Crown refusing to permit one Catholic to serve upon 
 a single one of these juries. 
 
 In the Hynes case it so happened that one of the most 
 important points on the trial was the exact significance 
 and weight to be attached, as an evidence of the man's 
 then mental condition, to the refusal of a Catholic priest 
 to administer the Holy Communion to a dying man. It 
 
 B2
 
 20 
 
 will readily be understood that Catholics and Protestants 
 are not likely to take exactly the same view of or attach 
 the same importance to a matter of this kind. 
 
 As to the statement of the Attorney-General that he 
 was ignorant of the religion or politics of those set aside 
 this may be literally true. 
 
 Before what is known as u Lord O'Hagan's Jury Act" 
 was passed, jury packing had been brought to the per- 
 fection of a fine art in Ireland. But of course counsel for 
 the Crown never had anything to do with it. It was the 
 business of subordinates to see to the composition of the 
 jury, and to be careful to keep their principals clear from 
 all connection with or even knowledge of the proceedings 
 adopted to attain the desired end. 
 
 The Freeman's Journal, in commenting upon public 
 facts, had no means of judging the motives of individuals 
 save from their public actions. It deduced from certain 
 facts certain inferences, as it had a right to do, and it is 
 submitted that these facts are incapable of any other 
 inferences. 
 
 The statements made by a number of the jurors ordered 
 to stand aside (page 88), shows that the same deduction 
 was drawn by them. Any person resident in Dublin will 
 know that these gentlemen are men of good standing and 
 position, absolutely incapable of being false to their oaths. 
 It is a curious fact that one of these gentlemen, Mr. 
 Laurence Egan, who was lately a Town Councillor of 
 Dublin, resigned his seat because he did not agree with 
 his constituency that it was desirable to confer the 
 freedom of the city upon Mr. Parnell, and was unwilling to 
 occupy a representative position once his views and those 
 of his constituency did not coincide.
 
 21 
 
 It is submitted that it was not only the right but the 
 duty of a public journalist to comment upon proceed- 
 ings of the character described, and that such comments 
 are calculated to maintain the impartiality of public 
 trials and the consequent respect of the public for them. 
 It is further submitted that comments upon the action 
 of parties to a trial even if these parties be prosecutors, 
 and even though the prosecutor represent the Crown, do 
 not constitute in any real sense contempt of court. It 
 can scarcely be argued that a Solicitor- General or a Crown 
 Prosecutor can do no ill, nor can it be contended that the 
 conduct of a jury is always irreproachable. 
 
 On the trial immediately following the publications in 
 the Freeman's Journal, the procedure in court for the 
 selection of the jury was changed. Up to that time, when 
 the number was drawn from the ballot box, the name of the 
 juror corresponding with that number was read aloud in 
 court, and he was then either ordered to stand aside by 
 the Crown, challenged by the prisoner, or sworn, as the 
 case might be. But in the next case after this question 
 of the exclusion of Catholics by the Crown was publicly 
 raised, the number only was read aloud, and the Crown 
 ordered the juror to stand aside without having the name 
 declared in court The names of the jurors only who 
 were not ordered to stand aside were read aloud, as 
 they were being sworn, and thus the Press were not able 
 in this case to ascertain the names of those set aside by 
 the Crown. Subsequently the original system was 
 reverted to. 
 
 With reference to the charges against the jury, it 
 may suffice to repeat that all that was demanded by 
 the Freemaris Journal was an inquiry by the Crown,
 
 22 
 
 and that the justification for that demand is to be 
 found in the fact that the Crown felt itself com- 
 pelled to institute that inquiry, and that the public 
 attention and discussion which followed the article in the 
 Freeman's Journal and the debate in the House of 
 Commons elicited an acknowledgment from a member of 
 the jury itself, that the jury had separated, and some of 
 them had mixed with members of the general public. 
 The question of the amount of drink which they may have 
 consumed or the mental condition of some of them on the 
 night of the 14th August appears of unimportance com- 
 pared to this fact, which never would have been publicly 
 known but for the letter and the article on account of 
 which Mr. Gray was imprisoned. 
 
 The Committee have no desire to enter into any 
 discussion with regard to the propriety of carrying 
 out the capital sentence under these circumstances. 
 They cannot refrain, however, from stating that they 
 have been unable to ascertain any precedent for 
 carrying out a capital sentence when it was proved that 
 the jury had violated what has been called by eminent 
 legal authorities "the sacred principle of inacessibility," 
 and separated and mixed with the general public ; while 
 the memorial *of the attorney for the prisoner, which is 
 appended (page 89), shows that the practice in similar 
 cases has been to commute the sentence even when there 
 was little moral doubt of the guilt of the condemned 
 man. 
 
 It is submitted that if the jury did misconduct them- 
 selves, or if there was reasonable grounds for believing 
 that they misconducted themselves, or if any plausible 
 accusation of misconduct was made against them, it was the
 
 23 
 
 duty of a public journalist to give it publicity in the 
 interests of the pure administration of justice and of the 
 respect due to it by the public. It is a common practice 
 in England, once a trial is over and a verdict given, for 
 the Press freely to comment on all the facts. It is also 
 submitted that Mr. Gray was not bound, as was argued 
 by the Solicitor-General and by the judge, to " suppress " 
 publications in the Freeman 's Journal because he indivi- 
 dually was High Sheriff. If this was the rule, independent 
 journalists could never accept the office. The fact of Mr. 
 Gray being High Sheriff should not be held to impose 
 upon him limitations or conditions in the discharge of 
 his duties in the conduct of his newspaper. 
 
 It would appear that at present there is no limit 
 whatever to the power of a judge himself to 
 decide what may or may not be contempt ; that 
 there is no definition of the offence which enables 
 a public journalist to avoid it while exercising 
 what is called the freedom of the Press ; that the 
 accused has no guarantee that he will be afforded an 
 opportunity of defending himself, or bringing forward 
 evidence either in his justification or in mitigation of 
 punishment ; and that there is no limit to the amount of 
 punishment which may be inflicted upon him. Judges, 
 after all, are but human, and no disrespect is intended by 
 the Committee in pointing out that, like other men, they 
 may l;e influenced, even unintentionally, by feelings of 
 personal animosity, by prejudice, by heat or passion, by 
 a wish to avoid having to discharge disagreeable duties, 
 or by other motives innocent, perhaps, in themselves, but 
 which, if carried to excess, involve injustice to the accused. 
 Many sentences of contempt of court of the most bizarre
 
 24 
 
 and eccentric character might freely be quoted by the 
 Committee. 
 
 In some cases it is almost impossible for the 
 judge, who himself may have been the subject of attack 
 which he feels himself bound to punish, or for the purpose 
 of maintaining the respect due to his court, to avoid 
 being influenced by personal feelings. 
 
 The Committee submit that, apart altogether from 
 the merits or demerits of this particular case, 
 apart from the question whether Mr. Gray deserved to 
 be punished, and if so, whether his punishment 
 was or was not proportionate to his offence, or 
 whether he should have been given an opportunity of 
 preparing his defence, if he had any, that the law 
 regulating contempt of court requires, in the interests of 
 public liberty, to be defined and limited, so that, while 
 due security is provided for the unimpeded administra- 
 tion of the law and the maintenance of public respect for 
 courts of justice, at the same time guarantees shall 
 be given to all her Majesty's subjects against excessive 
 and arbitrary punishment either by way of fine or im- 
 prisonment or the imposition of an excessive bail without 
 the possibility of appeal. It is further submitted that 
 the exercise by the judge of the power to remit portion 
 of the sentence has nothing to do with the question of 
 whether he was originally justified in imposing it, or 
 whether such powers should be vested without any safe- 
 guard in any judge. 
 
 Most extraordinary mis-statements with reference to 
 the action of Mr. Gray have been freely circulated in 
 the English Press. The Committee would unduly extend 
 the scope of this publication were they to review them
 
 25 
 
 at length ; or were they, on the other hand, to quote from 
 the English, the American, and the Continental Press, 
 as well as that of Ireland, articles and comments justify- 
 ing and applauding his action. 
 
 As an indication of the feeling evoked in Ireland 
 upon the subject, it may be mentioned that all 
 the Irish municipal bodies, except those of Belfast and 
 Derry, passed votes of sympathy with Mr. Gray. Seven 
 conferred their freedom upon him 44 Boards of Town 
 Commissioners, 63 Boards of Poor Law Guardians, and 
 83 public bodies of various kinds also passed votes of 
 sympathy ; not one public body passed a contrary vote, 
 and in not a single case throughout all Ireland was a vote 
 of sympathy defeated on a division ; but in several 
 instances the chairman refused to put the motion. 
 
 If this case result in inducing Parliament to restrict a 
 power which a reference to the cases quoted and 
 the expression of public opinion thereon show to have 
 long been nothing less than a scandalous abuse, Mr. 
 Gray will not regret what he has had to undergo.
 
 27 
 
 POWER OF THE JUDGES. 
 
 OPINION OF MR. CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C., M.P., 
 AND MR. L. M. ASPLAND, LL.D. 
 
 FOR THE OPINION OP COUNSEL. 
 
 Q. (1.) In a case of alleged contempt of court is there any 
 limit, and if so, what to, the punishment which a judge may inflict 
 by way of fine, imprisonment, or bail ? 
 
 A. We are of opinion that in the case of an alleged contempt of 
 court there is no assignable limit to the punishment which a 
 judge may inflict by way of fine and imprisonment. In re 
 Clements v. Erlanger, 46 Law Journal, chapter 875, the Master 
 of the Rolls said, " This jurisdiction of committing for contempt 
 being practically arbitrary and unlimited, should be most 
 jealously and carefully watched ;" and the authorities cited in 
 exparte Fernandez, 10 C.B.N.S. 3, also 6 H. and N. 717, show 
 that this description of the jurisdiction is correct. In the case 
 of the county courts the power has been defined and limited by 
 statute (Reg. Lefroy, L.R.S.Q.B. 134), but as regards the 
 superior courts although it is said in Hawkins (2 Ph. cr. 4 ) that 
 they may impose " reasonable" fines, it is for themselves alone 
 to decide what fines are " reasonable." 
 
 Q. (2.) In the event of a person being sentenced to punishment 
 by fine, imprisonment, or bail by a judge for an alleged contempt 
 of court in a criminal case, has the person so sentenced any right 
 of appeal, and to what tribunal ? 
 
 A. We are of opinion that in the case supposed there is no 
 right of appeal to any tribunal. InBurdett v. Abbot, 5 Dow. 
 1G5, Lord Elden put to all the judges the following question 
 " Whether if the Court of Common Pleas, having adjudged an 
 act to be a contempt of court, had committed for the contempt 
 under a warrant stating such adjudication generally without the
 
 28 
 
 particular circumstances, and the matter were brought before 
 the Court of King's Bench, by return to a writ of Habeas Corpus, 
 the return setting forth the warrant, stating such adjudication 
 of contempt generally, whether in that case the Court of King's 
 Bench would discharge the prisoner, because the particular facts 
 and circumstances, out of which the contempt arose were not set 
 forth in the warrant ?" And the judges were unanimously of 
 opinion that in such a case the Court of King's Bench would not 
 liberate. And there are numerous authorities to the effect that 
 the decision of the judge committing cannot be reviewed by anv 
 other court. (Burdett v. Abbott, 14 East 1 ; Stockdaie v. 
 Hausard per Littledale, J. 9 A. and sec. 169; Carus Wilpon's 
 case per Lord Denman, cr. J. 7 Q. B. 1,008 ; exparte Pater <3 B. 
 and S. 299). In general no appeal lies in such cases from the 
 colonial courts to the privy council (Crawford's case 13 Q. B. 
 613, in re M'Dermott, L.R. 1 P.C. 200, 2 P.C. 651), although 
 where it appeared on the face of the writ that the court had 
 exceeded its jurisdiction (in re Ramsay, L.R. 3 P.C. 427) ; or if 
 the offender had no opportunity of defending himself (in re 
 Pollard, L.R. 2 P.C. 106) the Privy Council (acting under the 
 wide power given by 8 and 4 Wm. IV., c.41, s. 4, have advised her 
 Majesty to remit the penalty ; but the rule that the exercise of the 
 power of committing for contempt was not the subject of appeal 
 was clearly laid down in M'Dermott's case L.R. 2 P.C. 341 where 
 it is said (at p. 363), " Not a single case is to be found where 
 there has been a committal by one of the colonial courts for 
 contempt, where it appeared clearly upon the face of tbe order 
 that the party had committed a contempt that he had been duly 
 summoned, and that the punishment awarded for the contempt 
 was an appropriate one, in which this committee has ever 
 entertained an appeal against an order of this description." See 
 also in re Wallace, L.R. 1 P.C. 283. In re Fernandez, 10 C.B. 
 N.S. 3 (Mr. Fernandez having been sentenced to six months' 
 imprisonment and 500 fine), Erie. C. J. said, "We are not a court 
 of review or a court of appeal if Mr. Fernandez feels himself 
 aggrieved by the course which has been pursued he may petition 
 the Sovereign for relief ; but we have no power to question the 
 propriety of what has been done." It is clear that the sentence 
 in the present case is a judgment in a criminal cause or matter 
 within the meaning of s. 50 of the Judicature Act 1877, and ou 
 that ground also it seems clear that no appeal lies. See Mellor v. 
 Derham, 5 Q.B.D. 467 ; expte. Whitechurch 7 Q.B. D. 524 on 
 the corresponding section of the English Act. 
 
 C. RUSSELL, 
 L. M. ASPLAND. 
 Temple, London, 30th September, 1882. ,
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PEESS ON "CONTEMPT 
 OF COURT." 
 
 THE following are comments of English Journals on some recent 
 cases of contempt of court : 
 
 CRADOCK'S CASE, MARCH, 1875. 
 
 At the Hertford Assizes for the Spring of 1875, a man named 
 Cradock was tried before Mr. Justice Denman, for passing bad 
 coin and acquitted. The judge then sentenced him to twelve 
 months' imprisonment for alleged contempt of court in a remark 
 said to have been addressedby him to another prisoner in the dock. 
 Cradock was pardoned by the Queen after a few days' detention. 
 
 " SATURDAY REVIEW," OF MARCH 27, 1875, SAID : 
 
 * " And this brings us to the second 
 
 question, as to the best means of dealing with persons charged 
 with contempt of court, which is the more important of the two. 
 The first consideration which suggests itself on this point is that, 
 as everybody will allow, a man is always a bad judge in a case in 
 which his own feelings or passions are likely to be involved. 
 Even if he is able to restrain his personal prejudices or prepos- 
 sessions he does not get credit for it, and there is always a 
 tendency to suspect the impartiality of his decisions. It is true 
 that in endeavouring to maintain the dignity and decorum of 
 their courts, and in enforcing submission to such orders as they 
 deem necessary to issue, the judges are acting, not for their own 
 private interest, but for the good of the public ; but at the same 
 time they are exposed to personal influences which may possibly 
 lead them astray. There is, moreover, another ground on which 
 objection may be taken to the present system ; and that is the 
 inconsistency of dispensing in the case of an alleged contempt 
 with the ordinary precautions of a trial before a superior court. 
 In the instance of which we have already referred, Cradock had 
 just as much right to all the serurities for a careful and impartial
 
 30 
 
 trial when brought back on a charge of contempt of court as 
 when he was originally placed in the dock on an indictment for 
 passing bad money. In the one case he had the help of counsel, 
 while the judge had the assistance of the jury. In the other he 
 was surprised on the instant by an accusation of which he had 
 had no notice, and had no one to advise him, and no opportunity 
 of calling witnesses. Yet the one question was in every way just 
 as serious as the other, and as much entitled to calm and patient 
 investigation. The truth is and it is a truth which is perhaps 
 not sufficiently remembered, judges themselves occasionally for- 
 getting it that the grave persons on the bench, august and 
 solemn as they look, are after all only men like the people about 
 them, and subject to like impulses, and even, if we may be per 
 mitted to say it without contempt of court, like passions, with the 
 rest of us. In London the dignity of justice ismsually pretty well 
 combined with the common sense of men of the world. The 
 judges are surrounded by people who have known them all their 
 lives, who are well aware that they have not undergone any super- 
 natural transformation since they were at the Bar, and who are in 
 the habit of calling them, when out of court, by names which 
 identify them with the ordinary race of mortals. But there 
 is some reason to fear that on circuit the javelin men and the 
 trumpeters have a good deal to answer for, and that even the 
 most sedate of judges is apt at times to feel as if he had just come 
 from the clouds. There is no greater mistake than to suppose 
 that judges do not require like other creatures of clay, to be 
 protected against the weaknesses of humanity. As a rule English 
 judges usually do their work very well, with scrupulous conscien- 
 tiousness and virile intelligence ; but all judges are not exactly of 
 the same stamp, nor always in the same mood, and it is for their 
 own interest as well as for the interest of the community that too 
 wide a margin should not be allowed for exceptional impulses. 
 On every ground it is desirable that the power of inflicting 
 punishment for contempt should be regulated on precise and 
 settled principles, and it is to be hoped that the House of Com- 
 mons will not shrink from the responsibility of dealing with the 
 subject. It is enough that a judge should have power to order a 
 person into custody without proceeding to try and sentence him 
 on the instant." 
 
 THE "TIMES," OF I?TH MARCH, 1875, SAID: 
 
 " We do not say that Mr. Justice Denman was not acting at 
 Hertford within his powers, but we do unhesitatingly say this 
 that the case proves that such powers ought not to be vested in 
 any judge."
 
 31 
 
 " TIMES," MARCH 1?TH, 1875. 
 
 ******** 
 
 " Mr. Charles Lewis called the attention of the Home Secretary 
 yesterday afternoon to a report of the case and asked Mr. Cross 
 how far he meant to interfere supposing the report in question 
 was accurate. The Home Secretary, in his reply, gave 
 a fuller version of the occurrence, but he admitted that a 
 learned judge had summarily committed a person to prison for 
 twelve months for contempt of court, and after detailing the cir- 
 cumstances of the case he added, that in his opinion, was not too 
 severe. This may be true ; but we think it will be confessed by 
 any one who reflects upon the matter, that "the Home Secretary 
 avoided the real point for consideration. The offender, who had 
 been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, may have 
 deserved this doom, but the question is whether the punishment 
 ought to have been inflicted in the manner in which sentence 
 was passed upon him. A man caught red-handed in a murder 
 and lynched by an assembled mob may not have suffered a 
 punishment too severe for his offence, but we should think very 
 strangely of a Home Secretary who gave an opinion to this effect 
 as his sole answer to a member calling his attention to such a 
 swift execution of popular justice. The guarantees of personal 
 liberty are at least put in peril if such a sentence as that, which 
 was passed at Hertford, a fortnight since receives unqualified 
 approval, and if judges are always masters of themselves so as 
 never to give way to motives of impulse, they are still human 
 beings, who must be, occasionally, capable of intellectual error. 
 
 #*#***#:;: 
 
 We do not say that Mr. Justice Denman was not acting at 
 Hertford within his powers, but we do unhesitatingly say this, 
 that the case proves that such powers ought not to be vested in 
 any judge. We assume that the law warrants everything he did, 
 and we are content to add that the law ought to be amended. 
 Let us not be misunderstood. The act of threatening a witness or 
 a possible witness in a trial with the intent to deter him from 
 giving evidence bearing upon the issues of the trial is an offence 
 against public justice which must be taken note of, and met with 
 punishment by the laws of any civilized community ; but it is an 
 offence which should be denned by the law, which should be 
 proved like other offences before a jury ; and which should be 
 visited according to a scale of punishment regulated by the law. 
 * * * * * * # * 
 
 Mr. I^ewis gave notice yesterday, after receiving the Home 
 Secretary's answer, that shortly after Easter he would call atten- 
 tion to the power of the judges to inflict fine and imprisonment
 
 32 
 
 without any appeal, and without any reference to a jury, for so 
 called contempt of court. The notice is not given a moment too 
 soon. The fact that those who have recently been visited with 
 punishment for this offence have been persons, like Cradock, 
 undeserving of sympathy, has led us to acquiesce in the exercise 
 of an authority, pregnant with danger and not warranted by any 
 sufficient cause. Those misdeeds which are now comprised under 
 the general term of ' contempt of court,' are definable or they 
 are not. If they are capable of definition, there is no reason why 
 they should not be distinctly recognised in the Statute Book, and 
 appropriate punishments provided for them. If they are so vague 
 that their character cannot be clearly expressed in words, we must 
 be excused for hesitating to give to the judges what according to 
 this view is an unbounded jurisdiction accompanied by an 
 indefinite power of punishment. The judges may have something 
 to say for being allowed to retain the authority they have received 
 from their predecessors, and if so, they should be invited to put it 
 forward, the reasons hitherto advanced in extenuation of it being 
 very unsatisfactory. Mr. Justice Denman has proved beyond 
 a doubt that this is abranch of the law which demands inquiry." 
 
