The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDA

He was him-elf in Germany when his appointment was made,
and he. recollected the observations made in Germany at the
time. They asked whether it was possible that a country so
free as England, and which preached freedom and liberty to
all foreign States, could act in such a narrow spirit
towards V Ireland ? (Hear, hear.) But so it was.
The Right Hon. Gentleman soon after carne into power.
He looked forward to the Noble Lord opposite, the Member for
Cornwall, for impartial justice, but such had tot turned out to
be the case. He had felt no doubt that, although they had not
the Government of Lord Normanby or the Earl Fortescue,
that justice would be done to Ireland.---( Hear, hear.) What
had taken place ? A State prosecution, for what ?—Why,
doing that which every Irishman was entitled to do. Every
proceeding had been taken against the Catholics of Ireland
that could be. They had been removed from the
bench and magistracy, and in the selection of
judges the wishes of the people had not beets eon-
sulted.—( Hear. ) He thought they looked in vain in Ireland
for the promotion of Roman Catholics to any offices of honour
or State.—( Hear, hear.) Even if they were offered, he doubted
that any man would accept office from any member of the
Iresent Government.—( Hear, hear.) Every wish of the
rish people had been met with the statement, that concession
had reached its ultimatum—( Hear, he m)—and was it sur.
prising that such things had taken place in Ireland ?—( Hear,
hear.) Or that the people should say, if the House of Com-
mons would not redress their grievances, they must look to
themselves, and consider the Government the criminal.—
( Hear, hear.) He would give credit to the Government in
their proceedings, that they had a wish to vindicate the law,
but in doing so, their first act ought to have been to take care
that they should act with impartiality. Had such been the
ease in the late trius? Certainly not; Catholics had been
excluded from the jury, and Tory spies had been employed.—
( Hear, hear.) The people of Ireland believed that they had
been struck off the jury list because they were Catholics, and
that a very different result would have taken place in the late
trials if only one Catholic had been on the jury.—(Cheers.)
If they imprisoned Mr. O'Connell, did the Government sup-
pose that others would not spring up in his place ? If they
imprisoned Mr. O'Connell, they might find the necessity next
week of a fresh prosecution. By imprisoning Mr. O'Connell,
they would be only adding fuel to the flame of agitation. He
could assure the Government that the followers of Mr. O'Con-
nell had not diminished in numbers. He could assure them

