On the last night of the Privilege debate (yesterday week),
Sir Henry James made a remarkable speech, in which he en- larged on the impartiality of English juries in the political cases of our time, and illustrated his argument by the recent prosecu- tion of English Socialists when Sir Charles Russell had brought all his great power of advocacy to bear in endeavouring to obtain a conviction against men charged with breaking open London shops, whereas every one of them was acquitted by a jury of English tradesmen. In another case, Sir Henry James himself had to prosecute two political agents charged with corrupt practices at elections. A jury was impanelled which consisted of the personal and political friends of both these men, and yet the jury convicted them. Sir Henry James contended that the fairness of a Committee of the House would certainly be impugned if judgment went against the Irish Party who appealed to it. In his opinion, the regular tribunals of this country were far the most fitting for an investigation of this kind. Mr. Healy termed the speech of Sir Henry James a "Uriah Heap" speech, and declared that, in the condition of feeling in the country, no British jury could be trusted; and to illustrate this, he mentioned a remark which be said that he had overheard in the lobby,—" I wish we had them like rata in a pit, with a terrier at their throats." Surely that remark did not disprove the impartiality of an average jury half so much as it disproved the impartiality of the Commons' Com- mittee to which Mr. Healy professed to be appealing. It was the " Uriah Heaps " of the House to whose honour Mr. Healy was so eager to submit his reputation.