 " SPECTATOR," MARCH 20lH. 
 
 "It is impossible to deprive the judges of their power to 
 make their procedure respected, but it is a power liable to abuse, 
 and we do not see why it should not be subject to appeal. The 
 sentence would then or at least be ratified by a judge who was not 
 under the immediate influence of the contempt." 
 
 " SPECTATOR," MARCH 2?TH. 
 
 " The Crown will be advised to pardon Cradock, and we hope 
 the case will lead to a stricter definition of a crime which journal- 
 ists have occasionally as great difficulty in avoiding, as in know- 
 ing when they have committed it." 
 
 " DAILY NEWS," WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1?TH, 1875. 
 
 "Apart altogether from the particular case to which Mr. 
 Charles Lewis, M.P., referred last night, there is probably a good 
 deal to be said in support of his demand for an inquiry into the 
 nature and limits of the power of judges to commit for contempt 
 of court. No one, we presume, would argue that a certain 
 amount of something like arbitrary power is not necessary for the 
 judges in order to maintain that discipline and decorum without 
 which Justice herself would sometimes have a poor chance of 
 being heard. But this is a power the exercise of which every 
 year of increasing civilization ought in the nature of things 
 diminish, and, perhaps, therefore, to circumscribe. *
 
 33 
 
 But, in the meantime, it may be reasonably argued that the 
 present power of judges are somewhat indefinite, not to say 
 anomalous. They seem to extend to many things that are not 
 done or said in court, and to apply even to words and conduct 
 which have only indirect reference to any trial going on in court 
 * One peculiarity of the power to punish 
 
 for contempt of court is that it enables the same person to be 
 accuser, jury, and judge altogether. There are cases probably in 
 which this is necessary and unobjectionable, but the principle is 
 so peculiar that it needs more and more every day to have the 
 limits and the purposes of its operation clearly defined." 
 
 " THE SCOTSMAN." 
 
 " The whole affair is apt to raise misgivings in the public mind, 
 regarding this undefined power of sending people to prison with- 
 out trial, for offences, real or imagined^the offence, the procedure 
 and the sentence being all hurriedly developed on a moment's 
 notice out of the judicial consciousness, at the time, perhaps in a 
 state of excitement, irritation or anger. * 
 
 It was a mere chance that Parliament was sitting at the time, 
 and so secured a speedy release, otherwise Cradock might have 
 lain weeks or months in prison. But whether contempt of court is 
 to be disposed of summarily on the spot, or to be more deliberately 
 inquired into, it is manifestly desirable that something more 
 definite should be known about its nature and guilt. That ample 
 protection should be afforded to all who aid in the administration 
 of justice, whether as judges, pleaders, officials, or witnesses, will 
 be readily admitted. Contempt of court, Lowever, is mainly, if 
 not entirely, designed, as the words indicate, for the protection of 
 judges against disrespect or indignity when sitting in judgment, or 
 against imputations on their integrity, or against disorders or inter- 
 ferences in court or out of it, calculated to obstruct or bias the 
 administration of justice. In fact, a full power of self assertion is 
 deemed neccessary to the efficiency, if not the very existence of a 
 court of justice. It is impossible to dispute that some such power 
 is necessary, and yet it is anomalous to have the execution of this 
 'undefined power committed to the discretion of those for whose 
 beuefit it is intended, who, therefore, practically become judges in 
 their turn. Add to this the summary mode of inquiry and punish- 
 ment by censure, fine, or imprisonment, and it certainly appears to 
 us that there are special reasons for the principles and limits of 
 this court, protecting law, being more clearly announced and 
 defined."
 
 " MANCHESTER EXAMINER," MARCH 10TH, 1875. 
 
 " The resolution of which Mr. C. E. Lewis has given notice 
 concludes in these terms : ' That, reserving the power of a 
 judge to punish in a summary way whenever necessary, it is 
 advisable to provide by legislative enactment that any person 
 aggrieved shall have some right of appeal ; and that when 
 practicable, punishment for contempt of court shall be awarded 
 only after trial, in due form and course of law.' This is 
 the course adopted in France, and it saves the occupant of the 
 judicial bench from figuring as prosecutor, witness, and judge 
 conjointly and in his own case. Some such change, so far from 
 weakening, would really strengthen the hands of the judges. It 
 is no uncommon case for a judge to be defied and insulted in his 
 own court because he hesitates to use the exceptional power with 
 which he is armed. He would have no such hesitation in 
 sending offenders before another and independent tribunal, 
 while the mere knowledge that such a tribunal was available 
 would have a miraculous effect in reducing the number of 
 * scenes ' with which the public are now only too familiar." 
 
 THE "MORNING POST" (QUOTED IN THE " IRISH LAW TIMES," 20TH 
 
 MARCH, 1875), SAID : 
 
 " Mr. Justice Denman will have rendered an immense service 
 to the nation if the result of the recent committal of Cradock for 
 contempt of court should be that a similar act is rendered im- 
 possible in the future." 
 
 THE " PALL MALL GAZETTE" (QUOTED IN THE " IRISH LAW TIMES," 
 20TH MARCH, 1875), SAID : 
 
 " We trust that the discussion in Parliament will induce the 
 judges to set bounds for themselves to the authority which they 
 at present exercise with respect to contempt of court. Arbitrary 
 authority of any kind is a dangerous possession, and is apt to 
 grow by invisible accretions in the hands of its possessors. It is 
 only by the jealous supervision of those for whose ultimate 
 benefit it is conferred, and by the wise self-restraint of those 
 who wield it, that it can be preserved from degenerating into a 
 scandal, if not an absolute instrument of oppression." 
 
 MCALEESE'S CASE, MARCH, 1873. 
 
 " At the Antrim Spring Assizes of 1873, Mr - Justice Lawson sen- 
 tenced Mr. Daniel M'Aleese, the editor of the Ulster Examiner, 
 to fine and imprisonment for contempt of court in commenting 
 upon a concluded case."
 
 35 
 
 THE "DAILY NEWS" (QUOTED IN THE "IRISH LAW TIMES," OP 
 5TH APRIL, 1873), SAID : 
 
 " The severe sentence passed by Mr. Justice Lawson on Mr. 
 M'Aleese, of the Ulster Examiner, for contempt of court, will pro- 
 bably cause many persons to reflect how easily the powers 
 invented for their protection may be stretched too far. * * * 
 When Mr. Justice Blackburne sent Mr. Slapworth to prison, he 
 was careful to guard himself against the presumption that the 
 power of punishing for contempt is in any way intended for the 
 personal protection of the judges. Still less is it intended to 
 serve the purposes of repressing even the august criticisms of the 
 Press on a completed trial. The language attributed to Mr. 
 Justice Lawson would seem to imply that the continuation of the 
 assizes is pretty much the same thing as a pending cause. The 
 judge was even more unfortunate, if we may becomingly say so, 
 in imagining the assumed inaccuracies of the reports published 
 by the Ulster Examiner as a reason for exercising the powers of 
 the court, for mere reports published without permission may 
 as easily as false give rise to a process in contempt. The con- 
 tempt, which consists in writing contemptuously of judges in their 
 judicial capacity, occupies no large space in the early law of the 
 subject, and it is a pity it should be allowed to increase. The 
 process as usually enforced is, as Blackstone says, ' not agree- 
 able to the genius of the common law ; ' and we are sorry that 
 Mr. Butt's suggestion to proceed by indictment was not adopted. 
 Arbitrary justice is not much better in its effects than injustice." 
 
 POWELL'S CASE, AUGUST, 1874. 
 
 Powell, a cabman, was sent to jail for a week by a Welsh 
 county court judge for contempt of court. 
 
 "The Law Times, of Hth September, 1874, said ' The proceed- 
 ings at Rhyl Sessions in which Mr. Vaughan Williams, a Welsh 
 county court judge, has figured so conspicuously and with so 
 little credit to himself, deserve more than the cursory notice 
 they have received. We have before us the North Wales Chronicle 
 containing a verbatim report and the course of events was this 
 Powell, a cabman, met the judge as he was going to the county. 
 According to the cabman he was on the road where he had a right 
 to be. According to the judge Powell was not where he had a 
 right to be and was in the judge's way. The judge requests 
 Powell to get out of the way, and when he did not do so, struck 
 him with the whip. There was, of course, conflicting evidence 
 
 c2
 
 86 
 
 as to the position of the parties, but the magistrates subsequently 
 found the assault proved (a fine of 5 was inflicted on the judge). 
 Before, however, they exercised jurisdiction over the case of 
 assault, Mr. Williams, who was sitting on the Bench as a magis- 
 trate, saw Powell come into court and, without any inquiry, 
 assumed to exercise jurisdiction under the 9th and zoth Victoria, 
 c. 95, section 113. * Possibly at Rhyl 
 
 the sessions are held in the same court-house as the county court, 
 but Mr. Williams would hardly venture to rest his jurisdiction on 
 such a flimsy pretence as that when he committed Powell for 
 seven days which imprisonment the unfortunate fellow has 
 positively undergone he was not sitting as a county court 
 judge and could not avail himself of the County Court Act. 
 The whole proceedings was, beyond doubt, flagrantly irregular 
 and illegal."
 
 37 
 
 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 COMMISSION COURT, GREEN-STREET, DUBLIN, 
 
 AUGUST 16m, 1882, 
 BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LAWSON. 
 
 THE Solicitor- General, Mr. A. M. Porter, M.P., rising said 
 May it please your lordship a matter was mentioned in court 
 on Monday which will have prepared your lordship for the ap- 
 plication I am now about to make to the court, which is, my 
 lord, that an attachment may be issued against Mr. Edmund 
 Dwyer Gray, proprietor of the Freeman's Journal, in conse- 
 quence of the publication of certain articles and other documents 
 in that newspaper reflecting upon the administration of justice 
 in this court, and calculated, in the opinion of those who repre- 
 sent the Crown, materially to interfere with the free exercise of 
 their duties by those to whom the administration of justice is 
 entrusted here. My lord, the notice of this application was 
 yesterday served, and I may as well state what that notice is. 
 It is addressed to Edmund Dwyer Gray, Esq., at the office of the 
 Freeman's Journal newspaper, in Prince's-street, Dublin 
 " Take notice that at the sitting of the Commission Court, Green- 
 street, in the city of Dublin, on Wednesday, 16th August instant, 
 at 11 o'clock forenoon, counsel on behalf of the Attorney- 
 General will apply [to your lordship] that an attachment do 
 issue against you, Edmund Dwyer Gray, and that you be forth- 
 with committed to prison for Contempt of Court, or such other 
 order as shall seem [to your lordship] fit. Such application 
 shall be grounded upon the affidavit of Alexander Morphy, in- 
 tended to be sworn at the sitting of the court to-morrow, a copy 
 of which affidavit is herewith furnished you." Mr. Morphy has 
 made an affidavit, which is now sworn, and a copy of which, in 
 order to convenience Mr. Gray, was left with him yesterday in 
 order that he might not be taken by surprise by this application. 
 That affidavit is as follows. 
 
 433359
 
 38 
 
 " I say that I am Crown Solicitor for the Counties of Clare 
 and Kerry, and as such Crown Solicitor I was professionally 
 engaged in the recent trials in the case of the Queen v. John 
 Connor, and others, for attacking the house of Mrs. May bury, 
 and in the case of the Queen v. Cullen, for grievous assault, and 
 in the case of the Queen v. Francis Hynes, for the murder of 
 John Doloughty. Said trials respectively took place at the now 
 pending August, 1882, Commission, before the Eight Hon. Mr. 
 Justice Lawson and special juries, under the provisions of the 
 Prevention of Crime Act, 1882. I say that the said Commission 
 is still pending, and other cases remain for trial thereat, before 
 special juries under the provisions of the statute. I say that I 
 have read in the issue of the newspaper called the Freeman's 
 Journal, published on Friday, llth August, inst., an article com- 
 mencing at the words ' Yesterday at the Commission,' and 
 ending with the words, ' Sentence was deferred.' I have also 
 read in the issue of the Freeman's Journal, published on Satur- 
 day, the 12th August, another article commencing with the 
 words, ' We are unwilling to credit the rumour,' and ending 
 with the words, ' Openly make such an accusation.' I have 
 also read in the issue of the said Freeman's Journal newspaper, 
 published on Monday, 14th August, instant, a letter purporting 
 to be signed ' William O'Brien,' and an article commencing 
 with the words, ' On Saturday Francis Hynes,' and ending 
 with the words, ' Not wisely but too well.' I have also read in . 
 the issue of the Freeman's Journal of Tuesday, 15th August, a 
 passage commencing ' The conviction of Francis Hynes,' and end- 
 ing with the words ' Penal servitude will certainly satisfy her.' 
 
 At this period the High Sheriff came into court and sat in one 
 of the side boxes. 
 
 The Solicitor- General The first is an extract from the 
 Freeman's Journal, of August 11 : 
 
 " Yesterday, at the Commission Court, the first jury trial under 
 the recent Crimes Act took place. John Connor and three others^ 
 all natives of Kerry, were placed in the dock charged with, on 
 the 17th March last, at Fahey, in the County of Kerry, having 
 attacked the house of Mrs. Maybury, the widow of an officer in 
 the army. Under the ordinary law the men would have been 
 tried in Kerry, where the alleged offence took place ; but availing 
 himself of the provision in the Crimes Act, the Attorney- General 
 removed the case to Dublin, and under the same measure a 
 special jury was empanelled from a joint county and city panel. 
 The Crown exercised their right to challenge on a wholesale scale, 
 and no less than nineteen persons, some of them among our 
 most respectable citizens, were ordered to ' stand aside.' All the 
 facts of the case will be found reported elsewhere. The
 
 39 
 
 prisoners were convicted, but the jury accompanied their finding 
 with a strong recommendation to mercy, and sentence was 
 deferred." , 
 
 That article standing by itself would have been a most improper, 
 as I respectfully submit, a most improper interference by this 
 public newspaper with the administration of justice in your lord- 
 ship's court. It is absolutely intolerable, my lord, that it should 
 be permitted to any individual, be he journalist, or whether he be- 
 long to any other profession or class in the community, to exercise 
 that right of supervision over the proceedings of your lordship's 
 court which belongs to your lordship, and to your lordship alone. 
 My lord, every person who has even the most elementary ac- 
 quaintance with the rules of law which govern the criminal proce- 
 dure of this country, is perfectly aware that the exercise of the right 
 to say "stand by" to a particular juror by the Attorney-General is 
 one which is absolutely unquestionable, so much so that in a case 
 that I have myself been present at a learned and distinguished 
 judge ruled that he would not permit observation or com- 
 ment upon the exercise of an undoubted and unquestioned right to 
 be made even bythe counsel for the prisoner in whose case it was 
 exercised, and to be made even in court respectfully made to the 
 judge himtftlf who was presiding at the trial, and that for perfectly 
 obvious reasons. My lord, there is no imputation upon a juror 
 in whose case the Attorney- General exercises the right to say 
 " stand by." There are numbers of circumstances which may 
 influence the Attorney- General in taking that course, or those 
 others who represent the Crown, which it is absolutely impossible 
 to have investigated in court, in which the law entrusts to those 
 representing the Crown an absolutely uncontrolled discretion, 
 and in reference to which no inquiry can be possibly permitted, 
 even in court. But the object of the article I have read to your 
 lordship is obvious and plain. It is to discredit the adminis- 
 tration of justice, and it is to endeavour to arouse in the minds of 
 those who are attending this court as jurors, a feeling of dis- 
 satisfaction against the mode in which business is conducted by 
 your lordship's tribunal, and to interfere with the calm, free and 
 judicial administration of justice in this public court. If com- 
 ment of this kind were permitted to go on, our jurisprudence 
 would become simply a farce, we would be here for the purpose 
 of doing as we were told by Mr. Edmund Dwyer Gray, of the 
 Freeman's Journal, and of course by other journalists in the same 
 way, because, if comment of this kind, while a Commission is 
 actually sitting and whilst jurors are in attendance on the court, 
 is permitted in one newspaper, it must be permitted to all, and 
 there would be an end of the calm and free administration of 
 justice which it is essential should be provided for in our courts.
 
 40 
 
 But that article did not stand alone it was followed by another 
 on the 12th of August, last Saturday, which is more pronounced ; 
 and I shall read the whole article 
 
 " We are unwilling to credit the rumour that the Crown have 
 resolved that juries exclusively, or almost exclusively, Protestant 
 shall determine in some cases the liberty, in other cases the lives 
 of the prisoners on trial at Green-street. Yet colour is lent to 
 the report by the fact that yesterday, in the capital case, just as 
 on the previous day in the whiteboy case, Catholic gentlemen of 
 admitted respectability and position were ordered to ' stand aside ' 
 when they took the book to be sworn." 
 
 Let me pause for a moment to say that such an idea as 
 investigating the religious belief of gentlemen has never entered 
 into the contemplation of those representing the Crown, nor can it 
 or ought it for a moment. I admit that what this journal says 
 as to the respectability of these gentlemen, some of whom we told 
 to " stand by," is undoubted, and the Crown never^meant to cast 
 the slightest reproach on them, any more than is conveyed in 
 being challenged by the prisoner. 
 
 " To the gentlemen in question no stereotyped ' tra(k objection 
 can be, and the inference, therefore, is, that they \rere shoved 
 aside from their duties as jurors simply because they are Catholics. 
 If this is true, an odious and, it was hoped, obsolete practice has 
 been revived, and the course taken, as unnecessary as it is 
 injudicious, must naturally cause indignation and resentment in 
 Catholic circles. The notion that such men as Edward Lenehan, 
 of Castle-street; William Dennehy, of John-street; and others 
 whom we could mention, should not be trusted to find a true 
 verdict according to evidence in country rases brought to Dublin 
 for trial, which is the simple and only inference, is offensive in the 
 extreme. The representatives of the Crown would not venture to 
 publicly make such a declaration, yet the names of the gentlemen 
 specified appear in the published list of the rejected. The matter 
 is one that calls for inquiry and explanation. For the present we 
 have only to express our regret that the representatives of the Crown 
 should deem it necessary and expedient to boycott Catholic 
 special jurors of the city and county of Dublin. That this has been 
 done we fear there is no doubt, and we apprehend that no other 
 interpretation of the action of the Crown can be given than that 
 Catholic gentlemen are subjected to the shocking imputation that 
 they are not unprepared to violate the solemn obligation of their 
 oath in cases which are supposed to arise out of political agitation 
 in the country. Would the managers of the Crown prosecutions 
 in Green-street dare openly make such an accusation ? "
 
 41 
 
 Now, my lord, that infinitely transcends in audacity I use the 
 word advisedly that which had taken place in the publication of 
 the previous day. What is the obvious and necessary consequence 
 of the publication of an article of that sort 1 If it were permitted 
 to go unreproved and unchecked aye, and unpunished it would 
 be to stir up class feeling and prejudice amongst the jurors, and 
 render such a thing as a free administration of justice an impossi- 
 bility. The importance of an article of that kind is that by 
 making these accusations against those representing the Crown, 
 who are merely discharging what they consider to be their duty, 
 in reference to which if they have committed any mistake or 
 impropriety they are responsible under your lordship's jurisdic- 
 tion it would be holding up those representing the Crown to the 
 odium of a large portion of the community in which we live, and 
 the endeavour is to fasten upon a large class of jurors the imputa- 
 tion that they are by those conducting the prosecutions looked 
 upon as not of faith worthy on oath. Such a statement is absolutely 
 without foundation, but it is made there, and made for a purpose, 
 and probably with an effect if not checked of preventing 
 justice being done in courts, of creating class feeling and pre- 
 judice in the minds of those very persons on whose impartiality 
 the liberties of prisoners and the rights of the public so largely 
 depend. It seems to me that a publication of that kind, circu- 
 lating, as undoubtedly it does, amongst the class of jurors in this 
 locality, is one that renders it impossible for the Crown to avoid 
 taking the course they have done in bringing the matter officially 
 under your lordship's notice. These two articles, followed up by 
 some other comments which it will be my duty to bring before 
 your lordship, in the paper of yesterday's date, are bad enough 
 but there is another matter which stands upon a somewhat 
 different basis, and which consists of publications which appeared 
 in the paper of Monday. A letter appeared printed in the 
 freeman's Journal, of Monday not a day had passed (the 
 13th, of course, was a Sunday) a letter appeared signed by 
 "William O'Brien." Now, I, personally, my lord, have no knowledge 
 of the writer of the letter nor of who he may be I have not been 
 even officially informed on that point ; but that letter purports to 
 be a comment upon the conduct of the jury in the Ennis murder 
 case. That was a case in which a verdict of guilty had been 
 brought in by a special jury, guided in reference to the trial by 
 your lordship as judge, and that trial had been completed and 
 ended at the time of this publication. My lord, this letter, of 
 course, bears a signature to it ; but whoever the writer of it 
 may be, the publisher of it, whom we know, is the person who is 
 officially responsible, and in reference to whose conduct he must 
 for all purposes be treated precisely as if he had written that 
 article himself. This letter is in these words.
 