tat there was an organised system of agitation in Ireland,
which coercion could never put down. The Governmert were
struggling against the repeal agitation ; and yet they were
pursuing that course which was most likely to keep it up.
The agitation would never be put down by prosecutions, but
it might be put down by justice.—( Hear, hear.) Let them
do justice to Ireland, and they would restore that country to
peace but as long as they turned a deaf ear to its just de-
mands, so long would there be discontent and disaffection. The
consequence of the present state of Ireland was the depre-
ciation of property and the stagnation of trade. By increasing
the tranquillity of Ireland, they thereby increased its prosperity.
One of the great causes of discontent in Ireland was the limited
franchise at present possessed by the Irish people. They re-
quired, too, an addition to the number of Irish Members. They
should be more proportioned to the number of English Mem-
bers in that House. With respect to the landlord and tenant
question, he was glad that a Commission had been appointed to
inquire into the subject; but he could not but regret that
persons from the tenantry had not been chosen to form a por-
tion of that Commission. At present it was a one-sided Com-
mission, and could not be looked upon by the Irish tenantry
but as a landlords' Commission. There were subjects for the
consideration of such a Commission, into which it could not
fairly enter without the assistance of persons who were
tenants themselves. The present system of education in Ire-
land was extremely defective, and reform in that respect was
very much required. He thought the grant to the College of
Maynooth ought to be largely increased, and that the Univer-
sity ought to be very much extended ; to which University, he
thought Catholics ought to be admitted, or that a Roman Ca-
tholic university should be established. There was one ques-
tion that he had not yet touched upon, and that was the ques-
tion of the Church of Ireland. It might be said that he as
a Roman Catholic Member, would violate his oath by inter-
fering in such a question. He would appeal to the Right
Hon. Baronet who had introduced the Catholic oath, as to
what manner he intended that oath should be observed. Did
he intend that that oath should allow the Roman Catholic
Members to support the Noble Lord who hid commenced the
debate, or did he intend that by that oath the Catholic Mem-
bers were precluded from interfering in ecclesiastical questions ?
He would not do anything to the Protestant Church that he
would not do to the Catholic. He would be for improving the
condition of both. Why should a Roman Catholic be re-
quired to give stronger testimony in favour of the Protestant
Church than Protestants themselves—than those who sat on
the same side of the House with him ? Did the Constitution
debar them from meddling with Church questions? If so,
then his constituents would say to him—" You shall not re-
p.esent us—you are curbed and fettered—you would not half
represent us. We will have a Protestant, not a Catholic."
Why, if such a principle were acted upon, the Catholics of Ire-
land would have reason to say they were not half emanci-
pated. Were seven millions of people to be kept in constant
disaffection ? It was useless to think of effecting any concilia-
tion by pensioning. The Catholic clergy of Ireland would not
receive Government support.—( Hear, hear.) A short
time ago, when he ( Mr. Wyse) happened to be in
Dublin, there was a solemn enunciation, on the part
of the Chatholic hierarchy of Ireland, not to receive anything
in the shape of salary or endowment. The causes of this were
manifest. The Catholic clergy must have deeply felt the as-
pe.sions that have been cast upon them by a large number of
the people of this country—they had been slandered in the
grossest manner ; and it was not only Irish feeling, but the
feeling of human uature, that they should be filled with re-
sentment. The Catholic clergy were not hostile to British
connection, and when Lord Normanby was Lord Lieutenant
there, they showed the utmost disposition to assist the authori-
ties in restoring and preserving tranquillity. The Noble Lord
said in the course of his speech that he saw no reason why the
Catholic clergy should not be selected from the humbler classes
of the Irish people—neither did he (Mr. Wyse). On the
contrary, he would prefer that they were selected from the
humbler classes, for they would understand the condition of
the poor better, would sympathise in their distresses, and be
more alive to their wants and wishes. The attachment of the
Catholic peasant to his priest was almost proverbial—the at-
tachment of the priest to his flock—they had suffered together
—they had been identified since the days when Catholic
clergymen were transported to the West Indies for their
profession—when a premium had been offered fur their heads,
and a still larger premium for their abnegation of the
creed of their forefathers. He had no wish for the ascendancy
of his creed—every good Catholic would dislike it—but they
wanted impartiality in the administration of the laws and
equality of civil rights with their Protestant fellow-subjects.
Was not the present condition of Ireland a disgrace to England?
And was it not at present a source of great uneasiness to the
people of this country ? It was a just principle of retribution,
that no country could injure another without being ultimately
affected by those injuries itself. There was Ireland in the
midst of poverty and discontent—at all times and in all sea-
sons—there she was, miserable and afflicted, whilst they were
rolling in the midst of luxury. She was like the Roman slave,
continually reminding them of their mortality. England
might boast of carrying her commerce and introducing
civilization to the remotest parts of the globe—she
might be the mistress of the ocean, and the most
prosperous of nations. She would be the friend of the slave
far away, and the enemy to oppression in foreign countries ;
but as long as Ireland continued as she was—as long as Eng-
land neglected to tranquillise that country by healing and
conciliating measures—as long as there was domestic discon-
tent—no prosperity, however great, could be of long standing.
The cure was simple.—let them administer to Ireland
those laws which they so much valued themselves, and have
them administered in the same spirit with which they were ad-
ministered in this country—let them not coerce but conciliate,
and let the Government a second time imitate 1829, by doing
justice to Ireland.-(Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM did not complain of the time consumed in
the two speeches he had heard. The magnitude and the immense
importance of the interest involved fully justified the length of
those discussions. The House, he was sure, would feel that the
task which he undertook in following the Noble Lord, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman was a very difficult one. He would

not trespass on any more of then:time than was absolutely
necessary, but candidly state the case on the part of the Go-
vernment. Before proceeding now to notice the general topics
of these speeches, he should notice a matter which was per-
sonal to himself. He could not help lamenting that upon this
fatal Irish feeling he first parted from the Noble Lord—on the
same feeling they had afterwards met in hostile array, and in
this feeling he feared that, after the expressions used by the
Noble Lord, they would never again unite. What had fallen
from the Noble Lord had sufficiently convinced him that their
opinions regarding Ireland differed very widely. In one
thing he cordially agreed with the Noble Lord, who said

that— no sovereign had ever been more intent upon
promoting the, contentment of the people of Ire-
land without distinction of party or creed. He had
the greatest satisfaction in stating that all the instructions
which he had received from her Majesty led him to entirely
concur with the Noble Lord, and to believe that the Noble

