The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-19 00:00:00

. w ,a m oof liiet standing, and iniversally beloved. In I
. . . ,!:;L: .. .i.:r I,i.L ,ii., . tii,,:t2.l. Li; •.,....1.1 it-iiross a letter
i. t it... I, L. Ltele, • :lit. o -el: • it, .• .i his removal
from !h.. ,llagistracy. Wh,n the present Government
...i.o- into it. kV, r an appli-ation wa s :a.•dti to the Chan-
eelittr .0 reinstate Me. St. George. The Chaneell. if
conceived that. an apology or retractatkon Of tile letter were
necessary. Mr. St.. Geetll')k Staterd that he had not the
slightest intention of exhibiting any diareSpeet to her
Majesty when he e!tpresse(V, diSupprbk-al of the ecifidtta
of the Lord Lieutenant; 1 lien IlVe ;cat's had elapsed
Hobe
Tellls,eleini
someoitniei ki (ilttilh(tt)t,tilti
,retliiidriiise:ogrulttiteoi:g Hight Hon.
tip.el,
perti-
nacity and the 610(4'11410ft ~bleu then ruled had been re-
e
Ili vei ttcl'id.'
iwitl. ot!iulel d (Lordhhaveai l
h;:
nitiffttexhibited),
),
George. His Rig
the requests to reinstate tile gentleman Air a con-
siderable time, nor did he at length consent
until he had received an tisstifianee teitiii tile Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, that ho should have been satisfied
with the explanation offered by Mr: St. George. Those
were the simple facts connected with file Mittel'. Ile
had now briefly gone lily the whole of the circum-
stances referred id 'by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and
he trusted that the explanation which he had offered
wolthl be satisfactory to that House, and to the Irish
ile°ltle.—i,liear, hear,)
:r IV. SOMEIIVILLR was of opinion that there
were many evils in the judicial ai'rtineernents (if Ireland,
He recollected mie eifetittistatice which appeared to him
to t,rti it great way towards the subversion of the high
character of their judicial arrangements. It was, that
two Judges of a very high character, notwithstanding
their very advanced age, refused to resign until the time
should come when two of their own political opinions '
could be nominated. His Right Hon, Friend had re-
ferred to a variety of other appointments; he (Sir W.
Somerville) should not follow him in this course, but his
Right Honourable Friend had stated that every one
was marked with a strong partT feeling. Ile
passed on to what appeared to him to be the
yraramen of the charge against the judicial proceedings,
and that wet the charge of partially challenging the juries.
The Noble Lord denied the statement, and alluded with
great satisfaction to the verdict in Tipperary, where the
jury was composed of equal numbers of Roman Catho-
lics and Protestants, If the verdicts of that jury were
so satisfactory, why not adhere to the course ofcom-
posing their juries of equal numbers of Protestants and
Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however,
lid not refer to the charge of the :Judge upon that occa-
sion, which was stated to have been most partial. \Vila
it. not a ni.mstrous Vilna. that an article, which appeared
in the Mot'aittg tiitontete, dared not be copied into the
Dublin papers for fear of the Attorney-General ? The
liberty of the Press in Ireland ought to equal to tint.
which was allowed to the Press in England. —(I1• ir.)