 42 
 
 "THE JURY IN THE ENNIS MURDER CASE. 
 
 "TO THE EDITOR OF THE 'FREEMAN.' 
 
 " Imperial Hotel, Dublin, Saturday, Aug. 12. 
 
 " DEAR SIR, I think the public ought to be made aware of 
 the following facts. The jury in the murder case of the 
 Queen v. Hynes were last night ' locked up,' as it is termed, 
 for the night at the Imperial Hotel, where I was also staying. 
 I was awakened from sleep shortly after midnight by the sounds 
 of a drunken chorus, succeeded after a time by scuffling, rushing, 
 coarse laughter, and horse-play along the corridor on which my 
 bedroom opens. A number of men, it seemed to me, were 
 falling about the passage in a maudlin state of drunkenness, 
 playing ribald jokes. I listened with patience for a considerable 
 time, when the door of my bedroom was burst open, and a man 
 whom I can identify (for he carried a candle unsteadily in his 
 hand) staggered in, plainly under the influence of drink, 
 hiccuping, ' Hallo, old fellow, all alone ? ' My answer was of 
 a character that induced him to bolt out of the room in as dis- 
 ordered a manner as he had entered. Having rung the bell, I 
 ascertained that these disorderly persons were jurors in the case 
 of the Queen v. Hynes, and that the servants of the hotel had 
 been endeavouring in vain to bring them to a sense of their 
 misconduct. I thought it right to convey to them a warning 
 that the public would hear of their proceedings. The dis- 
 turbance then ceased. It is fair to add that no more than three 
 or four men appeared to be engaged in the roaring and the tipsy 
 horse-play that followed. I leave the public to judge the 
 loathsomeness of such a scene upon the night when these men 
 held the issues of life and death for a young man in the flower 
 of youth, when they had already heard evidence which, if 
 unbutted, they must have known would send him to a felon's 
 grave. These facts I am ready to support upon oath. 
 
 " WILLIAM O'BRIEN." 
 
 Now, my lord, presuming I am assuming in favour of 
 Mr. Gray that that is a genuine letter, and that that letter he 
 believed to be a genuine communication that it was received 
 in his office as a genuine and ordinary communication, what 
 was his duty in reference to it ? My lord, as a public journalist, 
 I respectfully submit that he ought never to have published 
 such a communication at all. Comment in the newspapers 
 upon the mode in which jurors conduct themselves out of court
 
 43 
 
 is a matter which cannot for a moment be permitted. If they 
 commit any misconduct in court, it is for the court to reprove 
 them. If any misconduct is alleged against them, it is for the 
 court to deal with them. The court is the tribunal to which 
 any such complaint ought to be made. But to drag the conduct 
 of jurors before the public after a case is concluded, with the 
 view solely and simply to discredit the verdict at which these 
 jurors have arrived, is an endeavour to tamper with the 
 administration of justice to defeat it and render it impossible. 
 My lord, the writer of the letter must have known, and if the 
 writer did not know, the publisher of the letter in the paper 
 must have perfectly well known, that it could have no effect if 
 believed in except to raise prejudice in the public mind. So far 
 as the case itself was concerned, the case was concluded and 
 over, and therefore if this case had been merely the publication 
 of a letter of the kind by Mr. Gray in the ordinary course of his 
 business, and as a public journalist, it was a scandalous 
 indecency of a character which could not, I respectfully submit, 
 be permitted to go unpunished a scandalous indecency, for 
 which he is undoubtedly responsible. But what are the facts of 
 the case ? Mr. Gray is not only the publisher of the Freeman s 
 Journal, but he is also the High Sheriff of the City of 
 Dublin, and it is so sworn in the affidavit; and if there was any- 
 thing wrong in the conduct of the jurors after they had left this 
 court, he was the person who was responsible for that himself ; 
 and it was his duty, if that matter had been brought 
 before him, to have suppressed and prevented the publi- 
 cation in the newspapers ol anything which would be calculated 
 to interfere with the administration of justice, and to have 
 instantly consulted your lordship, or legal advice in the matter, 
 with a view of submitting his own duty or breach of duty to the 
 court with the view of having it tested by the constituted tri- 
 bunals. Mr. Gray seems to forget that if there is a word of 
 truth in the letter which I do not for a moment admit it is a 
 matter which cannot be inquired into. Without admitting there 
 is one shadow of foundation for the statement in the letter, if 
 there was a letter, and he believed it to be true, he has com- 
 mitted a very gross breach of duty in bringing it before the 
 public with a view to raise prejudice against the jurors in that 
 and other cases which may come on for trial here before the 
 court. He was bound, in the discharge of his own duty, to 
 have come to the law under which he was bound to act as a 
 ministerial officer. My lord, the publication does not stop with 
 the letter. There is also a leading article in the same paper, 
 which I will read to your lordship 
 
 " On Saturday, Francis Hynes was found guilty of the murder
 
 44 
 
 of John Doloughty. The circumstances of the case were in 
 every sense most lamentable. We cannot think that the 
 evidence will so far satisfy the public conscience as to induce it 
 to regard the execution of the capital sentence on Hynes with 
 equanimity. True, the dying man, when questioned as to the 
 murder, repeated more than once the words Francy or Francy 
 Hynes. But, then, the fear of Hynes was long fixed in his 
 mind, and his wounds were of such a character as to be cal- 
 culated to unsettle his mind. The mere repetition of a dreaded- 
 name is, under such circumstances, very different from a 
 detailed story of how the crime was committed. Nothing of 
 this kind was given, and, on the whole, without desiring in any way 
 to screen the guilty, we say that it would be safer for the Execu- 
 tive not to rush too hastily to the application of the bloody 
 penalty in a case in which there certainly is an element of 
 doubt; and we say that the ends of justice would be better served 
 if the sentence were commuted. This is an opinion upon the 
 evidence alone ; but what shall we say of the fearful tale given 
 by Mr. William O'Brien with reference to the conduct of the 
 jury on the night before they found a verdict which was to 
 bring Hynes to a dishonoured grave ? It is fearful ; it is 
 horrible ; it makes one shudder. In what state of mind can 
 these men have been, when, a few hours after the proceedings 
 described, they were called upon to decide whether a fellow- 
 creature was to live or die ? Can the Executive refuse to take 
 cognizance of Mr. O'Brien's proffered evidence ? Cau they 
 refuse to act upon it if proved to be true ? Knowing Mr. 
 O'Brien as we do, we place the most absolute confidence in 
 every word he says. But let the Executive test his veracity. If 
 it remain unimpeached, then we say that his disclosures are 
 such as to make us blush for our common humanity. We have 
 heard of men hanging that jurymen may dine ; but what of a 
 man hanging because jurymen have dined not wisely but too 
 well ? " 
 
 My lord, I was not present at any portion of the trial. I 
 have, however, made myself acquainted with the proceedings as 
 they occurred in court, and your lordship, as presiding judge, 
 of course, was present during every moment of the trial, and I 
 think I may state that which is in the knowledge of every person 
 who was present in court, and which I have no reason whatever 
 for a moment to doubt, that a more perfectly calm, careful, 
 honest investigation than was given to the case by the jury who 
 tried it it would be impossible to conceive. Their conduct was 
 exemplary in the extreme from the commencement to the con- 
 clusion of the case, and that as to the appearance of misconduct 
 or of anything which would entitle the writer of any article in
 
 45 
 
 morals much less in law to hold them up to the odium and; 
 execration of the community in which they live, never could be 
 dreamt of. In the first part of the article we have a discussion 
 of the case, and the writer of that article, whoever he may be 
 of course I don't know ; it is an anonymous article ; I don't 
 know who the writer may he but he thinks that, writing in 
 Prince's-street, he is constituting himself a court of appeal from 
 your lordship and from the jury who heard the case ; and he 
 is to pronounce, in the name of justice, that the proceedings 
 at a single moment of which he probably was not present 
 were all wrong ; that everybody who took part in the proceed- 
 ings was guilty of a monstrous misconduct, but that he alone 
 is an absolutely infallible judge, and perfectly competent to sit 
 as a court of appeal over the proceedings of judge and jury. 
 But as regards the latter portion, in which comment is made 
 upon the letter of Mr. William O'Brien, it certainly appears to 
 me that it transcends in the qualities I have already referred 
 to, in audacity, the previous part of the article. The jurors 
 who attend at this court have cast upon them by law duties of 
 the utmost gravity. There never was a time in the history of 
 the law when the discharge of their duties uninfluenced by 
 terror or fear was more vitally essential. That is the time in 
 which this anonymous writer for whose every word Mr. Gray 
 is just as responsible as if he had written them himself selects 
 for the purpose of pilloring the jurors in reference to the charge 
 of misconduct which is continued down to the very time the 
 verdict was given, because the meaning is, that sentence of death 
 was pronounced upon the man because the jury were intoxicated 
 at the time. That was followed by a long correspondence in the 
 same paper of yesterday. The first portion of the article is 
 headed, " Conviction of Francis Hynes." 
 
 Judge Lawson What is the date of this ? 
 
 The Solicitor General Tuesday, August 15th, the Freeman s 
 Journal. It is all under the one heading. The first portion I 
 need not read ; it is merely a report of the application made 
 yesterday by the jury. Then it goes on 
 
 " TO THE EDITOR OF THE ' FREEMAN.' 
 
 " Imperial Hotel, Monday Xight. 
 
 "DEAR SIR As my accusation against certain jurors in the 
 case of the Queen v. Hynes is to form the subject of judicial 
 inquiry, I shall only say in reference to Mr. Barrett's statement 
 in the Commission Court to-day, that further evidence which has.
 
 46 
 
 now coine to my knowledge makes me more auxious than ever 
 to court the fullest investigation as to the truth of my charge. 
 
 " Your faithful servant, 
 
 "WILLIAM O'BBIEN." 
 
 That is a reiteration of the charge already published by the 
 High Sheriff on the officers of this court. 
 
 " The following letter has been furnished to us by telegraph for 
 publication by Mr. Edward Finucane, Ennis : 
 
 " ' TO THE EDITOR OF THE " FREEMAN." 
 
 " ' In reference to Mr. Justice Lawson's comment on cross- 
 examination of young Doloughty in the Clare murder case, 
 where, relative to conversation of his with an Ennis shopkeeper, 
 his lordship said it showed the lengths people interested in defeat- 
 ing the ends of justice will go I am the shopkeeper referred 
 to, and am as well known to be incapable of acting such a part 
 as the judge who decided according to law that a cool and unin- 
 vited statement made to me by the boy was inadmissible, as 
 even my servant also heard his distinct statement, in reply to 
 my remark deploring the murder of his father, and referring to 
 the arrest of Hynes, that as nothing will be done to him, because 
 whoever would do it he would say it was Francy Hynes. I did 
 not volunteer to give evidence, but feel surprised the law, of 
 which Judge Lawson is the mouthpiece, refused to hear facts 
 which no juryman could doubt, and which would enable them 
 to judge the state of mind the murdered man was in even before 
 the awful occurrence.' " 
 
 The prisoner on the occasion was represented by able counsel, 
 who knew how to conduct his case, and if there had been any 
 misconduct or omission on the part of the jury or your lordship 
 in reference to the admission of evidence or not attaching proper 
 weight to it, it was for them to comment on it, and not obscure 
 scribblers in newspapers. 
 
 Judge Lawson I can only say that The MacDerinot, who 
 conducted the case, did not press this evidence, it was so mani- 
 festly inadmissible. 
 
 The Solicitor General He was too much of a lawyer. 
 
 Judge Lawson Things have come to a nice pass when a 
 man of this kind will write about a judge. 
 
 The Solicitor- General There is another letter : 
 
 "TO THE EDITOR OF THE ' FREEMAN.' 
 
 " 6 Upper Ormond Quay, Aug. 14. 
 
 " DEAR Sra As the solicitor who was engaged in instructing 
 counsel and otherwise acting in the defence of the prisoner, I
 
 47 
 
 beg to lay before your readers and the public a short statement 
 of some facts that marked the course of procedure on this tria 
 in a way that struck me as very inconsistent with what should 
 be calculated to inspire faith and confidence in the administra- 
 tion of the laws of this or any other country." 
 
 My lord, that is plain speaking what occurred is calculated, 
 that is the meaning of it, to deprive the proceedings in courts of 
 faith or confidence in the administration of the law, and that is 
 the object for which it is published. It is to bring the adminis- 
 tration of the law into contempt and render the execution of the 
 law impossible. 
 
 " The sheriffs of the county and city of Dublin returned each 
 a special panel of 100 men to try the several cases which 
 would be sent up from the provinces to the present com- 
 mission. For the purposes of the present case I will assume 
 that each of these two panels was chosen with perfect fairness 
 by the respective sheriffs of the county and city. I know the 
 sheriff of the city to be an honourable man. At this moment I 
 do not know the name of the sheriff of the county, but I assume 
 him also to be an Irish gentleman, and perfectly honourable 
 for why should any man of that rank be otherwise in the dis- 
 charge of so serious a public duty ? " 
 
 When he is writing to Mr. Edmund Dwyer Gray, the sheriff 
 of the city, he assumes no person in his position will be guilty 
 of any breach of public duty, and I venture to say in returning 
 a jury there is no fault to be attached to Mr. Gray ; he was act- 
 ing under a statute and did his duty under it. I don't for a 
 moment say it was written by a solicitor; there is no application 
 against him, but it is printed by Mr. Gray as if it were. Mr. 
 Gray publishes that compliment to himself; but what does he 
 say about the jurors who are in a public position at least as im- 
 portant, and what does he say about the judge 1 
 * " However, when the jury came to be selected in open court, in 
 the presence of the Attorney- General and the other counsel 
 engaged in the prosecution for the Crown, what took place ? The 
 gentleman acting as solicitor for the Crown, as it appears he had 
 a legal right to do, in exercise of the powers with which he is 
 vested by the laws as at present constituted, ordered every gentle- 
 man of the Roman Catholic persuasion or of Liberal principles in 
 politics to stand aside, as if unworthy to serve on that jury. I 
 have been upwards of thirty years engaged in my profession, and 
 must say that I was never more amazed than at this what I con- 
 sider extreme step on the part of those acting for the Crown 
 towards a young person who was brought far away from his home, 
 and before jurors to whom he or his antecedents were wholly 
 unknown, but who were still the persons called upon to pronounce
 
 48 
 
 on his guilt or innocence. Whilst the jury were being empanelled 
 I felt it my duty to challenge eleven out of the forty-nine who 
 were called and answered, but what was my astonishment to find 
 the Crown ordered not less than twenty-six of those specially 
 summoned jurors to stand aside as if unfit to sit in judgment as 
 jurors on the case, and particularly when I was constrained to 
 observe that amongst the persons so included were also those who 
 happened to be called who professed the religious or political 
 principles to which I have before referred. 
 
 "JOHN FROST." 
 
 He admits he exercised his rights of challenge, which is a very 
 different right to saying " stand aside." When a juror is chal- 
 lenged he cannot absolutely be called again on that case ; " stand 
 by" passes the juror over, but does not prevent him serving if 
 there is a defect of jurors. What is the impression to be left on the 
 minds of these gentlemen who are told to stand aside ? It is that 
 the Crown is partisan and actuated by feelings hostile to those 
 jurors who in the exercise of their discretion for many reasons, 
 some of them reasons in which the jurors would themselves most 
 perfectly acquiesce, have been passed over. My lord, there is only 
 one other letter : 
 
 " 14^/i August. 
 
 11 DEAR SIR, Would it not be advisable, considering all the 
 circumstances of this unfortunate man's case, that a memorial 
 should be prepared for signature to be presented to the Lord 
 Lieutenant, praying a remission of the capital punishment ; and I 
 feel certain that the jury will lead the way. The Crown desires 
 no victim, only that justice maybe vindicated, and penal servitude 
 will certainly satisfy her. 
 
 " SPES. 
 
 " I enclose my name, <fec." 
 
 Of course I only include that as being portion of the publication 
 of that day. Now, my lord, the principles on which this court 
 acts in reference to publications in the public press are perfectly 
 clear, and perfectly settled, and do not admit of question. It 
 would be pedantry to be citing authorities to your lordship. Any 
 publication in the public press which is calculated in the mind of 
 the presiding judge to interfere with the free exercise of the duty 
 of a court and the administration of justice is a contempt of court. 
 It is true that the comment in reference to the jury in Hynes' 
 case was after the trial had concluded, and if it were only in reference 
 to that trial there would be something to be said as to whether 
 that was a contempt of court, but the court had not concluded its 
 business. These same gentlemen who took part in the trial are 
 liable to serve I presume some of them did serve in subsequent
 
 49 
 
 cases your lordship is still bound to remain, until the business of 
 the Commission has closed ; and an attack upon the jury in that 
 particular case cinnotfor a moment be treated as if it were merely 
 comment upon a particular case if it is obvious that tbe publica- 
 tion was not confined to that case but must extend to the entire 
 administration of justice. Is Mr. Gray responsible for the publi- 
 cation of these articles, or is he not] The affidavit from which I 
 have read makes exhibits of the papers and says 
 
 ' ' I say the said Freeman's Journal 
 
 The High Sberiif Perhaps I may save the Solicitor- General 
 trouble by saying I acknowledge my responsibility. 
 
 The Solicitor- General The affidavit says " Is printed and 
 published in the city of Dublin, and circulates largely in the county 
 and city of Dublin, and amongst the class of persons who are 
 upon the jury panels respectively, and I say the said publication 
 in my opinion is calculated to interfere with the due administration 
 of justice and the free and impartial discharge of their duties by 
 the jurors in the Commission Court ; and I am advised and submit 
 that the publication of these articles are a contempt of this court. 
 I say that Mr. Edmund Dwyer Gray, who is at present the High 
 Sheriff of the city of Dublin, is the sole proprietor of the Freeman's 
 Journal, upon each copy of which his name appears as publisher." 
 Then he referred to the copies of the paper. I don't press this 
 application merely upon the ground of an attempt to interfere with 
 the administration of justice so far as the jurors who have already 
 served I rest it with reference to the jurors of the entire of this 
 Commission. The object of these articles is to stir up partizan- 
 ship, which will render a fair trial impossible. I also press it in 
 reference to comments upon the conduct of the presiding judge, 
 though I know your, lordship will be most unwilling to entertain 
 it, but which in the discharge of your duty sitting here you must. 
 I shall wait to hear what apology or explanation will be offered. 
 I don't suppose Mr. Gray nor did Mr. Pigott in the case in which 
 he was punished the court cannot deal with the question of 
 who is the precise scribe who wrote the article. If you find the 
 proprietor of a newspaper receiving the profits of such comment, 
 he is absolutely responsible, and the court cannot enter into 
 any explanation of whether he did or did not write or know 
 of the publication of these articles. It will be open to Mr. Gray 
 or his counsel to satisfy your lordship, if he can, that these docu- 
 ments are not of the character I have described. It will be open 
 for him to show that they are not inconsistent with the calm 
 discharge of their duty by the tribunal in reference to whom 
 they were published. If that cannot be done, and if it be 
 impossible to convey any other idea but that these documents 
 are calculated to tamper with the free administration of justice,
 
 50 
 
 I apprehend your lordship will have no alternative but to deal 
 with such publication as a very gross and dangerous contempt 
 of court, and deal with it in such a manner as your lordship 
 thinks fit. 
 