Lord was perfectly accurate and correct. Oz another point
also he agreed with the Noble Lord ; he passed a glowing pane-
gyric on Mr. Fox, in which he entirely concurred. Mr. Fox
said that military government and military executions were
not suited to Ireland. What was the policy of the Govern-
ment towards Ireland ? What was the conduct of the Govern-
ment which he was called upon to defend? Was it in favour

of a coercive Bill? Did lie stand up to advocate trial by
court-martial? It was not military law nor military execu-
tions he was called upon to defend. He stood up to advocate
the propriety of governing Ireland according to the
established laws of this country—the trial by jury; and it was
those laws which, be was happy to say, had triumphed in that
country, and which he stood up to vindicate. He desired to
imitate as much as possible the temper of the Hon. Member
for Waterford, which was quite unobjectionable—( Hear, hear)
—and well worthy of imitation. The House would remember
_ _

that the Noble Lord had said that her ➢lajesty's Government

were the real criminals, and as they stood there charged in
this manner, he trusted the House would give them a patient
hearing. The Noble Lord had, unintentionally no doubt,
spoken of the past policy which had been pursued towards
Ireland, and of that which he supposed they would adopt
for the future, in a manner which did not make

the distinction between the two sufficiently obvious.
He would divide the subject into two leading branches, and
first he would speak of the conduct which had been pursued
recently by the Government, and speak of the more general
policy hereafter. He would gladly go back to the period to
which the Noble Lord had referred, but his duty at present was
to defend the conduct which had been pursued by the Go
vernment. He was surprised at the manner in which the
Noble Lord had spoken of the Government of Ireland by Lord
Wellesley and Lord Anglesea.—( Hear, hear.) Surely, the
Noble Lord remembered that he himself was a Member of the
Government at that time—(Cheers)—that he had adopted
their policy and shared in their responsibility.—( Cheers.) The
Noble Lord had complained that the union had yielded no
fruits. At the time that he had been the colleague of the
Noble Lord in office, great and important measures had been
carried, and which he believed had been productive of great
advantages to Ireland. When Lord Grey came into power,
emancipation had been carried. He would observe in passing
that from the time that he (Sir J. Graham) had left Lord
Grey's Government, the interval was very shoe, before the re-
spected head of the Government left it also, and however
glowing was the eulogium which the Noble Lord had passed
on Mr. Fox, Lord Grey was as worthy of it, and
he thought that the Noble Lord would agree with
him in opinion upon that point.—( Loud cheers. )
Was it contended that Lord Grey had passed no measures of a
liberal nature for Ireland ? He was satisfied that Lord Grey
would not have held office for five years within four months
without giving effect to that liberal policy with regard to Ire-
land, for the sake of which he had sacrificed office for so many
years.—( Cheer.) He would state the measures which they
had passed. They had enlarged the franchise. They had es-
tablished a system of national edv ration. They had passed the
Church Temporalities Act—an Act which he believed eon-
duced to the stability of the Established Church, by enlarging
the basis, while it took away trom the capital.—(Cheers.)
The Noble Lord admitted that the policy of Lord Grey's Go-
vernment had been conceived ;q a spirit of kindness towards
the Catholics, and that there h d been a wish on their part to
admit Catholics to the benefit of a full participation of all ad-
vantages.—( Cheers. ) The Noble Lord had said that when
the late Government had left °free, they had left the country
in a state of tranquillity, and that the repeal agitation was
quite insignificant. Now he I id extracted from the Pilot
newspaper a list of the repeal meetings held during 1840.
On July 26, 1840, a repeal meeting had been held at Castlebar,
which bad been attended by eighteen Rs "an Catholic clergy-