It was a matter of satisfaction to him (Sir W.Somerville)
to have heard these subjects explained by the Noble
Lord in the manner they had been, and in future he
hoped there would be cause neither tor complaint nor
explanation. He did believe that every one of the recent
government appointtnents had been foundt d upon the
.itilitieal opinions of the parties. The Noble Lord said,
"Would you have us appoint our enemies ?" Certainly
not. But he did say, that the only test of fines ought-
aut to be partisanship, in appointments which required
inen of vigour, of ilitelle,t, or of talent. If the Noble
Lord did not appoint melt upon a real test of qualifica-
' lion, he would in no way differ from former Govern-
ments, who him based their official appointments upon
Ihe political feeling or the political influence of the can-
didates. He hoped the Noble Lord would act in an in-
dependent and straightforward manner, and not adopt a
course which would render forbearance impossible.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, as his Noble Friend
had gone over all the points of this question, he woula ,
not trouble the House by travelling over the same
ground. He was glad that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had brought forward this subject. But why was
not the Right Hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of
Dublin in his place for the purpose of supporting the
allegations ? Because he knew that it was impossible
to support them. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) had never
known a case in which a juror had been set aside until the trial
of Sir J. Bingham at Cork, for endeavouring, in the execution
of his duty as one of her Majesty's officers, to suppress tithe
riots. On that occasion the Right Hon. Gentleman the Lord
Mayor of Dublin, as the Leading Counsel foralie prosecution,
challenged and put by no less than 60 Protestants. Mr. Justice
Moore observed, upon that occasion, that he never witnessed so
extraordinary a proceeding. Mr. Bennett, the counsel for the
defence, also remarked upon its impropriety. What was the
result? The General was convicted. The Judge declared
that the age of chivalry was gone when an honest man was con-
victed of such a crime. 'there was another case, in which the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shiel) was leading counsel for
the prosecution.
Mr. SHIEL—Yes, Pierce's case ; six Roman Catholics and
six Protestants.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON—But in that case twenty-nine
Protestants were challenged, and put by for their religion.—
(Hear, hear.) In the case which had been referred to at such
length by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he ventured to say that
not a single person was put by on account of his religion. He
denied the charge, it was not founded in truth ; but those who
were found making such a charge ought not themselves to have
been guilty of similar conduct.—( Hear, hear.) He could not
but regret that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville)
whose speeches were generally characterised by so much pro-
priety, had lost the weight of his authority in charges of that cha-
racter. He alluded particularly to the Right Honourable
Geutleman's attacks upon Mr. Justice Johnson,
against whose character he had never beard the
slightest imputation. He must say that, on the whole, he '
never heard a weaker case than that which had been brought
forward by the Right Hon. Gentleman. With respect to
Sergeant Warren, who was there in Ireland that did not admire '
his character, public, private, and professional ? and with re-
spect to the appointment of the Chief Justice, he must say there
never was a better appointment, no man who was acquainted
with Ireland but must admit the truth of that statement.
As to the appointment of Mr. Bann Lefroy, he must say it was .
the business of Government to seek out among the bar a 1
gentleman for the office of a Judge of the Court of Exchequer,
who was conversant with that branch of law study most re-
quired
for that Court, namely—equity ; and who, he wouldask,
was so competent, from his high moral character, and .
from his knowledge of equity, to be called to that
high station as Baton Lefroy? and they this very gen-
tleman
who had been spoken of as unfit' 6-611 the office of
Judge, had been offered promotion, as was well kntenn, under
several Administrations, which he refused. With respect to
the charge of Chief Justice Pennefather to the Jury on the 4
trial of Mr. Duffey. the editor of the Belfast Vindicator,
for libel, and the words attributed in the report of that charge
to the Chief Justice, namely—" that was not mincing the I
matter," he must say that the reporter rnust have been This-
taken, and that if they did appear in the Dublin Evening Mail
they were copied out of the other papers. He would not de-
tain the House by any further observations.
After a few observations from Sir W. SOMERVILLE and Mr,
SHIEL, in explanation,
Mr, M. J. O'CONNELL said that the main object of those ,
with whom he thought on polities was to obtain for Ireland
that strict and impartial administration of justice in the trial
by jury which prevailed in England. With respect to the
murder of 111‘Ardle, he did not blame the Government for the
course they pursued with respect to juries ; but whit he com-
plained of was, that the opinion of the people should be allowed
to remain, which was, that the object in setting aside jurors
was vengeance, and not juetiee.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.)
The question was, whether a man who had suffered the
extreme penalty of the law had received a fair trial,
He believed he had not. Was that the only case in which the
Government had dealt unjustly ? It was not ; they had prose-
cuted an individual.connected with the Press in Ireland, because
he had stated that there was one law in Ireland for the Protes-
tant and another for the Catholic. The charge of the Learned
Judge in that case was subversive of all justice.—(Hear, hear.)