 The High Sheriff In reference to this application, I wish in 
 the first instance to state that through the courtesy of Mr. 
 Morphy, the Crown Solicitor, I was- handed last evening, 
 at rather a late hour, just when I was leaving my house, 
 a document conveying a notice to me that at 11 o'clock 
 this morning a motion would be made to your lordship, 
 on behalf of her Majesty's Attorney- General for Ireland, 
 that I should be forthwith committed to prison for con- 
 tempt of court. As I have stated to your lordship, it was at 
 a late hour last evening that I received this notice, and I have 
 not had time since sufficient to instruct counsel or to consult 
 a solicitor, and I must, therefore, throw myself somewhat on 
 your lordship's consideration in making such statements as I 
 may think it necessary to make on the subject of this applica- 
 tion. I am not aware of the course of procedure customary in 
 cases of this kind. I certainly was under the impression that 
 the usual form of such an application was that the person 
 accused should be required to attend before the court to show 
 cause that the usual course was that of an ex parte application 
 to fix a day when the case should be heard and the accused 
 person permitted to come before the court and show cause 
 against the application, or adopt such course as he or his 
 counsel might deem advisable. 
 
 Judge Lawson You are the High Sheriff, and you are bound 
 to be always in attendance on the court. 
 
 The High Sheriff Even so, my lord, my being bound as 
 High Sheriff to be present in your lordship's court would not 
 furnish me with the formal notice to which I have referred. 
 My lord, as I say, I was under the impression that the course I 
 have pointed out was the regular form of procedure in such 
 application, as it, I certainly think, is the usual course which 
 has been adopted in similar cases. I was only saying that the 
 usual form of procedure was not that I should be sentenced first 
 and tried afterwards, as the Solicitor-General apparently 
 proposes. Now, my lord, there is one point perfectly 
 clear. I do not think it will require many words to convince 
 your lordship that in the articles and letters which appeared in 
 the Freeman's Journal, of which newspaper I acknowledge that I 
 am the proprietor, and for everything appearing in which I am, 
 of course, responsible that no personal disrespect whatever 
 either to your lordship or your lordship's court was intended to 
 be conveyed.
 
 51 
 
 Judge Lawson I would not entertain any application what- 
 ever founded on personal disrespect to myself. I would consider 
 it quite unworthy of dealing with. 
 
 The High- Sheriff I am sure your lordship would not, and 
 that you do not, attribute any such motive or intention ; hut at 
 the same time I desire emphatically to disclaim on the part of 
 all concerned, and most emphatically on my own part, any 
 suggestion of the kind. As a matter of fact, I do not think the 
 articles bear that construction ; but, lest any person should 
 think they do, I think it my duty to say none such was intended. 
 It is a question whether there is technical contempt to the 1 
 court, certainly not to your lordship. Now, my lord, I wish to 
 say a word with regard to the observations made by the Solicitor- 
 General as to the peculiar and anomalous position which I occupy, 
 owing to the fact of my being High Sheriff, as well as proprietor and 
 conductor of the newspaper in which the articles appeared, 
 which have been impugned. The Solicitor- General seems to be 
 under the impression that in that dual capacity it was my duty 
 to suppress the publication in the Freeman s Journal of any 
 articles or communications in reference to the trials in this 
 court. I beg to state that when I accepted the office 
 of High Sheriff of the city I was under the impression 
 that my acceptance of that position would in no way 
 interfere with the ^honest discharge of my duties as a 
 public journalist, and I can only say that my view as to those 
 duties differs very widely indeed from that which has been stated 
 by the Solicitor-General, and if he is right I <,n only ask the 
 Crown to relieve me from the discharge of those duties for the 
 discharge of duties which I consider much more important. In 
 my opinion it is the duty of a public journalist to comment freely 
 and fearlessly upon the conduct of public tribunals, and upon the 
 mode in which justice is administered in this country. Now, the 
 charges which the Solicitor-General has made against the Free- 
 man's Journal are of a two-fold character. One charge, or one 
 set of charges, has reference to the imputations which, he alleges 
 have been made by those " scribblers" that being the language 
 he has thought fit to use with reference to the writers in the 
 public Press to the effect that we charged the representatives of 
 the Crown with unduly exercising their right of challenge, and 
 exercising it in such a manner as to prejudice the fair trial of the 
 accused. Now, the Solicitor-General appears exceedingly anxious 
 to dissociate the representatives of the Crown from any imputa- 
 tion of that character. Any person listening to the long and able 
 speech he made would be under the impression did he not know 
 the facts that jury-packing was quite an unknown thing in the 
 history of the administration of the law in Ireland. That may be 
 
 D2
 
 52 
 
 the view of the Solicitor-General ; but it certainly is nob the 
 general impression of the people of this country, and it is not 
 mine. I need not point out to your lordship that whether those 
 eharces be true or false, that it is in point of fact quite as possibly 
 to pack a jury by exclusion as it is by inclusion, and that if 
 out of an enormous number of jurymen the Crown exercise to an 
 undue extent its rights of setting aside, it may secure a jury who 
 will to a moral certainty find a verdict in accordance with its view. 
 Now, I put that merely as a matter of possibility. I am not 
 saying that it has been done at this Commission whether it has 
 or not remains to be seen but as a matter of fact I assert that 
 a jury can be packed by the Crown by a system of exclusion quite 
 as effectually as by a system of inclusion. The real question, I take 
 it, is whether that charge is true or not. The Solicitor-General 
 seems to think that it is out of your lordship's province to inquire 
 into the matter. If it is, I suppose it will go by default and the 
 only question will be the amount of punishment, or what term of 
 imprisonment your lordship should mete out to me. But the 
 question, it seems to me, is whether the statement was true or not. 
 "Was the right of exclusion exercised to an undue extent by the 
 Crown ? Were Catholics ordered to stand aside because they were 
 Catholics ? Were Liberals directed to stand by because they were 
 Liberals 1 Were jurors of a certain complexion selected by the 
 Crown by means of that system of exclusion 1 Now I am not in 
 a position to go into that question to-day, and on that point I 
 would ask your lordship, if you can see your way to it, to grant some 
 adjournment of the case in order that the action of the Crown in 
 connection with the selection or exclusion of jurors may be more 
 carefully investigated, and if it shall be found that the statements 
 made in the Freeman's Journal in that regard were unfounded, I 
 may offer to the representatives of the Crown and your lordship 
 such apology and render such reparation as your lordship shall 
 deem necessary. But if, on the other hand, I find on inquiry 
 that the charges are to my mind well founded, I shall ask per- 
 mission to lay before you, either by affidavit or in such other way 
 as may be proper, such evidence as I may be able to procure in 
 support of the statements that have been made. 
 
 I now come to what I regard as a much more serious matter 
 the letter of Mr. William O'Brien and the comments of the Free- 
 man's Journal thereon. Now, I am not only responsible as 
 proprietor of the Freeman's Journal for the publication of that 
 letter, but I have no hesitation in avowing that I am personally 
 responsible for it, and also for the comments which appeared upon 
 it, inasmuch as I knew of its insertion, and it was I myself that 
 wrote the article which the Solicitor-General has characterised in 
 such emphatic language. The Solicitor- General says that he
 
 53 
 
 
 
 knows nothing of Mr. William O'Brien, the writer of that 
 letter. But suffice it to say I don't want to occupy 
 unduly your lordship's time that Mr. O'Brien is sufficiently 
 well-known in this city to have enabled the Solicitor-General 
 to have ascertained his character by inquiry. Suffice it to say, 
 I know Mr. William O'Brien, and that I published the letter 
 because I knew it was a bonafide letter, written by a gentleman 
 residing in the hotel a gentleman whose friendship I enjoy 
 of whom I have intimate personal knowledge, and whom I 
 believe to be absolutely incapable of stating anything which was 
 not true. Now, so far from the facts as stated by Mr. O'Brien 
 
 being exaggerated 
 
 Judge Lawson interrupted You had better not enter into that ; 
 that is a matter that is stated on the hearsay of a waiter. I 
 cannot enter into it. As has been already stated by the 
 Solicitor-General, you, as High Sheriff, had the custody of those 
 jurors, and it was your duty to see that they conducted them- 
 selves in a proper and becoming manner. I must assume that 
 you did your duty, and I decline to enter into any such inquiry. 
 The High Sheriff My lord, I think that portion of the state- 
 ment of the Solicitor- General was the only thing of which I have 
 personal reason to complain. He stated that I, as an officer of 
 the court, was responsible for the way in which the jury 
 behaved. Now, of course the High Sheriff nominally has 
 custody of the jurors, but it is well-known, and the Solicitor- 
 General must have been aware, that, though the High Sheriff 
 is nominally responsible, the Sub- Sheriff and his officers do the 
 entire work. 
 
 Judge Lawson That does not render the High Sheriff less 
 responsible. I hold you as High Sheriff to be responsible for 
 everything. 
 
 The High Sheriff What I was complaining of was the state- 
 ment made by the Solicitor-General, which was calculated to 
 convey a false impression upon those who were not aware of the 
 facts. I believe the actual course is that a number of persons 
 are sworn in by the court itself as special constables to take 
 charge of the jury, and those individuals are in public court 
 sworn in to take charge oi the jury ; and while I do not deny 
 the nominal responsibility of the High Sheriff, I respectfully say 
 the real responsibility rests upon those persons who are selected 
 by the court with reference to their fitness, and sworn for the 
 purpose of discharging the duty. 
 
 Judge Lawson again interrupted That is an entire mistake. 
 The jurors are delivered into the custody of the High Sheriff, 
 and the bailiffs who are sworn are under the authority of the 
 Sheriff to assist him in taking charge of the jury.
 
 54 
 
 The High Sheriff Then, my lord, the Attorney-General may 
 have something by-and-by to say with regard to my conduct as 
 Sheriff if it be shown that those jurors were, owing to the negli- 
 gence of my subordinates, permitted to misconduct themselves. 
 The Solicitor-General says that this is not a question which can 
 be investigated, but in my judgment it is a question whether as 
 a public journalist having been informed that these jurors had 
 misconducted themselves in the hotel, and being informed, as I 
 subsequently have been, that they had been drinking in the 
 public billiard-room of the hotel in company with 
 
 Judge Lawson again interrupted You had better not make 
 any statements of that character. They will not at all assist 
 your case unwise statements. 
 
 The High Sheriff Well, my lord, I make this statement. I 
 shall not follow them up further. 
 
 Judge Lawson I may state that from the statement of the 
 foreman, a most respectable gentleman, I believe them to be per- 
 fectly destitute of truth. 
 
 The High Sheriff I am informed that those jurors were 
 drinking that night in the public billiard-room of the hotel. 
 
 Judge Lawson I must request you not to repeat that state- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Barrett (foreman) The jury court every investigation. 
 
 Mr. William O'Brien My lord, I do not know whether, as the 
 writer of the letter, you will listen to a statement from me 
 
 Judge Lawson I beg your pardon, sir. Sit down, sir. I 
 am not going to investigate the matter. I have no power to do 
 so. If an action for libel were brought against this man, 
 whoever he is, who wrote that letter, of course the truth or 
 falsehood of the statement might possibly appear ; but in the 
 present case, Mr. High Sheriff, the charge against you is that 
 you committed a contempt of court by the publication of these 
 statements. 
 
 The High Sheriff My lord, I respectfully submit the question 
 is whether I, as a public journalist, having, as I thought, suffi- 
 cient reason to believe that the statements were true, acted 
 rightly in publishing them or not. The trial was over at the 
 time ; the jury had been discharged, and I certainly was under 
 the impression of course I may have been wrong I do not 
 profess to understand the law but I have always been of 
 opinion that it was the right, and in certain cases 
 the duty, of a public journalist to comment on trials 
 of this kind after they had been concluded, and if it were 
 shown that anything of an irregular or an improper character 
 had taken place, that it was one of the functions of the public 
 Press to bring it before the public. The Solicitor-General says
 
 that so long as the Commission lasts we are not justified in 
 making comments of this kind. Now I will put a hypothetical 
 case. This man Francis Hynes is to be hanged in three weeks. 
 Suppose the Commission last for four weeks, it would be, ac- 
 cording to the Solicitor General, our duty to refrain from bring- 
 ing this matter before the public till a week after the man was 
 hanged ! That may be law, but it does not appear to me to be 
 common sense. I consider that if those facts were true I do not 
 propose to discuss them further, as your lordship says I am not to 
 do so the statements in the Freeman's Journal, so far from in- 
 volving any suggestion of interference with the administration of 
 justice in this or any other court, a suggestion which I utterly dis- 
 claim and repudiate I say, so far from doing anything of the kind, 
 that we were materially assisting the administration of justice 
 by bringing before the public, as well as before the court and 
 before your lordship, any facts which might affect the regularity 
 of the proceedings in this court. As owing to the circumstances I 
 have stated, I am here without any professional assistance, I would 
 ask your lordship to adjourn this case for such time as you may 
 deem fit in order to afford me an opportunity of procuring profes- 
 sional assistance, with the view of putting in such form as I may 
 be advised the facts which I have indicated in my statement. I 
 repeat that if I find that we have stated anything untrue, I am 
 ready to apologise in the fullest possible manner to the court. 
 As I said to your lordship, there was no kind of idea in my mind 
 or, I am sure, in the minds of the conductors of the Freeman's 
 Journal, to be guilty of any kind of disrespect or contempt of 
 court. What we did we did honestly, believing we were dis- 
 charging our public duty, and believing that duty was as im- 
 portant in its way, perhaps, as the duty discharged by the 
 Solicitor-General. If your lordship will permit it, the writer of 
 the letter is in court and ready to testify to his knowledge of the 
 facts ; and if those facts be as stated, I say that the language of 
 the leading article " They were horrible and fearful, and calcu- 
 lated to make one shudder and blush for our common humanity" 
 was not stronger under the circumstances than the facts would 
 justify. I would ask your lordship under the circumstance tO 
 give me an opportunity of procuring professional assistance, as 
 it is not very pleasant to go to prison, as has been proposed by 
 the Solicitor-General, and I wish to be enabled to place some 
 facts before your lordship which may induce you to take a more 
 lenient view of the matter. 
 
 Mr. William O'Brien My lord, injustice to Mr. Gray will you 
 permit me to say a word ? 
 
 Judge Lawson I told you not to speak before ! Police, remove 
 that man.
 
 56 
 
 Mr. O'Brien My lord, I am the writer of that letter, and I 
 am ready to justify every word that I have written. 
 
 Judge Lawson Remove that person. If you dare to disturb 
 the court any more I will put you in the dock. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien Very well, my lord. [Mr. O'Brien then left the 
 court.] 
 
 The Solicitor-General I would acquiesce in the application 
 for an adjournment if Mr. Gray had made the application in the 
 first instance, but as representing the Crown, Mr. Gray having 
 made a very full statement, I cannot consent now to an adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Judge Lawson In my opinion there is no ground for ad- 
 journment in this case whatever, and the only two matters that 
 can be in controversy according to law are first, is Mr. Gray 
 responsible for the publication of these articles; he admits it him- 
 self, and it has been proved ; and, secondly, which is a matter 
 for me, in writing the articles and all the circumstances, are 
 they articles that constitute contempt of court ? In other words, 
 do they tend to interfere with the administration of justice ? 
 Are they calculated to interfere, and were they intended so to 
 interfere ? Now, I have had considerable experience iu appli- 
 cations of this kind. I remember in one case in Belfast, where 
 I presided at a very important Commission there, on the very 
 second day on which the Commission sat there, a journalist in 
 that city thought proper to write articles of this kind reflecting 
 upon the trial of a case that was then over, and reflecting upon 
 the mode in which the jurors were summoned. The editor of 
 that paper was brought before me by the proper authorities 
 those representing the Crown at the time. He was represented 
 by a very able gentleman, Mr. Butt, and the matter was 
 brought forward by him, and I felt it my duty to sentence 
 the editor to fine and imprisonment. The result was, those com- 
 ments ceased, for I was perfectly satisfied that unless I inter- 
 fered in that way those comments would have been continued, and 
 would have rendered it quite impossible that the operations of the 
 Commission could have been carried on with that freedom and that 
 absence of fear and apprehension which is necessary in conducting 
 the administration of justice. In my opinion each and every of 
 these articles constitute a grievous contempt of court. I think 
 the earlier ones, containing those atrocious allegations about the 
 exclusion of Catholics from the jury, are specially a contempt of 
 court, and they are written for one purpose, and one purpose only; 
 namely, to excite in the mind of gentlemen of this persuasion 
 attending on this jury panel an idea that they are ostracised or 
 unfairly dealt with, and the intention is that when any Catholics 
 are called on a subsequent jury there should be an impression left
 
 57 
 
 on their mind which would prevent them, and interfere with a 
 due and proper discharge of the administration of justice. In my 
 opinion jurors, of all persons in the community, require to be pro- 
 tected in the discharge of their duty. As to judges, that is not 
 much matter ; they are probably able to protect themselves, but 
 jurors come here and act without fee or reward ; they undertake, 
 not voluntarily, but compulsorily, most arduous duties. They 
 have upon these occasions been summoned according to law by the 
 very publisher and writer of these artid.es> and in obedience to 
 that summons they come here and attend, and are they to be sub- 
 jected to intimidation of this kind, and, denunciations for I can 
 call it nothing else that is, the denunciations of these gentlemen 
 who discharged their duty so well in that case of Hynes of the 
 clearest kind, alleging that they were totally unfit for the discharge 
 of their duty. I must say, as the judge presiding at that trial, I 
 never saw a jury exhibit more intelligence or care to the evidence, 
 and I think one of the strongest proofs of that was that I myself 
 on the evening when the case was tried, in considering painfully 
 and carefully over the case, one point struck me which had not 
 been developed or alluded to in the evidence, and I had a great 
 wish to have that point elucidated. The very first thing that 
 occurred in the morning when the jury appeared in the box was 
 that one of them desired to be satisfied on that point, showing that 
 they themselves had gone through the same mental process as I 
 had gone through, and that this had struck them as an important 
 point. Therefore, I reject altogether the idea that the gentlemen 
 composing that panel were capable of the atrocious conduct imputed 
 to them. I believe it to be a thorough invention, and treat it as 
 such. There is a letter and leading article. I would not allude 
 to this, but what is the position of a jury discharging their duty 
 in this court what is the position of those twelve jurors 
 denounced and held up to public execration in the Freeman's 
 Journal? We know that jurors have lost their lives in this 
 country, and in one remarkable instance that of Mr. Herbert in 
 the County Kerry, who lost his life for discharging his duties as a 
 juror; and I, as a public judge, am to sit here and tolerate this 
 conduct. I should be unworthy of the position I hold if I did not 
 mark these proceedings in the strongest manner with a sense of 
 my disapproval, and so far as I can endeavour to protect juries. I 
 see perfectly well that the design of all those articles is one it was 
 to endeavour to destroy in the public mind the moral effect of these 
 convictions. That was the object and nothing else, and to 
 interfere with the trial of subsequent prisoners, and prevent juries 
 from bringing to the discharge of their duties that free, 
 that unfettered judgment, which every man should have when he 
 comes to discharge his duty. I think the position of Mr. Gray
 
 58 
 
 greatly aggravates his offence. I think he owes a duty to the court 
 which he has most seriously neglected. If there were any imputa- 
 tion against these gentlemen, there was a mode of putting it in 
 a proper train for inquiry If there is an imputation against the 
 Crown for having packed a jury after the Commission is over, that 
 may be inquired into in the proper place, but during the pendency 
 of the Commission to attack the Crown for packing juries, and 
 juries for acting improperly on insufficient evidence, and to attack 
 the judge for rejecting evidence which he ought to have admitted, 
 that is a state of things which cannot be tolerated, and I, therefore, 
 feel bound in the exercise of the undoubted discretion I have, to 
 sentence Mr. Edmund Dwyer Gray both to imprisonment and fine. 
 And accordingly the sentence of the court is, that it appears on 
 the application of the Solicitor- General and this affidavit that these 
 articles constitute a contempt of court, and I order that Mr. Edmund 
 Dwyer Gray be imprisoned for three calendar months, and that^he 
 be fined 500, and at the termination of the three months he give 
 security, himself in 5,000 and two securities in 2,500 each, to be 
 of good behaviour and keep the peace towards her Majesty the Queen 
 and all her subjects ; and in default of his giving security, he be 
 further imprisoned for three months. And I now wish it to be 
 understood that if any other newspapers write articles of a 
 similar character as long as this Commission is sitting and they 
 are brought before me in the same way, I sliall deal with them 
 with quite as much severity as I have dealt with Mr. Gray. 
 Let the Coroner now take him into custody. 
 
