dents occurring at
separate stages in the striking of the jury. What happened first of
all was supposed to be a mere casual effect of hurry. Good reason
there has since appeared, to suspect in this affair no such excusable
accident, but a very fraudulent result of a plan for vitiating the
whole proceedings. Such things are likely enough to be attempted by
obscure partisans. But at all events any trick that may have been
practised, is traced decisively to the party of the defendants. But
the whole effect of the trick, if such it were, was to diminish the
original fund from which the names of the second list were to be
drawn, by about one twenty-ninth part. But this inconsiderable loss
was as likely to serve the defendants as not; for the object, as we
have said, was--simply by vitiating the proceeding to protract the
trial, and thus to benefit by a larger range of favourable accidents.
But why not cure this irregularity, however caused, by the means open
to the court? Simply for these reasons, explained by the
Attorney-General:--1st, that such a proceeding would operate
injuriously upon many other trials; and 2d, as to this particular
trial, that it would delay it until the year 1845. The next incident
is still more illustrative of the determination, taken beforehand, to
quarrel with the arrangements, on whatever principle conducted. When
the list of persons eligible as jurors has been reduced by the
unobjectionable process of balloting to forty-eight, from that amount
they are further reduced by ultimate challenges; and the necessity
resting upon each party to make these challenges is not discretional,
but peremptory. It happened that the officer who challenged on behalf
of the crown, struck off about ten Roman Catholics. The public are
weary of hearing it explained--that these names were not challenged
_as_ Catholics, but as Repealers. Some persons have gone so far as to
maintain--that even Repealers ought not to have been challenged. This,
however, has been found rather too strong a doctrine for the House of
Commons--to have asked for a verdict of guilty from men glorying in
the very name which expresses the offence. Did any man ever suggest a
special jury of smugglers in a suit of our lady the Queen, for the
offence of "running" goods? Yet certainly they are well qualified as
respects professional knowledge of the case. We on our part maintain,
that not merely Repealers were inadmissible on the Dublin jury, but
gener