THE DUBLIN FREEMAN'S JOURNAL CONTEMPT CASE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3527, 27 October 1882, Page 4

THE DUBLIN FREEMAN'S JOURNAL CONTEMPT CASE.

The sentence of three months' imprisonment for contempt of Court, which has been inflicted on the High Sheriff of Dublin (Mr Gray, M.P.,) by Mr Justice Lawson, is already known to you, and it remains only to explain the circumstances which have led to this act of judicial arbitrariness. The Commission Court, which was instituted by the new Act, was opened a week or two ago for the trial of the agrarian offenders subject to its jurisdiction, and in selecting the jurors the Crown exercised its undoubted right of challenge in nineteen cases. By some curious coincidences all, or nearly all, of the gentlemen objected to were Roman Catholics, and the jury which was eventually empannelled ■was composed entirely of Protestants. Mr Gray not only is High Sheriff, but he is the editor and proprietor of the Freeman's Journal as well, and in his -journal he called attention to this coincidence in terms which certainly were a little " Irish" in their severity and "suspiciousness." The second day the same thing happened, and then it was that Mr Gray suggested in the columns of his paper that there was some truth in the current rumor that the Government had determined to pack the juries with Protestants, and that the Catholic special jurors ■who had been summoned had been boycotted on purpose. The Executive in Ireland have warmly repudiated the truth of this "scandal," and let us hope the story is as atrociously untrue ns they say it is, but now we are concerned rather ■with the wickedness of Mr Gray's act than with the extent of its falseness, and it is really difficult to see why the repetition by him of a story, which was in everybodys mouth in Dublin, should be construed as contempt of Court. Nor does the second offence of which Mr Gray was convicted seem any the more commensurate with the punishment inflicted on him. As High Sheriff he himself was an officer'of the Court, and was reponsible for the good behaviour of the jurors under his charge. Anything reflecting on their conduct which appeared in his paper deserved be treated with seriousness, and if it turned out to be true public thanks would be due to him as a newspaper editor, whatever might be thought of him as a sheriff. In another issue of the Freeman a statement •was published to which all credibility was invited by the editor, to the effect that while the jury were supposed to be deliberating over their verdict they were really drinking in the room ; and generally that during the whole of the time they were ompannelled they were several of them in a continuous state of intoxication. Whether this were true or false is certainly ti most eerious question. If false, unquestionably heavy punishment ought to fall on the heads of those who invented it. But, on the other hand, if it were true, how great the credit due to the newspaper which was fearless enough to draw attention to it. Inquiry in the interests of the jurors themselvee, and still more in the interest of justice, was essential; and yet this is just what the Executive Commissioner, by treating the matter as one of contempt of Court, prevented ; and Irishmen are now saying that the charges made by Mr Gray have been suppressed but not disproved. From certain quarters rumors reach London that the story could not be disproved—that, in short, it was true. But whether this be so or not, the fact remains that it has not been disproved, in consequence of the course taken by the Judge. Mr Justice Lawson is of course within his right in inflicting any punishment he pleases for contempt of Court, but certainly the way he has exercised the discretion vested in him will not tend to contribute to the pacific.-.! ion of Ireland any more than it has commended itself to the good sense of the Government. Mr Gladstone has written in reply to a resolution condemning the imprisonment, •which was sent him by a Radical Association, that the proceeding is one over which the Government have had no control, and from his speech in the Hoiise of Commons — gnarded and cautious though that speech ■was —it was very clear that the Prime Minister views Mr Justice Lawson's conduct as extremely indiscreet. A few years ago Sir Richard Cross did not hesitate to annul a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment for contempt of Court passed by Mr Justice Denman, and Mr Trevelyan could do the same now. But it must of course be remembered that to reverse Mr Justice Lawson's sentence will discredit the Executive in the eyes of the Irish people.— London correspondent of the Age.