 Mr. Gray asked for a short time to dispose of some private 
 affairs. 
 
 Judge Lawson In prison you will have time enough to dis- 
 pose of your private affairs, and I .shall not deal with you 
 differently from any other person. 
 
 The City Coroner (Dr. Whyte) My lord, am I to understand 
 that I am the officer to carry out your lordship's order to commit 
 the High Sheriff" to prison ? 
 
 Judge Lawson Certainly. You, as Coroner, are the proper 
 officer. 
 
 Dr. Whyte My lord, how am I to carry out such an order 
 fts that ? I have no precedent for it. It is wholly unprece- 
 dented. 
 
 Judge Lawson You must carry out the order the court has 
 made, or you must take the consequences. 
 
 Dr. Whyte Of course, I will carry out your lordship's order, 
 but I have no precedent to guide me. 
 
 Judge Lawson Do you mean, Mr. Coroner, to discharge 
 your duty or not ? 
 
 Dr. Whyte Certainly, my lord, if I am bound to do so.
 
 59 
 
 Judge Lawson You are bound to do so, sir ; and if you don't 
 do it at once I will call on the Sheriff of the County of Dublin 
 to do it. 
 
 Dr. Whyte My lord, you have not named to what prison the 
 High Sheriff is to be committed. 
 
 At this observation his lordship paused for a moment, and 
 then said Mr. Murphy, what is the legal prison ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy, Q.C., handed up to the bench a copy of the Act 
 of Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Ormsby (the Sub- Sheriff) Eichmond prison, my lord 
 Kichmond is the prison. 
 
 Judge Lawson Yes, Eichmond prison. 
 
 Dr. Whyte Am I personally to convey the High Sheriff to 
 the prison, my lord ? 
 
 Judge Lawson Certainly. You shall have any assistance 
 you require in doing so. 
 
 Mr. Gray was then removed from court in the custody of the 
 Coroner. 
 
 I hereby certify the foregoing is a verbatim report of the 
 proceedings in this case, at Green-street, on August 16th, 1882, 
 reported by me in shorthand. 
 
 CHAELES EYAN, 
 
 Shorthand Writer. 
 September 5th, 1882.
 
 60 
 
 MR. GRAY'S CONDUCT AS HIGH SHERIFF. 
 
 The following refer to Mr. Gray's conduct as High Sheriff: 
 
 " To His EXCELLENCY EARL SPENCER, K.G., LORD LIEUTENANT, &c., 
 DUBLIN CASTLE. 
 
 " YOUR EXCELLENCY I understand that It is your Excellency's intention 
 to order an inquiry into certain charges against the jury in the case of the 
 Queen against Hynes, made in a letter in the Freeman's Journal of the 14th 
 mat. 
 
 " For the publication of that letter, and asking an inquiry into these 
 charges, I am now in prison. 
 
 " Your Attorney- General in the House of Commons, your Solicitor-General 
 in public court, the Judge on the Bench, and a section of the public Press, 
 have all sought to fix upon me, personally and individually, as High Sheriff, 
 the responsibility of the custody of the jury in that case. 
 
 "The inquiry must necessarily involve the investigation of this charge 
 against me a charge which, if substantiated, might entail heavy penalties 
 upon me. I therefore claim, as a matter of justice, to be present at that 
 imquiry, to be represented, if I so desire, by counsel ; to have the right to 
 examine and cross-examine witnesses, if necessary ; and to get adequate 
 notice of the time of holding same. 
 
 " Of course I am quite willing to attend the inquiry which I presume will be 
 public and upon oath in the custody of your jailers. 
 
 " If any technical legal difficulty exists as to my leaving the jail for that pur- 
 pose, then I respectfully submit that justice requires that the inquiry shall be 
 held within the precincts of this prison, so as to admit of my presence thereat. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 Your Excellency's obedient servant, 
 
 "(Signed), E. DWVER GRAY, 
 
 " High Sheriff, Dublin City, 
 " M.P. Carlow County. 
 
 ' Richmond Bridewell Jail, 
 "August 21st, 1882."
 
 61 
 
 "Dublin Castle, 
 
 "21st August, 1882, 
 
 " SIR I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform you that his 
 Excellency has no intention of holding any public inquiry into the matters 
 mentioned in your letter of yesterday's date. 
 
 " His Excellency has just received certain affidavits respecting the conduct 
 of the jury in the case of the Queen v. Hynes. 
 
 " His Excellency has not yet been able to peruse these affidavits, but he will 
 at once examine into the statements contained in them, with the view of 
 satisfying himself whether there are any sufficient grounds for interfering 
 with the ordinary course of the law in that case. 
 
 " I am, Sir, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " R. G. C. HAMILTON. 
 "E. D. GRAY, ESQ., M.P., 
 " High Sheriff of the City of Dublin." 
 
 MR. GRAY'S ABSENCE WAS SANCTIONED BY THE JUDGE 
 
 " Richmond Bridewell Jail, 
 
 August 20th, 1882. 
 
 ' MY LORD Under the circumstances which have since arisen I hope 
 you will consider that I am entitled to ask of you, as I now do, a formal 
 acknowledgment of my letter addressed to you immediately before the 
 opening of the present Commission, in which I informed you of my contem- 
 plated absence from your Court, and requested you not to attribute it to want 
 of respect for your Lordship or the Court. 
 
 " I have the honour to be 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " E. DWYER GRAY, 
 
 " High Sheriff, Dublin City. 
 "THE RIGHT HON. MR. JUSTICE LAWSON, 
 "27 Upper Fitzwilliam Street." 
 
 "Green Street, 
 
 "2lst August, 1882. 
 
 " SIR In reply to your letter of yesterday, I beg to eay that I did receive 
 a letter from you, prior to the opening of the Commission, in which you 
 stated that your Parliamentary duties would compel your absence from the 
 Commission, and trusting that I would not attribute it to any want of 
 respect.
 
 62 
 
 " It was not from any want of courtesy that I did not reply to that letter, 
 but I considered that it did not require any answer, as the excuse for your 
 absence was quite sufficient, and you did not ask for, nor did you require any 
 formal leave of absence from me. 
 
 " I have the honour to be, Sir, 
 
 " Your obedient sen-ant, 
 
 "JAMES A. LAWSOX. 
 "E. D. GRAY, ESQ., 
 " High Sheriff." 
 
 HOW THE HOTEL WAS SELECTED/ 
 
 "Richmond Jail, 
 
 " Dublin, 18th September, 1882. 
 
 " DEAB SIB My attention has just been called to the following statement 
 from a correspondent of the Whitehall Review , and published in the paper of 
 the 14th instant with reference to my imprisonment: 
 
 - " ' Now as to Mr. Gray, from the fact of his being High Sheriff, the jury 
 in the Hynes murder case were in his charge, and much against their openly 
 expressed wish, they were brought to an hotel patronized by the Land 
 League. A corridor was set apart for them to* sleep in, but, strange to say, 
 one of the rooms in the said corridor was occupied by a person closely 
 connected with one of the most inflammatory Land League papers in 
 existence. Next we have a letter stating that the jury were drunk, and an 
 article stating that jurors were excluded because they were Rom an Catholics. 
 Both appeared in the Freeman's Jownal: and both were equally false. The 
 object sought is plain enough to the common sense of any one.' 
 
 " This contains in specific terms a charge which has more than once been 
 suggested in the London and Dublin Press. As I was in London on the 
 night in. question and for days previous and did not return until after the 
 jury were discharged, I knew nothing whatever about your arrangements 
 for providing for them. I think it therefore right to ask you to state to me 
 officially all the circumstances in connection with the selection of the par- 
 ticular hotel where the jury slept on the night of the 12th August, although 
 I am personally aware that the Imperial Hotel is one of the most respectable 
 in Dublin. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " E. DWYER GEAT, High Sheriff. 
 
 " JAMES CAMPBELL, Sub-Sheriff, 
 " 8 Inns' Quay." 
 
 " 8 Inns' Quay, 
 
 " Dublin, 20th September, 1882, 
 
 "DEAE SIB In reply to your letter of the 18th inst., requesting me to 
 state the circumstances in connection with the selection of the Imperial 
 Hotel for the accommodation of the jury on the night of the llth of August
 
 68 
 
 last, I beg to say that about 12 o'clock on said llth August, foreseeing that 
 the case of the Queen v. Hynes, then at trial, would probably not conclude 
 that day, I proceeded to the European Hotel, the nearest to and in close 
 proximity with the Court-house, Green-street, where I had on previous 
 occasions provided for jurors in similar circumstances to their entire con- 
 tentment, and made arrangements with the proprietor to accommodate the 
 jury in case it became necessary. However, some of the jurors objected to 
 being taken there, and named various other hotels, which, they said, were 
 preferable. At about four o'clock, knowing that the Dublin hotels were 
 very much crowded, owing to the approaching opening of the Exhibition 
 and the unveiling of the O'Connell Statue, and fearing it might be difficult 
 if deferred, to provide for so many persons, I proceeded to the Imperial 
 Hotel, where on two previous occasions I had lodged juries during trials ; 
 and, although at first refused, owing to the crowded state of the house, I, 
 with some difficulty, induced the manager to receive the jury. The satis- 
 factory manner in which the juries in my charge had been treated there on 
 the former occasions referred to, and the objection of some of the jurors to 
 the European, were my only reasons for selecting that establishment : one of 
 the most respectable in the city. 
 
 " I am, dear Sir, 
 
 " Very truly yours, 
 
 " JAMES CAMPBELL. 
 
 "E. DWYER GRAY, ESQ., M.P., 
 "High Sheriff." 
 
 THE BLACK VAN. 
 
 "Richmond Prison, 
 
 "Dublin, ith fyitembcr, 1882. 
 
 "DEAR SIR I will be extremely obliged if you would let me know in 
 writing, whether it is or is not a fact, that without solicitation from you the 
 authorities of Dublin Castle, through one of their police inspectors, Mr. Ward, 
 as I have been informed, offered to you a black van in which to convey me 
 from Green-street Court-house to this prison on the 16th August. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 "(Signed), 
 
 "E. DWYER GRAY. 
 " DR. N. C. WIIITE, 
 
 " Ardgowan, 
 " 5 Grosvenor Road, Rathmines."
 
 64 
 
 " Ardgowan, Grosvenor Road, 
 
 " Rathmines, 6th September, 1882 
 
 "DEAR SIR In reply to your inquiry, I beg to inform yon that on the 16th 
 August, shortly after I received the order of the court to take you into custody, 
 Mr." Superintendent Ward came to me and said he was instructed to inform 
 me that a police van was at my service to convey you to prison, I felt naturally 
 indignant on my own account as well as upon yours, seeing which. Mr. Ward 
 *aM ' Sir, I am merely discharging my duty in conveying to you the message.' 
 I then procured at my own expense the best vehicle I could get at a short 
 notice. 
 
 "I am, dear Sir, 
 
 " Yours very faithfully, 
 , " NICHOLAS C. WHYTE, 
 
 " Coroner, Dublin City. 
 "E. D. GRAY, ESQ., M.P.. 
 " High Sheriff of Dublin. 
 " Richmond Prison."
 
 65 
 
 THE SEPARATION OF THE JURY. 
 
 The following extracts referring to the separation of the j ury , 
 are quoted from the sworn affidavit of A. Martin, furnished to his 
 Excellency. The other portions of the affidavit referring to the 
 jury, as well as the affidavits sworn by other persons on the same 
 subject, are not given here, because the jury swore counter affida- 
 vits which are not accessible to the Committee, and the Committee 
 do not desire to publish one set of affidavits without the others. 
 But they have no difficulty in publishing that portion of the 
 affidavit of A. Martin dealing with the question of the separation 
 of the jury and their mixing with the public, because the assertion 
 that they did so separate, and did so mix, has never been ques- 
 tioned in public, and, m fact, is acknowledged in the letter from 
 Mr. Hamilton, one of the jury quoted below : 
 
 "I, Alfred Martin, twenty-one years of age and upwards, 
 Billiard^narker at the Imperial Hotel, Sackville-streefc, Dublin, 
 make oatli and say, that on Friday night, the llth inst., I saw six 
 men, whom I knew to be members of the jury in the case of the 
 Queen v. Hynes, in the public billiard-room. I do not know 
 where the rest of the jury were at the time, but they were not in 
 the billiard-room. There were four persons in the billiard-room 
 at the time who were not members of the jury. They were Mr. 
 B'ushe, Major Wynne, Dr. Cusack, and another stranger a friend 
 of Mr. Reis's. I saw the jurors mixing with other persons who 
 were not members of the jury. Mr. Reis handicapped a game of 
 
 billiards in which persons not jurors were playing. 
 
 *#***# 
 
 " ALFRED R. MARTIN." 
 
 " Sworn before me this 17th day of August, 1882, at the 
 Imperial Hotel, Lower Sackville-street, in the County of the City 
 of Dublin, a Commissioner for taking Affidavits in the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature in Ireland, and I know the deponent. 
 
 " JOHN STONE, Commissioner." 
 
 E
 
 60 
 "THE JUROKS IN THE HYNES CASE. 
 
 "TO THE EDITOR OP THE 'DAILY EXPRESS.' 
 
 " SIR Being one of the jurors in the case of the Crown versus 
 Hynes, I think it right to lay before you what actually did 
 occur at the Imperial Hotel on Friday evening, the llth inst. 
 
 "On the court rising at half-past five o'clock, the presiding 
 judge directed the Sub-Sheriff to take charge of us for the night, 
 and suggested that we should be taken to the Gresham Hotel. 
 We were all much surprised when the Sub-Sheriff told us to 
 choose between the European and Imperial Hotels. Knowing 
 that these were chiefly patronized by the Land League and Na- 
 tionalist party, we all remonstrated, requesting to be taken to 
 the Gresham or Shelbourne Hotel, some jurors stating they 
 would prefer to pass the night in the room at the courthouse. 
 The Sub-Sheriff, however, ended the matter by informing us we 
 had no choice, and that, as we refused to go to the European, 
 he would have us at once removed to the Imperial. 
 
 " On arriving at the hotel we were taken upstairs to a passage 
 at the top of the house, which, we were informed by the Sub- 
 Sheriff, had been reserved entirely for our separate use. We 
 were then immediately taken down to a room, where dinner had 
 been prepared for us. After dinner some of the jurors asked 
 permission to smoke. I and some others asked if it were allow- 
 able that the smokers might go together to another room, as 
 the evening was very close. No objection was raised to this, 
 and the smokers were taken, under charge of the Sub-Sheriff, 
 bailiffs, and police, to the billiard-room of the hotel. There they 
 remained, with the Sub-Sheriff or his son, till they all' went to 
 bed together, shortly before 12 o'clock. This, I have since been 
 informed, was irregular ; but we were none of us aware that it 
 was so at the time. I can only say that, as the Sub-Sheriff took 
 us against our will to the Imperial Hotel, he could as easily, 
 with the strong guard of bailiffs and police at his disposal, 
 have prevented our separating as we did. On inquiry from 
 the proprietor of the Imperial Hotel, I find that the whole 
 charge against the jury is that one of their number, Mr. Eeis, 
 was under the influence of liquor when in the billiard-room, and 
 afterwards behaved rather noisily when going to bed. 
 
 " The foreman of the jury (Mr. Barrett, of Kingstown) stated in 
 open court on Monday morning, the 13th inst., that he saw the 
 last of the jurors to bed, which he considered it his duty to do, 
 and that none of them were in any way under the influence of 
 drink. 
 
 " This statement can be confirmed by those who were present 
 at the time one of them, Mr. Phillips, of Grafton-street, being 
 a total abstainer from intoxicating drinks. Major Wynne, one
 
 67 
 
 of those gentlemen not on the jury who were admitted into the 
 billiard-room during the evening, also informs me that while 
 there he saw none of the jurors under the influence of drink. 
 The Sub-Sheriff and his son were there. If strangers were ad- 
 mitted into the billiard-room, it was their business to have had 
 the jurors removed, who were under their charge, or to have 
 arranged with the proprietor of the hotel that they should have 
 had the room to themselves. As I have said before, I, and I 
 believe all the other members of the jury, were perfectly 
 unaware of what the rules were to be observed under the cir- 
 cumstances. Now, as to Mr. W. O'Brien's extraordinary story, 
 I was awake in room No. 27, nearly opposite his, when the party 
 from the billiard-room came upstairs. I heard Mr. Eeis speak- 
 ing and calling out loudly (I have since been informed for 
 slippers), as is his custom. I heard him knock over a bath and 
 put it up again with more noise than was absolutely necessary. 
 Mr. Eeis is short-sighted, and I am informed that at the time 
 there was very little light in the passage. I heard some one go 
 to two or three rooms knocking at and opening the doors ; but 
 I heard no singing, nor did I hear anything to lead me to 
 imagine that drunken people were stumbling about in tke 
 passage. As to the opening of the doors, the Sub-Sheriff had 
 informed us that the passage was reserved entirely to ourselves 
 We had not all selected our rooms before dinner, and I was not 
 astonished that those last upstairs had some difficulty in finding 
 a spare bed, particularly as it appears that, while some of the 
 jury were doubled up two in a room, one had been reserved for 
 the use of the editor or ex-editor of United Ireland. The 
 Attorney-General has promised that a full inquiry is to be made 
 into the circumstances of the case. This the jurors, one and 
 all, are anxious should be made at once. I am certain that what- 
 ever may appear to be against us as a body in the affidavits of 
 the billiard-marker, assistant porter, and waiter of the Imperial 
 Hotel, and of Mr. Wm. O'Brien, will assume a very different 
 appearance when these gentlemen are themselves subjected to 
 cross-examination and confronted with facts. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 "EDWARD C. HAMILTON, 
 
 " Half-pay Bengal Staff Corps. 
 
 " Everdingen, Orwell-road, August 20, 1882." 
 Daily Express, August 2,1st, 1882. 
 
 Of course the facts here disclosed would never have 
 tome to light lut for the publication in the Freeman. 
 
 n2
 
 68 
 
 THE HOTEL BILL. 
 
 "Richmond Jail, 
 
 "29tk August, 1882. 
 
 " DEAB SIB As some questions of importance have arisen in connection 
 with the quantity of liquor supplied to the jury on the night of the 
 13th, in the case of the Queen v. Hynes, I have to request that you, as Sub- 
 Sheriff, having charge of the jury, will furnish to me at once a vouched 
 copy of the hotel bill for the jury on the night in question, specifying the 
 prices, so that the quantity may be ascertained ; also, that you will state the 
 number of bailiffa or other attendants upon the jury, and the quantity of 
 drink supplied to them, which may be included in the bill, together with 
 the names and addresses of those bailiffs or attendants. Please let me have 
 this information early to-morrow, and oblige, 
 " Yours truly, 
 
 " E. DWYEB GRAY, High Sheriff, 
 
 " Dublin City. 
 
 " JAMES CAMPBELL, ESQ., Sub-Sheriff, 
 " 20 Rutland Square, N." 
 
 " 8 Inns' Quay, 
 
 "1st September, 1882. 
 
 " DEAB Sea In compliance with your request, I send you a copy of the 
 hotel bill showing the quantity of drink supplied in the Hynes case, and 
 also the quantity consumed by the constables and bailiffs in charge, as 
 taken from their several declarations made yesterday and this morning. 
 
 " I am, truly yours, 
 
 " JAMES CAMPBELL. 
 "E. D. GRAY, ESQ., M.P."
 
 JURY ACCOUNT. IMPERIAL HOTEL, 
 
 LOWER SACKVILLE STREET 
 
 (Opposite the General Post Office and Central Telegraph Station). 
 
 August llth and 12th, 1882. 
 
 Brought forward. 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 10 1 
 
 
 Apartments 
 
 For 12 
 
 36)- 
 
 
 
 Attendance . 
 
 
 
 18/- 
 
 
 Breakfast 
 Dinners 
 
 
 
 48/- 
 
 ( 301- 
 \ 12/- 
 
 For 12 
 For 6 
 Police and 
 Bailiffs. 
 
 7 Ale and 1 Stout 
 
 8 pints 
 
 */- 
 
 
 
 Sherry 
 
 1 bottle 
 
 6/- 
 
 
 
 Champagne 
 
 1 bottle 
 
 10/- 
 
 
 
 Claret 
 
 3 bottles 
 
 121- 
 
 
 
 Burgundy 
 
 
 
 
 
 Moselle or Hock 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hollands 
 
 6 glasses 
 
 3/- 
 
 
 
 Brandy 
 
 Half-glass 
 
 6d. 
 