men, and several gentlemen. On the 26th of August there
had been a repeal breakfast at Mallow, whi.sh had been attended
by 201) persons, and in the same month there had been a public
repeal meeting, attended by 10,000 persons. On the 20th
there was a meeting at Skibbereen, attended by several thou
sand persons ; and during that year there were meetings at
Kilkenny, attended by 200,000; at Drogheda, by 60,000; at.
Waterford, by 20,000; at Dublin, by 6,000 ; and at Maynooth.
by 10,000 persons. In 1841 there had been meetings at Bel-
fast, in the Curragh of Kildare, attended by 80,000 people;
and on the 18th of August, 1841, just before Ministers went
out of office, there was a repeal meeting at Drogheda, attended
by 25,000 people, which was the state of affairs antecedent to
the present Government corning into power. Considering the
present position of Mr. O'Connell, he would riot allude to the
speeches which had been made by the lion. and Learned
Gentleman on those occasioes ; but he would state generally
that he had expressed himself with the same zeal and energy
which had characterised his former speeches. The Noble Lord
had alluded to the jery law, and, as it appeared to him, had
confounded the law regulating common juries, with that by
which special juries were regulated. With regard to common
juries the Noble Lord had eulogised the rule which had been
established by Mr. Justice Perrin.
An Host. MEMBER—By Sir M. O'Loghlin.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought it was by Mr. Justice Perrin ;
but it mattered not which of them had established the rule, for
the Crown ordering common jurors to stand bye, that rule re-
mained in operation, and had never been varied from in the
slightest degree. To say that the Crown should not, on any
occasion, order a juror to stand bye, would be an absolute
denial of justice. The calm and temperate manner. in which
the Attorney-General fur England conducted Crown prosecu-
tions had met with general approval, and yet, at the recent
ttials at Cardiff, a panel of seventy-five jurors had been cx
hausted by the challenges of the prisoners, and of the Crown,
those of the prisoners being limited by low to twenty. The
power should be exercised with justice and discretion, but it
was necessary that it should be possessed by the Crown. The
Noble Lord seemed to labour under some misapprehension with
regard to the difference between ordering a common juror to
stand bye and striking a special jury; he was not aware that the
rule regulating the ordering a common juror to stand bye, had
been introduced by Sir M. O'Loghlin, but the striking
a special jury was regulated by Act of Parliament—
that Act having been brought into this House by Sir
M. O'Loghlin, at the time that the Noble Lord was in
office. The special jury list contained the names of 716 special
jurors. He would; in passing, observe on the fact of certain
names having been omitted from that list. The Noble Lord
had stated that sixty names had been omitted, and he relied on
making that statement upon a statement which had been made
in the Queen's Bench. He (Sir James Graham) believed
that that statement was a gross exaggeration. Not above
one half that number of names had been omitted, and no one
could contend that the Government was at all responsible for
the omission. His Right Hon. Friend, the Recorder for
Dublin, who was present, would, doubtless, in the course of
the debate, give some explanation on tne subject. He deeply
r grettcd the omission, and he agreed with the Noble Lord
in expressing his sorrow at finding that that circumstance
should have created a prejudice, and have given even an ap
pearance of unfairness to the administration of justice.—
( Hear, hear.) But as the number of names omitted did no

amount to thirty, and that the names of Protestants as well as
of Catholics were among those omitted, it was hardly possible
to imagine that as forty-eight names were chosen by ballot out
the list of 716, that the omission of those names would have
affected the composition of the jury in any material degree.
According to the Act of Parliament, the parties were to
strike off the names alternately, and if there was anything re-
markable in the Crown striking off the names of Roman
Catholics, it should be recollected that the traversers had not
struck off the names of any Roman Catholics. The case, as
originally represented to the public, had been that ten Roman
Catholics had been struck off by We Crown, not be-