The Judges in Ireland laid down law from the Bench that
wauld not be tolerated in this country. If the law, as laid
flown by Chief Justice Pennefather, was to be taken as sound,
Fox and Erskine had laboured for the freedom of the Press in
vain.—(Hear, heat . ) It was not of the legislative measures
that he complained, but of the mattner in which they were car-
ried into effect by the Executive in Ireland.—( Hear, hear. )
A great deal had been said about open question! ; he wished to
ask whether there were not open questions in th present Ca-
binet, by which important questions were put down? He trusted
that the debate would have the moral effect of showing the
people of England that they had been forced into a discussion
on this question. Ireland had been deprived in a great mea-
sure of the trial by jury and freedom of the Press. He trusted
in future both countries would be governed by wise and impar-
tial laws.
Lord JOCELYN said he had listened to the whole debate
with some interest, and he expected that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would find out something in the administration .of
the Irish Government which his fertile imagination would
magnify into crimes. But he would not have risen on this
occasion were it not for the allusion which was made to the
part he took in the late Dublin election. He confessed he did
interfere in that election, and used the influence of a noble
relative in favour of his Hon. Friend who sat near him, and
he told the electors that if they voted it would be agreeable to
the Irish Government. But he did not use any official in-
fluence, or hold out any inducement to a single elector to vote
for his Hon. Friend. His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant
(tier not even know that he canvassed any person, so that what-
ever responsibility there was in his so acting, it rested on his
own shoulders. The Noble Lord then referred to the conduct
of the late Government, and read documents to show that they
interfered in former elections for the City of Dublin, and that
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman did so himself
in 1831.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BULLER said the Noble Lord admitted he used his
personal influence, and the influence of a noble relative of his,
in the late Dublin election. He had nothing to say to the pri•
vate charactet of that noble relative, but he was known to that
House; and publicly, as the Grandmaster of the Orangemen
on Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord referred to
the conduct of Government at former elections, and it was
curious that the Noble Lord opposiie (Lord Stanley) was Se-
cretary for Ireland during a portion of the time to which the
I'soble Lord referred.—( Laughter.) He thought the Noble
Lords opposite ought to settle these things between them, and
that the differences between the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. Sergeant Jackson) and the Noble Lori (Eliot), ought to
be made up before they came into that elouse.---(Laughter. )
The Honourable Gentleman then went into a statement
of the facts convected with the trials of ISPArdle and
Hughes, and said that the perversion of the forms of
justice, exhibited at those trials, must inspire every
man with deep alarm for the impartial administration of
justice.—( Hear, hear.) He did not blame the Noble Lord
( Lord Elice ), for wi:om he had the highest respect, and to
whom he gave credit for the best intentions, which were frus-
trated by the odious instruments used by the Government of
Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He would not say anything of Mr.
Baron Lefroy, who, he was sure, was deserving of the highest
respect, or of the other law appointments in Ireland. %that
he felt most deeply concerned for was the tral of Mr. Duffy
and the charge of the Lord Chief Justice. In the article
which was the subject of prosecution, there were some ex-
pressions which he did riot mean to justify, but the whole tone
of it, as compared with what would be found in an English
newspaper under the circumstances, was temp rate, and he
believed the real sting which it. comained was not in the feW
expressions to which he alluded, but was to be found in the
general fairness and truthfulness of the charge.—(Hear, hear. )
The writer of the article had complained of the system of pack-
ing juries, and, as if to exhibit the justice of the accusation,
Ihe was himself tried by a jury which he believed to be
packed.— (Hear, hear, hear.) Ihe Honourable and
Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Ireland had
read a statement made by Mr. Kemmis, that the compo-
sition of the jury in that case was owing to chance. He (Mr.
B.) thought that if the Hon and Learned Gentleman had
studied the doctrine of Monsieur Laplace he would modify his
belief.—(A laugh.) The doctrine of chances would teach him
how unlikely it was that eight out of nine Catholics should be
set aside on that occasion—(Laughter)- when so few
were set aside altogether.—(Hear, hear.) If chance could
have led to these results, any prudent administrator of the law