 
 
 Whiskey or Punch 
 
 32^ glasses 
 
 16/3 
 
 1/6 
 
 3 glasses 
 
 Cigars 
 
 
 8/2 
 
 
 
 Tea or Coffee 
 
 Forl2,&[ 
 2 cups ) 
 
 #-,. 
 
 I/- 
 
 ( 1 cup 
 (and B. B 
 
 Gas 
 
 
 1/6 
 
 
 
 Baths 
 
 
 
 V- 
 
 
 Messages 
 
 
 
 1/6 
 
 
 Rum 
 
 2 glasses 
 
 I/- 
 
 
 
 Sandwiches 
 
 
 
 
 
 Aerated Waters 
 
 12 bottles 
 
 6/- 
 
 V- 
 
 2 bottles 
 
 Stationery 
 
 
 2d. 
 
 
 
 Sitting Room 
 
 
 7/8 
 
 
 
 Police and Bailiffs 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dinners 
 
 For 6 
 
 15/- 
 
 
 
 Suppers 
 Carried forward. 
 
 For 6 
 
 6/- 
 
 
 
 10 1 13 9 I
 
 70 
 
 From this accompanying statement it appears that there were 
 six attendants upon the jury four policemen and two bailiffs. 
 They all swore affidavits as to the quantity they consumed. The 
 total between them amounted to five pints of beer, one pint of 
 stout, and ten and a half glasses of spirits. 
 
 The following, taken from the Dublin Daily Express, gives the 
 account of Mr. Hamilton, one of the jury, of the amount con- 
 sumed by them : 
 
 THE JUEY IN THE HYNES CASE. 
 
 " Mr. Edward Hamilton, one of the jurors, whose letter we 
 published on this day week, says I now enclose you a return 
 showing the exact amount of spirits, &c., drunk by each of the 
 jurors in the case of the Crown v. Hynes, taken from the jurors' 
 affidavits. The beer, gin, and whiskey were drunk chiefly by 
 the bailiffs and police, who had, of course, to be provided with 
 refreshments at the hotel. An affidavit from each member of 
 the jury has been submitted to his Excellency the Lord Lieu- 
 tenant, which will effectually put an end to the slanderous 
 calumnies which have been promulgated by the enemies of jus- 
 tice against us. In addition, there was one bottle of champagne 
 between four Mr. Barrett, Mr. M'Conkey, Mr. Eeis, and Mr. 
 Wardrope : 
 
 Charles Eeis 
 William Barrett 
 G. Searight 
 
 * E. Philips 
 
 * E. Carfty 
 
 E. Hamilton 
 J. Beatey 
 J. M'Conkey 
 William Gibson 
 W. Wardrope 
 W. Macklin 
 Eichard B arbour 
 
 Beer. Claret. Sherry. Spirits. 
 (St. Estephe) 
 
 3 1 
 _ 5 
 
 3 
 
 1* 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 Oi 0< 
 
 1 2 
 
 1 
 
 Total of glasses .. 8 13 7 5 
 
 " The names marked with asterisks are those of the jury who 
 are total abstainers."
 
 71 
 
 CONDUCT OF MR. MORPHY. 
 
 The following indicates that, although only a few hours' notice 
 was given to Mr. Gray, his fate was anticipated, though Mr. 
 Morphy did not give the true explanation to the gentleman who 
 was summoned beforehand to take him into custody : 
 
 " Richmond Jail, 
 
 " Dublin, 4th, September, 1882. 
 
 " DEAR SIR I have been informed that Mr. Morphy, Crown Prosecutor 
 for the Co. Clare, wrote to you on the evening of the 15th August requiring 
 you to attend the Commission Court in Green Street on the morning of the 
 16th. I will be extremely obliged if you -will let me have a copy of his 
 letter. If I am correctly informed, although you were summoned to attend, 
 in reality for the purpose of taking me into custody, this was not the pretext 
 put forward in Mr. Morphy's letter. 
 " This is the point I wish to clear up. 
 
 " Yours truly, 
 
 r ," (Signed), E. DWYER GBAY. 
 
 " Dr. N. C. Whyte, City Coroner, 5 Grosvenor Road." 
 
 "Ardgowan, Grosvenor Road, Rathmines, 
 
 " 6th September, 1882. 
 
 "DEAR SIR In compliance with your request I enclose a copy of the 
 letter received by me from the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Morphy, on the morning 
 of the 16th August, 1882. 
 
 " Believe me, yours faithfully, 
 
 " NICHOLAS C. WHYTE, Coroner. 
 
 " EDMUND DWYER GRAY, ESQ., M.P., 
 "High Sheriff, Dublin City." 
 
 [PRESSING.] 
 
 " 13 Lower Ormond Quay, 
 
 " loth Auyust, 1882. 
 
 "DEAR SIR I have been directed to request you to attend at the Com- 
 mission Court, Green Street, at eleven o'clock to-morrow (Wednesday) 
 morning, as the Solicitor General may have to refer to you for some official 
 information. 
 
 " Faithfully yours, 
 
 " ALEXANDER MOHPHY, Crown Solicitor. 
 "NICHOLAS WHYTE, ESQ., 
 
 " Coroner Dublin City." 
 ["The above is a true copy. Nicholas C. Whyte, Coroner, Gth Sept.""]
 
 72 
 
 The following is the correspondence referred to (p. 12) as 
 proving that Mr. Morphy had inquired into the accusations at 
 the very time the Solicitor-General, who was instructed, and 
 the Judge declared that they could not be inquired into : 
 
 "THE JURY IN THE HYNE3 CASE. 
 
 " October 4th, 1882. 
 
 "DEAR SIB Will you kindly say if it is a fact that Mr. Alexander 
 Morphy, Crown Solicitor, called upon you on Monday, August the 14th, to 
 make inquiries as to the statements contained in a letter published in the 
 Fn'i man's Journal of that date by Mr. William O'Brien concerning the 
 jury in the Hynes case. 
 
 "Yours faithfully, 
 
 * "E. DWYEB GRAY. 
 
 ' CHABLES LAWLEB, Esq., 
 "Imperial Hotel." 
 
 " Imperial Hotel, Lower Sackville Street, 
 
 " October 4th, 1882. 
 
 " DBAB SIB It is a fact that Mr. Alexander Morphy called on me on the 
 12th August with reference to the letter of Mr. O'Brien which appeared in 
 the Freeman'' s -Journal of that date. 
 
 " I remain, yours truly, 
 
 CHABLES LAWLEB. 
 
 " E. DWTEB GBAY, Esq , M.P., High Sheriff."
 
 73 
 
 THE JURIES AT THE SPECIAL COMMISSION, 
 
 3rd August, 1882. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE JURIES. 
 
 The following gives the manner of constituting the jury 
 
 panels : 
 
 " Richmond Jail, 
 
 " Dublin, 18th September, 1882. 
 
 " DEAR SIB " I will be obliged by your letting me know officially the 
 precise manner in which the jury panel in the case of the present commission 
 was made out by you on my behalf. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " E. DWYER GEAY. 
 
 "JAMES CAMPBELL, Esq., Sub-Sheriff, 
 " 8, Inns' Quay." 
 
 " 8 Inns' Quay, 
 
 "Dublin, 20th September, 1882. 
 
 "DEAR SIR In reply to your letter of the 18th inst., requesting me to let 
 you know the precise manner in' which the special jury panel has been made 
 out for the present Commission, I beg to inform you it has been done in strict 
 conformity with the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1882, and the order in council 
 made under the provisions of said act, and also under the provisions of the 
 Juries' (Ireland) Acts of 1871, 1872, and 1876. 
 
 " These latter acts direct sheriffs to summon juries in a regular alphabetical 
 erie.s by returning one name from each letter in succession, beginning with 
 Hie first letter and so proceeding regularly through the letters of the alphabet 
 rom first to last as often as may be necessary, and so far as the number of 
 names in each letter will admit, until a sufficient number of names shall 
 have been placed on the panel, taking care always to commence each new 
 panel at the letter next following the last letter of the preceding panel. 
 
 " The panel you inquire about, like all others, since I came into office, was, 
 I trust, in strict conformity with the above statutory requirements. 
 " I am, 
 
 " Very truly yours, 
 
 " JAMES CAMPBELL. 
 " E. DWYER QUAY, Esq., M.P."
 
 74 
 
 Two panels were returned to try the cases : one for the county, 
 the other for the city of Dublin, each containing 100 names. 
 
 COUNTY PANEL. 
 
 The county panel contains 63 Protestants and 37 Catholics. 
 
 Two of the jurors on this panel were dead at the time it was 
 issued. Their names are Patrick B. Darcy, Dunedan, Monkstown, 
 merchant (Catholic), and Edward Nolan, of Killeen Mills, Inchicore, 
 paper merchant (Catholic). 
 
 Two jurors Charles L. Reis, 1, Aylesbury-road, jeweller ; and 
 J. B. Johnston, of Clyde-road, broker, are also returned on the 
 city panel. The first is a Jew, the second a Protestant. 
 
 Two jurors being dead, and two being also on the city panel, 
 reduces the county panel to 96 available names, of which 
 61 are Protestants, and 35 Catholics. 
 
 THE PROTESTANTS ARE 
 
 1. William Macklin, Crof ton -terrace, Kingstown, plumber. 
 
 2. George A. Newcomen, 20 Leeson-park, gentleman. 
 
 3. William Parry, Salthill, Monkstown, hotel-keeper. 
 
 4. John Quain, 49 Pembroke-road, Dublin, stock-broker. 
 
 5. John H. Reid, Holmston-house, Kingstown, gentleman. 
 
 6. Captain Joseph Scovell, 1 St. John's-terrace, North Cir- 
 
 cular-road, retired captain. 
 
 7. David Waldie, Collinstown^ Santry, farmer. 
 
 8. Robert F. Young, St. Margaret's, Dalkey, stock-broker. 
 
 9. Henry Alley, Mary villa, Clonturk, Drumcondra, gentleman. 
 
 10. Richard D. Barber, 10 Grosvenor-road, West, bank manager 
 
 11. William Galbraith, Rathgar-road, Dublin, gentleman. 
 
 12. William James Halliday, Brookville, Monkstown, grocer. 
 
 13. John William Jameson, Lota, Blackrock, gentleman. 
 
 14. George Macnie, Baymount, Clontarf, printer and stationer. 
 
 15. George Newsome, Clapham-villas, merchant. 
 
 16. Dr. George V. Patton, 28 Burlington-road, LL.D., 
 
 barrister. 
 
 17. Francis Moore Scott, Island-bridge, wool manufacturer, J.P. 
 
 18. Henry J. Vickers, Hermitage, Blackrock, barrister. 
 
 19. Robert R. Young, 8 Raglan- road, stock-broker. 
 
 20. Hugh Barr, Dodsborough, Lucan, farmer. 
 
 21. Captain George Carey, Laurel-lodge, Terenure, retired army 
 
 officer. 
 
 22. Henry W. Figgis, 20 Grosvenor-road, merchant. 
 
 23. Robert Gardiner, Ashley-house, 6 Clyde-road, accountant. 
 
 24. Charles R. Hamilton, Belgrave-square, Monkstown, gentle- 
 
 man. 
 
 25. Francis Johnston, De Vesoi-terrace, Monkstown, gentleman. 
 
 26. John Lebrary, Braganza, Dalkey, merchant. 
 
 27. John Maconchey, Highfield-road, gentleman.
 
 75 
 
 28. Henry Nicholl, Bohamer, St. Dolough's, gentleman. 
 
 29. Benjamin J. Patterson, 64 Leeson-street, upper, architect. 
 
 30. Strattell Scott, 39 Mespil-road, veterinary surgeon. 
 
 81. Dean Conroy Taylor, Priory, Rathfarnham, gentleman. 
 
 32. Arthur W. Vincent, 9 Clyde-road, gentleman. 
 
 33. Hugh Wallace, Dunleary-road, Kingstown, merchant. 
 
 34. Beresford Anderson, Greenhill, Killiney, esquire. 
 
 35. John Barr, Belgard, farmer. 
 
 36. Richard Carey, 57 Lansdowne-road, gentleman. 
 
 37. Henry J. Finlay, Corkagh demesne, gentleman, J.P. 
 
 38. John Gailey, Palmerston-house, Rathmines, merchant. 
 89. Edward Hamilton, Orwell-road, gentleman. 
 
 40. Francis Johnston, Sloperton, Kingstown, gentleman. 
 
 41. Frederick W. Nevin, Silchester-road, Dundrum, bank 
 
 official. 
 
 42. John Payne, 82 Palmerston-road, Cullenswood, merchant. 
 
 43. Graves E. Searight, 78 Pembroke-road, stock-broker. 
 
 44. William Wallace, Dunleary-road, Kingstown, coal merchant. 
 
 45. William George Barrett, Newtownsmith, Kingstown, 
 
 merchant. 
 
 46. Henry Carleton, Seapoint-road, Monkstown, merchant. 
 4.7. Francis R. Davis, Hawthorne-lodge, Stillorgan, esquire. 
 
 48. Pierce Finucane, 19 Pembroke-road, gentleman. 
 
 49. Gowan R. Hamilton, Shanganagh Castle, Loughlinstown, 
 
 militia officer. 
 
 50. John B. Johnston, 8 Clyde-road, baker. 
 
 51. John Lee, Vesci-place, Kingstown, farmer. 
 
 52. Goodricke L. Peacock, Coolamore-road, Dalkey, 
 
 gentleman. , 
 
 53. Charles L. Reis, 1 Aylesbury-road, jeweller. 
 
 54. Charles Thompson, 85 Leeson park, gentleman. 
 
 55. Charles Archer, Claremount-villas, Kingstown, gentleman. 
 
 56. Sir John Barrington, St. Anne's, Killiney, merchant. 
 
 57. J. Orichton Carleton, 62 Northumberland-road, 
 
 stockbroker. 
 56., David Davis, 2 Rathmines, merchant. 
 
 59. Francis Fitzgerald, Churchtown, Dundrum, army officer. 
 
 60. Francis F. Gaynor, Killiney-house, Killiney, retired 
 
 army officer. 
 
 61. Henry Alexander Hamilton, George's-street, Balbriggan, 
 
 esquire, J.P. 
 
 62. Samuel Jolly, Merville, Stillorgan, farmer. 
 68. Edward Keegan, Verney, Golden Ball, farmer. 
 
 THE CATHOLICS ABB 
 
 1. John O'Brien, Northumberland-avenue, Kingstown, gentle- 
 man.
 
 76 
 
 2. Edward Taaffe, Upper George's-street, Kingstown, publican. 
 8. HughVaughan, 9 Aylesbury-road,Sinnot's-court, merchant. 
 
 4. George Campbell, Hermitage, Harold's-grange, merchant. 
 
 5. Peter Daly, Maynetown, Baldoyle, farmer. 
 
 6. Denis Egan, Santry, farmer. 
 
 7. Thomas Fagan, Martello-terrace, Kingstown, gentleman. 
 
 8. John Kane, 10 and 11 Leeson-park, merchant. 
 
 9. John Lawler, Irishtown, Palmerston, farmer. 
 
 10. Joseph O'Brien, 2 Palmerston park, merchant. 
 
 11. Edward Beilly, Ballyman, Glasnevin, farmer. 
 
 12. Patrick Tallon, Collinstown, leather merchant. 
 
 13. Valentine Wall, Nutstown-house, landholder. 
 
 14. David Allingham, Seafield, Clontarf, merchant. 
 
 15. Louis Daniel, 10 Eathmines, merchant. 
 
 16. Edward Egan, Marine-terrace, Kingstown, merchant. 
 
 17. William D. Kane, DeVesci-terrace, Kingstown, gentleman. 
 
 18. Frederick O'Callaghan, Clonsilla, grazier. 
 
 19. James Reilly, Baldoyle, farmer. 
 
 20. Patrick B. Darcy, Dunedan, Monkstown, merchant (dead). 
 
 21. Laurence Egan, Rivei-sdale-house, Monkstown, merchant. 
 
 22. James Kavanagh, Huntstown-house, Finglas, farmer. 
 
 23. William Ledwich, Ashfield, Clondalkin, farmer. 
 
 24. James Magee, 1 Terenure-road, Rathgar, grocer. 
 
 25. John Taylor, Lusk, farmer. 
 
 26. Joseph Archbold, Malahide, farmer. 
 
 27. James Ennis, Naul, farmer. 
 
 28. John Gavan, 71 Queen-street, auctioneer and factor. 
 
 29. Joseph Kearns, Cottage, Finglas, farmer. 
 
 30. Edward Maher, Balscadden, Balbriggan, farmer. 
 
 31. Edward Nolan, Killeen Mills, Inchicore, paper manufac- 
 
 turer (dead). 
 
 32. Roderick S. O'Connor, 88 Pembroke-road, gentleman. 
 
 33. Daniel Sexton, Eastmoreland-place, contractor. 
 
 34. Michael Walsh, Rookwood, Rathfarnbam, stationer. 
 
 35. William Ennis, Clonare, Balbriggan, farmer. 
 
 36. Daniel O'Connor, Ward-house, Ward, grazier. 
 
 37. Patrick Reilly, Blundelstown, Clondalkin, grazier. 
 
 CITY PANEL. 
 
 The city panel contains the names of 51 Pr^bestants, 48 
 Catholics, and one Jew Mr. Charles L. Reis. 
 
 Of the Catholics two were dead John McDermott, Mountjoy- 
 square, West, druggist ; and Matthew Reynolds, Redmond's- hill, 
 broker. One Patrick Carroll, Stephen's-green, North, iron- 
 monger, also a Catholic had left before the panel was issued. 
 
 The result is that the available city panel consisted of 97 names, 
 of which 51 were Protestants, 45 Catholics, and one Jew.
 
 77 
 
 THE PROTESTANTS ARE 
 
 1. William M. Evans, 66 Grafton-street, stationer. 
 
 2. Alexander Ferrier, 59 William -street, merchant. 
 
 3. William Gibson, 14 Lower Ormond-quay, seedsman. 
 
 4. James Harrison, 17 Henry-street, confectioner. 
 
 5. Charles Johnston, 27 Upper Sackville-street, druggist. 
 
 6. Charles Leechman, 59 William-street, merchant. 
 
 7. George Nutter, 115 Grafton-street, print-seller. 
 
 8. Adam Phayre, 6 Hume-street, lodginghouse-keeper. 
 
 9. Robert Sexton, 51 Dawson-street, tailor. 
 
 10. George B. Thompson, 9 and 10 Eustace-street, wine 
 
 merchant. 
 
 11. Thomas H. Ward, Riverview, Conyngham-road, gentleman. 
 
 12. George Atkinson, 5 William-street, merchant. 
 
 13. George H. Beare, 11 Conyngham-road, gentleman. 
 
 14. George Carolan, 82J Talbot-street, builder. 
 
 15. Thomas Fetherston, 143 Great Britain-street, chandler. 
 
 16. Thomas Gilbert, 18 Westmoreland-street, merchant tailor. 
 
 17. Edmund Johnston, 94 Grafton-street, goldsmith. 
 
 18. Thomas Leetch, 56 Dame-street, magistrate. 
 
 19. Thomas Nuzum, 201 Great Brunswick-street, coal merchant. 
 
 20. Alexander Ogilvy, 13 Grafton-street, draper. 
 
 21. William J. H. Reside, 20 College-green, cloth merchant. 
 
 22. Walter Sexton, 118 Grafton-street, jeweller. 
 
 23. John D. Wardell, 75 Thomas- street, tea merchant. 
 
 24. George P. Beater, 17 Lower Sackville-street, druggist. 
 
 25. Denis J. Field, 9 Westmoreland-street, stationer. 
 
 26. Edward Johnston, 43 Grafton-street, restaurant keeper. 
 
 27. Wills Phenix, 10 Leinster-street, gas-fitter. 
 
 28. Abraham Shackleton, 35A James's-street, West, corn- 
 
 merchant. 
 
 29. Archibald Wardlaw, 10 D'Olier-street, gentleman. 
 
 30. Orlando Beater, 11 to 15 Henry-street, gentleman. 
 
 31. Henry Fielding, 33 Dawson-street, tabinet manufacturer. 
 
 32. James Sproule Johnson, 16 Lower Ormond-quay, whole- 
 
 sale paper merchant. 
 