cause they were repealers, but because they were Roman
Catholics. He was sorry to see that that respectable
bode, the English Catholics, had resented this striking
off the jury as an insult offered to themselves, and
Ind thus given to what was really merely a matter of political
difference a character of religious strife. —( Hear, hear.) He
regretted this exceedingly, for he entertained the greatest pct.
sonal respect for many of the gentlemen who had attended the
meeting which had been called to express the feelings of the
English Catholics on that occasion.—(Cheers.) It had been
stated that these persons had not been members of the Repeal
Association, and the traversers, who of course had access to
the hook:, had been challenged to verify their statement by
affidavit. This challenge had been accepted, but the affidavit
had not been filed until towards the close of the proceedings.
That affidavit was most important--it disposed of eight out of
the ten cases. ( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now he
could not understand how the striking off the names of
those persons could be considered as an impeachment of their
fidelity to the sanctity of an oath.. If, in a fox-hunting county
he should bring an action of treepass again* the master of the
hounds, of course, his solicitor would take care to exclude all
the members of the hunt freers the jury.—(Cheers.) If he
brought an action for tithes, of course, he should have little
chance of success if his solicitor did not strike off all lay impro-
priators from the list of the jury.—(Cheers.) They did not
question their honour, they only questioned the strong precon-
ceived opinions and feelings.—( Hear, hear.) He should cer-
tainly be astonished if any one would have the boldness to stand
up in that House and contend that those Roman Catholics who
were members of the Association ought to have been retained
on the jury.—(Cheers.) He would now consider the cases of
those two who were not, according to the statements of the affi-
davit, members of the Association, although they were Roman
Catholics. These persons were Mr. Michael Dunn and Mr.
Ilendric. Now, with regard to Michael Dunn, it appeared
that he resided in St. Patrick's ward, Dublin. Now, there
were four persons of that name, three of whom had signed the
requisition for calling the repeal meeting at. Tara, and,
as the officers of the Government believed, this very Michael
Dunn, the brazier, was one of those who had signed
a requisition for calling a repeal meeting in St. Patrick's
ward. Dunn himself, in his affidavit, negatived the fact that he
was a member of the Repeal Association, but he did not nega-
tive the fact that he had signed a requisition for calling a re-
peal meeting. Now, with regard to the composition of the
jury, he would observe that the Government might, had they
chosen, have tried the traversers before a common jury, and in
that case the traversers would not have bet n entitled to chal-
lenge a single man, whilst the Crown might have ex-
ercised its prerogative of ordering jurors to stand aside.
They did not like to act in such a way, because they thought it
would be unfair towards the traversers ; and they thought it
right that they should be tried by a special jury, which would
place both parties in the same position.— ( Hear, hear.) There
were forty-eight persons drawn from the general panel, which
were reduced to twenty-four, from which twelve were selected.

It was not only in their power to strike off some of the names,
but it was imperative on them, and it was obvious to common
sense that those whom it was likely must have been prejudiced
as being members of the Repeal Association, were the persons
who ought to have been struck off.—( Hear, hear.) But he
would go further, and say that the instructions of the Govern-
ment were not that Roman Catholics should be struck off grud
Roman Catholics, but only to strike therm off under such cir-
cumstances as would induce them to strike off any other per •
sons.—( Hear, hear.) He was sure that his Noble Friend
would confirm his statement, and he was satisfied that these
instructions had been fulfilled to the best of his Noble Friend's
judgment. Thus, nine out of the ten of the cases were
disposed of.—( Hear, hear.) The tenth person was Mr. Hen-
dric, and he could assure the House that he was
believed to be a Protestant when he was struck off. He was
struck off for reasons quite independent of his religious opinions.
It would not become him to state what these reasons were, and
if hi were asked to state them he would not do so, because he
would consider it to be a direliction of his duty. He had now
dealt with this question—( Hear, hear)—and he could assure
the House, and could conseientously state that nothing was so
opposed to the wishes and feelings of her Majesty's Govern-
ment as the exclusion of Catholics on account of their religion.
On the contrary, positive instructions had been given to avoid
such an exclusion, and notwithstanding the prejudices which
had been raised on this subject no prejudices could be more
regard to chat the Noble Lord
huandfounsdaeidd.
respecting—(Hear.) With
their not interfering before, he
could assure the House that throughout the last session of Par-
liament her Majesty's Government was unwilling to interfere
with the right of petition. They regarded the meetings in
Ireland with the greatest anxiety. He would not say that they
wnre unlawful or lawful, but they went to the very verge of the
law. Violent language had been used at them. There was
marching in order and military music—( Hear, hear)—which
they believed were outside the law. The reason why they did not
act before was, that if they instituted a prosecution
for individual acts in some obscure corner of Ireland,

no moral impression would be produced by a conviction,—
( Hear, hear.) They had an instance of this before. Lord
Grey's Government ►nstituted a prosecution against Mr. Bar-
rett, for a 'ter which appeared in his paper. A conviction
was obtained ; and although Mr. O'Connell's name was ap-
pended to the letter, he did not own himetelf to be the author.
Mr. Barrett was convicted, and west to prison. An opinion
might be entertained whether he was handsomely treated on
that occasion.—(Heat, hear.) But no mare! effect whatever
was produced. Mr. O'Connell himself said ttiat it was a mean
and shabby proceeding *us to attack itidieialnals, and, upon
reflection, he ( Sit J. Gieahatn) thought hi was right in that
observation.—(Laughthe.) The object of Ate present Go-
vernment was to °Main the punishment of the " head and
front " of the offenders, and, by pursuing the course they did
to allow the whole scheme to develope itself—they obtained-a
conviction by a jury fairly constituted, under the direction of an
unanimous bench, in a trial, at bar, and in the metro-

polis of Ireland, and to which the eyes net only of Ireland but
of Great Britain were directed. It had been acknowledged
that the Attorney-General conducted the case with great
temper ; they had the assertion of Mr. Whiteside, who distin-
guished himself as one of the counsel for the traversers—that
on the whole the Attorney-General conducted the case with

great fairness. They were urgent in pressing the case until
the traversers pleaded. They made various motions for the
purpose of delay, which were resisted by the Crown, but
after they had once pleaded, a reasonable time had been
allowed the traversers.—( Rear, hear.) They had waited for
the revision of the jury list, with regard to which such
compliments had been paid to his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw)
for the impartiality which he displayed. Had they proceeded
in an opposite direction, and proceeded against the traversers
for attending illegal meetings, it was clar from the ver-
dict of the jury that they would not have obtained a
conviction. He would not say that those meetings were ille-
gal. They were held for a particular purpose— he was about
to say for the purpose of intimidating the Govern-
ment, and to force Parliament into a breach of national

faith.—(Cheers.) But the jury thought that though those
meetings were not illegal in themselves, they became so from
combination. The Noble Lord had spoken of the law of con-
spiracy, which he compared to constructive treason. He said
it was a novel law. tie (Sir J. Graham) denied that there
was any novelty in the law of conspiracy ; bat if there were any
novelty in ;it, he contended that they had to deal with a new
state of facts, which made it justifiable for them to have re-

course to it. One of the most sagacious of living men fixed
his attention on a terse saying of a celebrated female
writer—The Duke of Wellington called his attention to a pas-
sage in a work of Madame de Stael ;—" On ne conspire pas sur
la place." In these times Leaguers meet in theatres—(Loud
cheers)—Chartists meet in market places, and conspirators
ltneet in conciliation halls to disseminate sedition amongst the
multitude.—(Loud cheers.) He denied that this was a new
law, but even if it were, the circumstances of the case
rendered it necessary. Again, it bad been said that in the
issue of the proclamation, prohibiting the meeting at Clontarf,
great carelessness and want of prudence marked their course.
The Noble Lord passed a high eulogy upon the exertions of
Mr. O'Connell to stop the meeting, and he reminded the
House of the opposition he gave to Chartism and trades
unions. He agreed with the Noble Lord in the
merit due to Mr. O'Connell for the steps which he took to
stop the meeting at Clontarf. He did not wish to aggravate
the case against him, but all those points had been urged in
his defence, and they were proved by the Crown to be part
of the means by which the conspiracy had been proved. The
Noble Lord in more than one passage of his speech spoke with
Christian forgiveness, and in high praise of Mr. O'Connell ;
and he spoke of Lord Lyndhurst in terms of a very opposite
description. "I am the colleague of Lord Lyndhurst—( Loud.
ironical cheering from the Opposition benches ) I am his..
colleague.—(Continued cheering from the same quarter;) I
am his friend (said the Right Hon. Gentleman, with vehe-
mence)—and I am surprised that the Noble Lard
should have thought it becoming his station to speak of The.:
Lord Chancellor of England in the terms which he
(Loud cheers.) You may talk of your high birth and-Of iris='
tocratic feelings." The Lord Chancellor of England wasa mAiit
who from his first entrance into public life had ripen 141.-fhel
exhibition of pre-eminent talents to the-first place at the bar.