 33. Adam F. Macdonald, 65 South Gt. George's-street, draper. 
 
 34. Ephraim Phillips, 37 Grafton-street, draper. 
 
 35. James Shanks, 54 Townsend-street, mineral water manu- 
 
 facturer. 
 86. Thomas Wardrop, jun., 55 Gt. Brunswick-street, builder. 
 
 37. James Beatty, 20 Grafton-street, merchant. 
 
 38. Samuel Figgis, 104 Grafton-street, bookseller. 
 
 39. John B. Johnston, 5 Townsend-street, merchant. 
 
 40. Graham Lemon, 49 Lower Sackville-street, confectioner.
 
 78 
 
 41. Thomas Phillips, 18 North Earl-street, bootmaker. 
 
 42. Haughton W. Shannon, 108 and 109 Thomas-street, haber- 
 
 dasher. 
 
 43. William Thompson, 17 Talbot-street, reporter. 
 
 44. William Wardrop, 55 Great Brunswick-street, builder. 
 
 45. John Beatty, 14 Graf ton -street, carpet manufacturer. 
 
 46. Arthur Denny, 66 Lower Leeson-street, gentleman. 
 
 47. Adam S. Findlater, 29 Upper Sackville-street, wine mer- 
 
 chant. 
 
 48. Wilfred Haughton, 27 and 28 City-quay, corn merchant. 
 
 49. Joseph G. Lendrum, 29 Thomas-street, tobacco manufac- 
 
 turer. 
 
 60. Thomas Phillips, 4 Dame-street, tailor. 
 51. Robert W. Richan, 145 Great Britain-street, grocer. 
 
 THE CATHOLICS ARE 
 
 1. Philip Carlin, 91 Lower Baggot-street, gentleman. 
 
 2. William H. Delany, 85 and 86 Coombe, pawnbroker. 
 
 3. John C. Kelly, 14 Cope-street, wholesale merchant. 
 
 4. Alphonsus M'Dermott, 65 Great Britain-street, wine 
 
 merchant. 
 
 5. Patrick OTarrell, 145 North King-street, tobacconist. 
 
 6. Peter Dempsey, 5 Nassau-street, draper. 
 
 7. James Hart, 2 Henry-street, bootmaker. 
 
 8. John J. Kelly, 89 Sackville-street, grocer. 
 
 9. John M'Dermott, 64 Mountjoy- square, West, druggist. 
 
 10. Henry Phelan, 43 Denzille-street, house painter. 
 
 11. John Thompson, 45 Dawson-street, saddler. 
 
 12. Peter Aungier, 22 Dominick-street, salesmaster. 
 
 18. James Carolan, 26 to 30 Amiens-street, hotel-keeper. 
 
 14. Cornelius Dennehy, 41 Mountjoy- square, South, 
 
 gentleman, J.P. 
 
 15. Andrew Gilligan, 9 College-street, vintner. 
 
 16. Joseph C, Hart, 19 and 20 Pill-lane, vintner. 
 
 17. Joseph Kelly, 66 and 67 Thomas-street, timber merchant. 
 
 18. John Lemass, 2 Capel-street, hatter. 
 
 19. William M'Dermott, 65 Great Britain-street, wine mer- 
 
 chant. 
 
 20. Jeremiah O'Hare, 35 Dolphin's-barn-lane, tanner. 
 
 21. Bernard Reynolds, 61 Capel-street, grocer. 
 
 22. Patrick Thompson, 85 Lower Gardiner-street, wine mer- 
 
 chant. 
 
 28. Robert Aungier, 22 Lower Dominick-street, salesmaster. 
 24. James Carr, 14 Copper-alley, provision merchant.
 
 79 
 
 25. Thomas Dennehy, 56 and 57 Lower Baggot-street, coach- 
 
 builder. 
 
 26. Philip Gilligan, 78 Middle Abbey-street, vintner. 
 
 27. John Haughey, 8 Lower Bridge-street, hardware merchant. 
 
 28. Martin Kelly, 39 Upper Sackville-street, grocer. 
 
 29. Edward Lenehan, 27 Castle-street, leather merchant. 
 
 30. Edward O'Leary, 42 Stephen-street, grocer. 
 
 31. Mathew Reynolds, 1 and 2 Redmond's-hill, bi'oker. 
 
 32. William Thompson, 85 Lower Gardiner-st., wine merchant 
 83. Robert Aungier, 70 Eccles-street, esquire. 
 
 34. Patrick Carroll, 18 Stephen's-green, North, ironmonger. 
 
 85. William Dennehy, 9 and 10 John-street, West, wholesale 
 
 wine and spirit merchant. 
 
 86. Patrick M. Gleeson, 28 Thomas-street, grocer. 
 
 37. Patrick Haughey, 4 Lower Bridge-street, hardware 
 
 merchant. 
 88. Peter Kelly, 1 and 2 Wood-quay, wine and spirit merchant. 
 
 39. James M'Donald, 62 Upper Dorset-street, provision dealer. 
 
 40. Michael O'Loughlin, 20 South Richmond-street, butcher. 
 
 41. Patrick Reynolds, 51 South Great George's-street, grocer. 
 
 42. Thomas Aungier, 70 Eccles-street, esquire. 
 
 43. William B. Carroll, 14 Mary-street, grocer. 
 
 44. Jeremiah Goggin, 74 Grafton-street, bog-oak manufacturer. 
 
 45. Robert M. Johnston, 68 Lower Mount-street, wine mer- 
 
 chant. 
 
 46. William Kelly, 56 Sackville-street, fishing tackle manu- 
 
 facturer. 
 
 47. John M'Donald, 10 Lower Gardiner-street, tailor. 
 
 48. Michael O'Meara, 51 Thomas-street, grocer. 
 
 The two panels, county and city, contained 193 names, of which 
 112 were Protestants, 80 Catholics, and one a Jew. 
 
 MODE OF SELECTING A JUEY. 
 
 The mode in which a particular jury is selected is as follows : 
 The whole panel is called upon. There is a number opposite the 
 name of each juror on the panel. The numbers corresponding to 
 the names of those who answer are put into a ballot box. They 
 are drawn one by one, and if not challenged or told to stand 
 aside are sworn, this process going on until twelve are sworn. 
 
 THE O'CONNOR JURY. 
 
 The first article in the Freeman's Journal relating to the com- 
 position of the juries at the special commission appeared on Friday 
 the llth August. It was a brief paragraph, referring to the case
 
 80 
 
 of the Queen v. John O'Connor and others " The Kerry Outrage 
 Case" which had been at hearing the previous day, and stating 
 the Crown exercised their right to challenge " on a wholesale 
 scale," and no less than nineteen persons, some of them among our 
 most respectable citizens, were ordered to t: stand aside." 
 
 The jurors ordered to stand aside were : 
 
 1. Hugh Vaughan, Aylesbury-road, merchant ... Catholic. 
 
 2. James Ennis, Naul, farmer ... Catholic. 
 
 3. Thomas Phillips, Dame-street, tailor ... Protestant. 
 
 4. W. H. Delany, the Coombe, pawnbroker .. Catholic. 
 
 5. John Lemass, Capel-street, hatter ... Catholic. 
 
 6. Joseph Archbold, Malahide, farmer .. Catholic. 
 
 7. Edward Lenehan, Castle-st., leather merchant Catholic. 
 
 8. William Ledwich, Clondalkin, farmer ... Catholic; 
 
 9. James Magee, Terenure-road, grocer ... Catholic. 
 
 10. Martin Kelly, Upper Sackville-street, grocer Catholic. 
 
 11. Patrick Reilly, Clondalkin, grazier ... Catholic. 
 
 12. Edward O'Leary, Stephen-street, grocer ... Catholic. 
 
 13. William Dennehy, John-st., West, merchant Catholic. 
 
 14. John Taylor, Lusk, farmer ... ... Catholic. 
 
 15. William Thompson, Talbot street, reporter ... Protestant. 
 
 16. Jeremiah O'Hare, Dolphin's-barn-lane, tanner Catholic. 
 
 17. Patrick Reynolds, Sth. Gt. George-st., grocer Catholic. 
 
 18. Philip Carlin, Lower Baggot- street, gentleman Catholic. 
 
 19. Louis Daniel, Rathmines, grocer ... ... Catholic. 
 
 20. James Carolin, Amiens-street, hotel-keeper... Catholic. 
 Note. The Freeman article said nineteen were set aside. The 
 
 printed report shows twenty, as above. 
 
 Of the twenty thus set aside, eighteen were Catholics and two 
 Protestants. 
 
 The prisoners challenged the following six jurors all Pro- 
 testants : 
 
 1. John Maconchey, Highfield-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 
 2. William Gibson, 14 Lower Ormond-quay, 
 
 seedsman ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 3. John Beatty, 14 Grafton-street, carpet 
 
 manufacturer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 4. Samuel Figgis, 104 Grafton-street, bookseller Protestant. 
 
 5. Ephraim Phillips, 37 Grafton-street, draper Protestant. 
 
 6. Graves E. Searight, 78 Pembroke-road, 
 
 stock-troker ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 Tke jury who tried the case were : 
 
 1. John Lebrary, Braganza, Dalkey, merchant Protestant. 
 
 2. William George Barrett, Newtownsmith, 
 
 Kingstown, wine merchant... ... Protestant.
 
 81 
 
 3. Francis Johnston, Sloperton, Kingstown, 
 
 gentleman ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 4. James Shanks, Townsend-street, mineral 
 
 water manufacturer ... ... Protestant. 
 
 5. John Payne, 32 Palmerston-road, Cullens- 
 
 wood, merchant ... ... Protestant. 
 
 6. Thomas "Wardrop, 55 Great Brunswick- 
 
 street, builder ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 .7. Adam S. Findlater, Sackville-street, upper, 
 
 wine merchant... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 8. William Wallace, Dunleary-road, Kings- 
 
 town, coal merchant ... ... Protestant. 
 
 9. Wills Phenix, 10 Leinster- street, gas-fitter Protestant. 
 
 10. Haughton W. Sharman, 108 and 109 Thomas- 
 
 street, haberdasher ... ... Protestant. 
 
 11. Thomas Fetherstone, 143 Great Britain- 
 
 street, chandler ... ... Protestant. 
 
 12. George P. Beater, 17 Sackville-street, lower, 
 
 druggist ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 The jury was exclusively composed of Protestants. 
 
 THE HYNES JUEY. 
 
 The second article in the Freeman's Journal appeared on Satur- 
 day, August 12th, and referred to the fact that in the above case, 
 which was still at trial, the Crown had set aside, as in the previous 
 case, a large number of Catholic jurors. 
 
 In this case 49 names were drawn, consisting of 22 
 Catholics, 26 Protestants, and one Jew. The prisoner challenged 
 11 Protestants, leaving 15 Protestants, one Jew, and 22 Catholics. 
 The Crown " set aside" 4 Protestants and the entire 22 Catholics, 
 leaving a jury consisting of 11 Protestants, one Jew, and no 
 Catholics. 
 
 In this case the Crown set aside the following : 
 
 1. William Dennehy, John-street, West, 
 
 merchant ... ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 2. Edward O'Leary, Stephen-street, grocer ... Catholic, 
 8. Patrick Pteilly, Clondalkin, grazier ... Catholic. 
 
 4. Martin Kelly, Upper Sackville-street, grocer Catholic. 
 
 5. James Magee, Terenure-road, grocer ... Catholic. 
 
 6. William Ledwich, Clondalkin, farmer ... Catholic. 
 
 7. Edward Lenehan, Castle-st., leather merchant Catholic. 
 
 8. Joseph Arch bold, Malahide, farmer ... Catholic.
 
 9. John Lemass, 2 Capel-street, hatter ... Catholic. 
 
 10. W. H. Delany, the Coombe, pawnbroker ... Catholic. 
 
 11. Michael O'Loughlin, South Richmond-street, 
 
 butcher ... ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 12. Thomas Leetch, Dame-street, china merchant Protestant. 
 
 13. John J. Kelly, Upper Sack ville-street, grocer Catholic. 
 
 14. Patrick Haughey, 4 Bridge-street, lower, 
 
 hardware merchant ... ... Catholic. 
 
 15. James Reilly, Baldoyle, farmer ... ,.. Catholic. 
 
 16. Thomas Phillips, Dame-street, tailor Protestant. 
 
 17. Andrew Gilligan, College-street, vintner ... Catholic. 
 
 18. Peter Aungier, Dominick-street, salesmaster Catholic. 
 
 19. James Carolin, Amiens-street, hotel-keeper ... Catholic. 
 
 20. Adam Phayre, Hume-street, lodginghouse- 
 
 keeper ... ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 21. Peter Dempsey, Nassau- street, draper ... Catholic. 
 
 22. Laurence Egan, Riversdale, Monkstown, 
 
 shopkeeper ... ... .. Catholic. 
 
 23. Louis Daniel, Rathmines, grocer ... Catholic. 
 
 24. Patrick O'Farrell, North King-st., tobacconist Catholic. 
 
 25. Thomas Phillips, North Earl-st., bootmaker Protestant. 
 
 26. Philip Carlin, Baggot-street, gentleman .. Catholic. 
 
 Of the twenty-six jurors ordered to stand aside, twenty-two 
 were Catholics and four Protestants. 
 
 The " challenges" by the prisoner were : 
 
 1. Walter Sexton, Grafton-street, jeweller ... 
 
 2. Capt. George Carey, Laurel-lodge, Terenure 
 
 3. Alexander O'Gilvy, Grafton-street, draper 
 
 4. James Beatty, Grafton-street, merchant ... 
 
 5. Francis Johnston, De Vesci-terrace, 
 
 Kingstown, gentleman ... ... Protestant. 
 
 6. Francis M. Scott, Kilmainham, woollen 
 
 manufacturer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 7. Henry Finlay, Corcagh demesne, gentleman Protestant. 
 
 8. Samuel Figgis, Grafton-street bookseller ... Protestant. 
 
 9. Edmund Johnson, Grafton-road, goldsmith Protestant. 
 
 10. George Macnie^Bay mount, Clontarf, printer Protestant. 
 
 11. George B. Thompson, Eustace-street, wine 
 
 merchant ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 All the above eleven jurors challenged by the prisoner were 
 Protestants. 
 
 The jury actually sworn were as follows : 
 
 1. Charles Reis, silversmith, Grafton-street ... Jew. 
 
 2. William G. Barrett, Kingstown, merchant ... Protestant. 
 
 3. Graves Searight, Pembroke-rd., stock-broker Protestant.
 
 83 
 
 4. Ephraim Phillips, Grafton-street, draper ... Protestant. 
 
 5. Eichard Carey, Lansdowne-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 
 6. Edward Hamilton, Orwell-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 
 7. John Beatty, Grafton-st., carpet manufacturer Protestant. 
 
 8. John Maconchey, Highfield park, gentleman... Protestant. 
 
 9. Wm. Wardrop, Great Brunswick-st., builder Protestant. 
 
 10. "Wm. Macklin, Kingstown, plumber ... Protestant. 
 
 11. PV. D. Barber,Grosvenor-rd., W., bank manager Protestant. 
 
 12. Wm. Gibson, Ormond-quay, lower, seedsman Protestant. 
 Juror No. 6 Edward Hamilton, of Orwell- road, is and was at 
 
 the time of the trial Secretary or Agent of the County of Dublin 
 Property Defence Association, a branch of the Central Defence 
 Association for Ireland. He is also a retired army officer on half- 
 pay. This is the juror who wrote the letters defending the jury 
 in the newspapers. 
 
 PATRICK WALSH'S JUEY FIEST TEIAL. 
 
 On the 16th August Patrick Walsh was placed on his trial 
 for the murder of Martin Lydon at Letterfrack. Owing to the 
 mode adopted by the officials of the Crown, it was impossible to 
 ascertain the names of the jurors who were ordered to " stand 
 by," as the moment the Clerk of the Crown called out the 
 number prefixed to the juror's name on the printed panels Mr. 
 Anderson, a Crown official (who being seated alongside, 
 knew what juror was about to be called) exclaimed 
 "stand by" without waiting for the name, and conse- 
 quently the Clerk of the Crown omitted to call the 
 names of those jurors altogether. Had the names of all 
 the jurors been comprised in one panel, the omission to call 
 the" name would not have mattered, as the number would have 
 enabled the juror to be ascertained. But there being two panels 
 one for the county and one for the city and each panel 
 being numbered separately from 1 to 100, the result of directing 
 a number to stand aside instead of a name was effectually 
 to prevent the press and the public from knowing what jurors 
 were ordered to stand aside. We can, therefore, only give the 
 names of the jurors who were sworn. 
 
 THE JURY SWORN WAS COMPOSED OP THE FOLLOWING : 
 
 1. James Beatty, 20 Grafton-street, merchant ... Protestant. 
 
 2. Francis Johnson, DeVesci-terrace, Monkstown 
 
 accountant-general, Bank of Ireland ... Protestant. 
 
 3. William Gibson, 14 Lower Ormond-quay, seeds- 
 
 man ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 4. James Harrison, 1 7 Henry-street, confectioner Protestant. 
 
 1-2
 
 84 
 
 5. Richard Carey, 57 Lansdowne-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 
 6. William J. H. Reside, 20 College-green, cloth 
 
 merchant ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 7. David Davis, Rathtnines, merchant ... Protestant. 
 
 8. Pierce Finucane, 19 Pembroke-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 
 9. "W. James Halliday, Brookville, Monkstown, 
 
 grocer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 10. John B. Johnston, 8 Clyde-road, baker ... Protestant. 
 
 11. Wills Phenix, 10 Leinster-street, gas-fitter Protestant. 
 12 William Wallace, Dunleary-road, Kingstown, 
 
 coal merchant ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 The above Jury was exclusively Protestant. They were un- 
 able to agree to a verdict, and the prisoner was put back to be 
 tried again. 
 
 PATRICK WALSH'S JUEY SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 Patrick Walsh was put upon his trial for the second time on 
 the 21st August. 
 
 The Crown officials on this occasion reverted to the usual pro- 
 cedure, and called the name of each juror who was set aside. 
 
 The Crown ordered 20 jurors to stand aside, and 11 were 
 challenged by the prisoner. 
 
 The following are the names of those who were ordered to 
 stand by : 
 
 1. John M'Donald, 10 Lower Gardiner-street, 
 
 tailor ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 2. Samuel Jolly, Merville, Stillorgan, farmer ... Protestant. 
 
 3. Martin Kelly, 39 Upper Sackville-street, 
 
 grocer ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 4. William B. Carroll, 14 Mary -street, grocer... Catholic. 
 
 5. James Ennis, Naul, farmer ^. . ... Catholic. 
 . Peter Dempsey, 5 Nassau -street, draper ... Catholic. 
 
 7. Thomas Aungier, 70 Eccles-street, esquire ... Catholic. 
 
 8. Arthur Denny, 66 Lower Leeson- street, 
 
 gentleman ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 9. William Macklin, Crofton- terrace, Kingstown, 
 
 plumber ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 10. Thomas Leetch, 56 Dame-street, magistrate... Protestant. 
 
 11. Hugh Wallace, Dunleary-road, Kingstown, 
 
 merchant ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 12. Thomas Phillips, 4 Dame-street, tailor ... Protestant. 
 
 13. Edward Keegan, Verney, Golden Ball, farmer Protestant. 
 
 14. James C. Hart, 19 and 20 Pill-lane, vintner Catholic. 
 
 15. Andrew Gilligan, 9 College-street, vintner Catholic. 
 
 16. Graves E. Searight, 78 Pembroke -road, 
 
 stock-broker ... ... Protestant.
 
 85 
 
 17. James M'Donald, 62 Upper Dorset-street, 
 
 provision dealer ... ... Catholic. 
 
 18. Patrick M'Gleeson, 28 Thomas-street, grocer Catholic. 
 
 19. Robert W. Eichan, 145 Great Britain-street, 
 
 grocer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 20. Michael O'Loughlin, 20 South Richmond-st., 
 
 butcher ... ... Catholic. 
 
 Of the twenty jurors ordered to stand by, eleven were Catholics 
 and nine Protestants. 
 The jurors challenged by the prisoner were : 
 
 1. Francis M. Scott, Island-bridge, Kilmainham, 
 
 J.P., wool manufacturer ... ... Protestant. 
 
 2. Joseph G. Lendrum, 29 Thomas-st., tobacco 
 
 manufacturer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 3. John Beatty, 14 Grafton-street, carpet 
 
 manufacturer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 4. Denis J. Field, 9 Westmoreland- street, 
 
 stationer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 5. Henry Nicholl, Bohamer, St. Dolough's, 
 
 gentleman ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 6. Captain George Carey, Laurel-lodge, Terenure, 
 
 retired army officer ... ... Protestant. 
 
 7. Charles Johnston, 27 Upper Sackviile-street, 
 
 druggist ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 8. George Macnie, Baymount, Clontarf, printer 
 
 and stationer ... ... ... Protestant, 
 
 9. Henry Alexander Hamilton, George's- street, 
 
 Balbriggan, esquire, J.P. ... ... Protestant. 
 
 10. Ephraim Phillips, 87 Grafton-street, draper Protestant. 
 
 11. Robert Sexton, 51 Dawson- street, tailor ... Protestant. 
 The above eleven jurors are all Protestants. 
 
 The following comprised the jury who tried the case : 
 
 1. William M. Evans, 66 Grafton-street, 
 
 stationer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 2. George, B. Thompson, 9 and 10 Eustace-street, 
 
 wine merchant ... ... Protestant, 
 
 3. Richard D. Barber, 10 Grosvenor-road, West, 
 
 bank manager ... ... Protestant. 
 
 4. Alexander Ogilvy, 13 Grafton-street, draper Protestant. 
 
 5. George Carolan, 82 Talbot-street, builder Protestant. 
 
 6. Thomas Gilbert, 18 Westmoreland-street, 
 
 merchant tailor ... ... Protestant. 
 
 7. Strattell Scott, 39 Mespil-road, veterinary 
 
 surgeon ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 8. Charles Leechman, 59 William-street, 
 
 merchant ... ... Protestant.
 
 86 
 
 9. John H. Reid, Holinston house, Kingstown, 
 
 gentleman ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 10. Edward Johnston, 48 Grafton-street, 
 
 restaurant keeper ... ... Protestant. 
 
 11. George P. Beater, 17 Lower Sackville-street, 
 
 Druggist ... ... Protestant. 
 
 12. John Maconchey, Highfield-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 The above jurors are all Protestants. 
 
 MICHAEL WALSH'S JURY. 
 
 The trial of Michael Walsh for the murder of Constable 
 Kavanagh at Letterfrack, commenced on Wednesday, 27th 
 September. 
 
 In this case the Crown set aside seventeen jurors, and eight 
 were challenged by the prisoner. 
 
 THE JURORS ORDERED TO STAND BY WERE 
 
 1. Edward O'Leary, 42 Stephen- street, grocer Catholic. 
 
 2. William Ledwich, Ashfield, Clondalkin, 
 
 farmer ... ... ' ... .. Catholic. 
 
 3. Andrew Gilligan, 9 College-street, vintner Catholic. 
 
 4. James Carolan, 26 to 30 Amiens-street, hotel- 
 
 keeper ... ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 5. Henry J. Vickers, Hermitage, Blackrock, 
 
 barrister ... ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 6. Michael O'Loughlin, 20 South Richrnond- 
 
 street, butcher ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 7. James Ennis, Naul, farmer ... ... Catholic. 
 
 8. Edward Reilly, Ballyman, Glasnevin, farmer Catholic. 
 
 9. William B. Carroll, 14 Mary-street, grocer Catholic. 
 
 10. Abraham Shackleton, 85A James's-street, 
 
 West, corn merchant .. ... Protestant. 
 
 11. John Lawlor, Irishtown, Palrnerston, 
 
 farmer ... ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 12. Martin Kelly, 89 Upper Sackville-street, 
 
 grocer ... ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 13. Joseph C. Hart, 19 and 20 PilMane, 
 
 vintner ... ... ... ... Catholic. 
 
 14. Denis Egan, Santry, farmer ... ... Catholic. 
 
 15. Edward Taaffe, Upper George's-street, 
 Kingstown, licensed publican ... ... Catholic. 
 
 16. Edward Egan, Marine-terrace, Kingstown Catholic. 
 
 17. Louis Daniel, 10 Rathmines, merchant ... Catholic. 
 Two of the above jurors are Protestants and 15 Catholics.
 
 87 
 
 THE JURORS CHALLENGED 1BY THE PRISONER WERE 
 
 1. Edward Hamilton, Orwell-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 
 2. Henry J. Finlay, Corkagh demesne, gentle- 
 man, J.P. ... ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 3. William Wallace, Dunleary-road, Kingstown, 
 
 coal merchant .., ... ... Protestant. 
 
 4. W. J. H. Reside, 20 College-green, cloth mer- 
 
 chant ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 5. Edward Johnston, 43 G-rafton-street, restaurant 
 
 keeper ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 6. Robert R. Young, 8 Raglan-road, stock -broker Protestant. 
 
 7. Pierce Finucane, 19 Pembroke-road, gentleman Protestant. 
 8. George Macnie, Bay mount, Clontarf, printer 
 
 and stationer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 The following twelve gentlemen composed the jury who tried. 
 Michael Walsh : 
 
 1. Francis Johnston, Serpentine, Kingstown, 
 
 gentleman ... ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 2. Henry Fielding, 33 Dawson- street, tabinet 
 
 manufacturer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 3. Denis J. Field, 9 Westmoreland-street, 
 
 stationer ... ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 4. William G. Barrett, Newtown Smith, Kings- 
 
 town, wine merchant .. ... Protestant. 
 
 5. John B. Johnston, 8 Clyde-road, baker ... Protestant. 
 
 6. James Shanks, 54 Townsend-street, mineral 
 
 water manufacturer ... ... Protestant. 
 
 7. Thomas Wardrop, junior, 55 Great Brunswick- 
 
 street, builder ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 S. Thomas Nuzum, 201 Great Brunswick-street, 
 
 coal merchant ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 D. William James Halliday, Brookville, Monks- 
 town, grocer ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 10. Wilfred Haughton, 27 and 28 City-quay, 
 
 corn merchant ... *" ... Protestant. 
 
 11. Thomas Phillips, 4 Dame-street, tailor ... Protestant. 
 
 12. Henry W. Figgis, 20 Grosvenor-road, mer- 
 
 chant ... ... ... Protestant. 
 
 The jury who tried the prisoner were all Protestants. Mr. 
 Halliday (No 9 on the list), affirmed as a Quaker. 
 
 Subsequent to the comments in the Freeman's Journal calling 
 attention to the exclusive non-Catholic composition oi the juries a 
 marked change is apparent in the course taken by the Crown. 
 Proof of this is appended.
 
 88 
 
 THE DECLARATION OF CATHOLIC JURORS. 
 
 The following is the full text of the declaration read, in the 
 course of the debate, in the House of Commons, on August 
 1 7th, in reference to the sentence of Mr. Justice Lawson on Mr. 
 E. D. Gray, M.P. : 
 
 " We, the undersigned Catholic jurors of the city of Dublin, 
 summoned to attend the Commission Court now sitting in Green- 
 street, and ordered to stand aside by the Crown on Thursday and 
 Friday last, hereby declare our belief that we were so ordered to 
 stand aside solely on the ground that we were Catholics ; and we 
 further declare we came to the conclusion at the time when so set 
 aside, and prior to and quite independent of any comments in the 
 Freeman s Journal on the subject" : 
 
 Hugh Vaughan, 9 Aylesbury road, Merrion. 
 
 Laurence Egan, 87 North King-street, and Riversdale, Queen's- 
 park, Monkstown. 
 
 Patrick O'Farrell, 145 to 149 North King- street, and 24 Rutland- 
 square. 
 
 Edward Lenehan, 27 and 28 Castle- street, and 1 Saint Edward's- 
 terrace, Rathgar. 
 
 William Dennehy, 9 and 10 John-street, West, and 42 Mountjoy- 
 square, South. 
 
 James Magee, 21 Lincoln-place, and 1 Terenure-road. 
 
 Louis Daniel, 10 Rathmines, and Valetta, Zion-road, Rathgar. 
 
 John J. Kelly, 89 Upper Sackville- street. 
 
 Martin Kelly, 89 Upper Sackville-street. 
 
 Patrick Haughey, 4, 5, and 6 Bridge-street, and 41 Cook-street. 
 
 John Lemass, 2 Capel-street
 
 89 
 
 MEMORIAL TO L.ORD LIEUTENANT 
 
 IN 
 
 THE CASE OF FRANCIS HYNES. 
 
 The following is a copy of a memorial presented to His- 
 Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, on Saturday, 26th August, 1882, 
 by the Solicitor of Francis Hynes : 
 
 " TO HIS EXCELLENCY EARL SPENCER, K.G., LIEUTENANT GENERAL 
 AND GENERAL GOVERNOR OF IRELAND. 
 
 " The humble memorial of John Frost, No. 6 Upper Orniond- 
 quay, in the City of Dublin, Solicitor, respectively showeth unto- 
 your Excellency 
 
 " 1. Your memorialist acted as Solicitor for Francis Hynes on 
 his trial for the murder of one John Doloughty, which trial took 
 place at Green-street Court-house, in this city, before the Right 
 Honourable Mr. Justice Lawson and a jury, on 13th and 14th 
 days of the present month of August. The said trial resulted in a 
 verdict of guilty, whereupon the learned judge sentenced the said 
 Francis Hynes to be executed on the 1 1 th September, prox. 
 
 " 2. Your memorialist humbly submits to your Excellency that 
 the said sentence should not be carried into effect for the follow- 
 ing reasons and on the following grounds. 
 
 " 3. The trial commenced on the 13th instant, and on the 
 evening of that day the court adjourned without finishing the 
 cause. The Jury was given into the charge of special bailiffs to 
 whom was administered an oath in the words following, that is to 
 say : ' You shall not allow any person to have communication 
 with the jury, save through the Sheriff, with the permission of the 
 court, nor shall you allow the jury to separate or go at large until 
 after the sitting of the court, pursuant to adjournment to be made 
 for that purpose.' 
 
 " 4. The jury then retired to the Imperial Hotel in this city, 
 accompanied by the special bailiffs. Your Excellency has been 
 forwarded eleven affidavits sworn by eleven different persons, all 
 residents or servants in the hotel, all having the amplest opportunity 
 of observing the events of that night, and all having no interest 
 whatever in the trial. Your memorialist submits to your
 
 90 
 
 Excellency's consideration the statements as to the occurrences in 
 the hotel in these affidavits contained. 
 
 " 5. Your memorialist further humbly submits to your Ex- 
 cellenc3 T that there is one most important point about which there 
 is in effect no controversy whatever. 
 
 "6. It appears from the testimony of several of the persons 
 who made affidavits that no attempt even was made to keep the 
 jurors together in the hotel, and separate from and without com- 
 munication with the rest of the world. That the said jurors were 
 permitted to go where they pleased in the hotel, and conversed 
 with whomsoever they thought proper. That six of the jury 
 entered the public billiard-room of the hotel, and remained there 
 for over three hours, thus separating themselves from their fellows, 
 who remained in another room of the hotel. That members of the 
 outside public passed freely in and out of the billiard-room when 
 the jurors were there. That one of the jurors was in close con 
 versation with Major Wynne, a member of the outside public. 
 That the said juror actually handicapped a game of billiards in which 
 members of the outside public were playing. That the jurors in 
 the billiard-room mixed freely with the outside public in the 
 room. 
 
 "7. Your memorialist humbly submits that these facts are sub- 
 stantially placed beyond all controversy by the letter voluntarily 
 addressed to the 'public Press by Major Hamilton, one of the 
 jurors, a copy of which is herewith sent to your Excellency. In 
 that letter Major Hamilton does not deny any allegation as to the 
 jurors mixing with the outside public in the billiard -room. He, in 
 fact, admits the substantial accuracy of this part of the case. 
 
 " 8. In view of the foregoing facts your memorialist is advised 
 that his client's remedy lies in this appeal to your Excellency, as 
 the authority with whom rests the discretion of carrying out or not 
 carrying out the sentence. Such was, your memorialist is advised, 
 the decision in the case of the Queen v. Michael Murphy Law- 
 Reports, 2nd Privy Council Appeals, page 35 and 535. In that 
 case a prisoner, having been tried and convicted of a capital felony 
 by a Court of Oyer and Terminer in New South Wales, and 
 sentence of death passed, an application was made to the Supreme 
 Court of New South Wales for a rule of venire de novo on an 
 affidavit which stated that one of the jury had informed the 
 deponent that, pending the trial and before verdict, the jury 
 having adjourned to a hotel, had access to newspapers which con- 
 tained a reporb of the trial as it proceeded, with comments thereon. 
 The Supreme Court of New South Wales made a rule of venire de 
 novo, Sir Alfred Stephen, the Chief Justice of New South Wales, 
 in his judgment, declaring that the bailiffs sworn to take charge of 
 the jury thereby became in fact officers of the Crown. The order 
 of the New South Wales Court was subsequently reversed on
 
 91 
 
 technical grounds by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; 
 but in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council Sir William 
 Erie said ' If irregularity occurs in the conduct of a trial not 
 constituting a ground for treating the verdict as a nullity, the 
 remedy to prevent a failure of justice is by application to the 
 authority with whom rests the discretion either of executing the 
 law or commuting the sentence. As there was, in the opinion of 
 the Court below, irregularity in the trial of the respondent sufficient 
 to vacate the judgment, their lordships have no doubt that, upon 
 proper application on behalf of the respondent, which they recom- 
 mend to be made, such weight will be given to these remarks as 
 they may appear to deserve.' Your memorialist has not been able 
 to obtain any official record of the fact, but he is informed, and 
 verily believes, that in the above case of the Queen v. Murphy 
 the sentence on the convict was at once commuted. There will 
 doubtless be within your Excellency's reach ample means of 
 informing yourself correctly on this point. 
 
 "9. It is humbly submitted to your Excellency that the separa- 
 tion of the jury in the present case and their free commerce and 
 communication with the outside public was a miscarriage of 
 justice and a violation of law. Your memorialist is advised that 
 until near the commencement of the present century the law was 
 that in no case of felony could the court adjourn over the night. 
 The object of that rule was, according to Lord Chief Justice 
 Eyre, ' that it may be quite sure that justice will be done both to 
 the Crown and to the prisoner ; that there should be no opportunity 
 of having intercourse with the jury ; and that there may be no 
 improper influence upon the minds of those who are in any manner 
 to take a part in the decision of the cause' (Colbett's ' State Trials,' 
 vol. 25, page 130). The first case of a trial for felony in which 
 the Court adjourned over the night was, your memorialist is advised, 
 that of the Queen v. Hardy (24 'State Trials,' 414), and in that 
 case, in order to prevent any possibility of the jury communicating 
 with the outside public, beds were supplied for them in the court- 
 house, and they spent the night there. The present practice of 
 sending jurors to an inn arose, your memorialist is advised, for 
 the first time in the case of the Queen v. Tooke (' State Trials,' 
 vol. 25, page 13, et seq). In that case the Lord Chief Baron 
 Macdonald justified the departure from the ancient form in the 
 following words : ' But if you can preserve the spirit and are 
 forced by physical necessity to make the form bend, it does not 
 seem to me that the sacred principle of law is materially trenched 
 upon if the jury continue inaccessible. ... If the 
 rule of law cannot be preserved consistent with physical necessity, 
 it seems to me the court is justified in deviating from the particular 
 mode that has obtained, ' taking care that the jury do continue in- 
 accessible.'
 
 92 
 
 " 10. The principle thus laid down by Chief Baron Macdonald 
 has, your memorialist submits, ever since been acted upon. 
 When cases of felony run into a second day the jury has been 
 sent to an inn for the night ; but elaborate precautions have 
 always been taken by those sworn by the court to take charge 
 of the jury to secure that the jury shall be as inaccessible to the 
 general public while in the inn as when shut up in the jury box. 
 * The sacred principle of law, the inaccessibility of the jurors/ 
 is jealously guarded by the oath administered to the bailiffs. It 
 is submitted that in the present case the inaccessibility of the 
 jury was not preserved, as the jury were allowed to go whither 
 they pleased through the hotel as half their number spent over 
 three hours in the public billiard-room mixing and conversing with 
 the members of the general public who entered the room and 
 separated from their fellows. It is respectfully submitted to 
 your Excellency, that in this case the confinement of the jury 
 in the hotel was ineffectual ; that for all purposes of separa- 
 tion from the outside public they may as well have dispersed 
 to their homes as remain in the hotel ; that, in short, what 
 Chief Baron Macdonald called ' the sacred principle of law the 
 inaccessibility of the jury,' was not observed. 
 
 "11. Your Excellency's attention is respectfully drawn to the 
 fact that there are many instances in which the prerogative of 
 the Executive has been used to prevent the execution of the 
 sentence where irregularities have been proved to have occurred 
 in the jury-room. Your Excellency's attention is respectfully 
 directed to the very recent case of Gerald Mainwaricg, who, at 
 the Summer assizes of Derby in the year 1879, was found guilty 
 of wilful murder by a jury and sentenced to death. It afterwards 
 transpired that six of the jury were for a verdict of man- 
 slaughter and six for a verdict of murder, and that a casting vote 
 of the foreman of the jury had decided the matter. In that case, 
 when Sir Kichard Cross, the then Home Secretary, was 
 questioned in the House of Commons as to whether, owing to 
 the irregularities of the jury, the capital sentence would be 
 carried out, Sir Kichard Cross said, in reply, ' He should have 
 thought it absolutely unnecessary to put such a question.' 
 (Hansard, Vol, 149, page 676.) Mainwaring's sentence was 
 forhwith commuted. 
 
 " 12. There have also been cases in which the judges, when 
 they discovered that such irregularities occurred, declined to 
 accept the verdict. For example, a case of the Queen v. Gilligaa 
 will be found reported in the Dublin papers of the 26th July, 
 1867. In that case a woman was tried for child murder at the 
 Tullamore assizes, the presiding judge being the late Lord Chief 
 Baron Pigot. It was discovered during the course of the case 
 tl at at luncheon time eight of the jurors had left the box, and
 
 93 
 
 had gone into a refreshment room which was open to the public, 
 but which was within the precincts of the court-house. The 
 Lord Chief Baron commented strongly upon the conduct of the 
 jury, fined each of them and discharged them from giving a 
 Terdict. The woman was subsequently tried on a second indict- 
 ment, and found guilty of concealing the birth of her child. 
 
 " 13. In the case of inferior courts the Queen's Bench has 
 not hesitated to quash verdicts when the jury was guilty of 
 irregularities or misconduct. Your Excellency's attention is 
 respectfully directed to the case of the Ballyragget inquest, in 
 which judgment was given by the Court of Queen's Bench in 
 Ireland on the 6th day of March, 1882. In that case a verdict 
 of wilful murder was returned by a coroner's jury, sitting at 
 Ballyragget, in the county of Kilkenny, against two sub- 
 inspectors of police named Bouchier and O'Brien. The 
 Attorney-General moved the Court of Queen's Bench to quash 
 the inquisition, on the ground that ' it had not been taken and 
 held as by law required ; that the jurors empanelled on the 
 inquest had, during -the proceedings, communed with persons 
 who were not their fellow-jurors, and with whom it was not 
 lawful for them to communicate ; that certain of the jurors 
 absented themselves during the examination of some of the wit- 
 nesses, and did not hear the said witnesses examined ; also, that 
 after the evidence had concluded, and after the jury had been 
 charged by .he coroner, while they were deliberating on their 
 verdict the coroner and his son the latter not being , juror 
 remained shut up with the jury during their deliberation. 
 The communications of the jury with persons not jurors was, 
 your memorialist is advised, one of the main reasons relied on 
 by the Crown for quashing the inquisition. After full argu- 
 ment the Court of Queen's Bench made an order quashing the 
 inquisition, and the accused parties were thus freed from the 
 verdict. A coroner's jury is in the nature of a grand jury ; it 
 decides nothing, but merely presents a case for inquiry. If 
 the irregularity or misconduct of a coroner's jury is a matter so 
 serious that their verdict is quashed and the persons accused by 
 it allowed to go free, it is humbly submitted that the case is surely 
 far stronger in the case, of the irregularity or the misconduct of 
 a jury finally deciding on the life or death of a human being. 
 
 " Upon these grounds and for these reasons your me- 
 morialist humbly prays that the capital sentence 
 on the said Francis Hynes should not under the 
 circumstances aforesaid be carried into effect. 
 And your memorialist will, as in duty bound, ever 
 pray. 
 
 "JOHN FBOST." 
 
 Dublin : Printed by W. J. ALLEY & Co., 9 Ryder's Row, Capel Street.
 
 UMVERSiTY o 
 
 PL * 
 
 LOS ANGE: 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 UNIVERSITY of Cf 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 LIBRARY