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

Lord PALM ERSTON did every justice to the good inten-
tions of the Secretary for Ireland, and no one would believe
that he imputed want of good intention either to him or the
Lord Lieutenant ; but it was evident they had to
administer the Government under the difficulty that
had always been predicted ; they were obliged to
govern the majority according to the will of a minority,
distrusting the bulk of th,t people, and in return distrusted by
them. Acting on their own political opinions, they chose
their legal officers ftom persons agreeing with them, and had
they confined their appointments to such persons as Mr.
Wolfe, Mr. Perrin, and Mr. Ball, men as unobjectionable to
their political opponents as these, no reasonable fault could
be found with them. But whatever might be the legal attain-
ments of Mr. O'Loghlin, he could not but think that his ap-
pointment was an unfortunate one.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought that the appointment of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman oppcsite (Sergeant Jackson) was an un-
fortunaie one also, though no one commanded or
deserved more respect in private life. With respect to the com-
position of juries, and the necessity of excluding Catholics when
a Catholic was to be tried, yet there were occasions when those
rules might be set aside with advantage. The present debate
could not but be useful in inducing the people to think that
lheie was at least a desire to enforce the administration of the
law with justice, and that the Juries should be composed with
fairness, so that the Catholic population, should be sa-
tisfied that they were treated with fairness. Any one
who had long sat in that House must be gratified with
the different tone that had prevailed during this debate
compared with that of the debates on Irish questions, which
used formerly to take place. This was evident on both sides
of the House, and he drew from it an inference that both Lord
Fortescue and Lord Normanby had, by their administration,
done much to produce this desirable change in political feeling
in that country. With regard to the papers for which his
Hon. Friend had moved, they did not appear to be refused, as
they seethed to be rendered necessary by the very language of
the Noble Lord himself. What was desirable should be ex-
plained was the grounds of the reversal of the (ecision in the
case of Mr. St. George, and for this mason he hoped the paper.
would be produced.
Mr. GREGORY and Sir R. Peel rose together, and the
latter giving way, Mr. Gregory proceeded to address the House.
He denied that he had ever made a solemn declaration against
the system of national education in Ireland. He same into the
House entirely unshackled and unbiassed. But as education
had been mentioned as the principal item of the charge against
him, he might say that it would be no recommendation to the
Government candidate for Dublin that the Established Church
should have, been so undeservedly taunted as it bad
Been the' other night by the D oble Lord the Secretary
for Ireland. The petition that had been presented
against his return, on the grounds of intimidation, had been
abandoned ; and he contr ndcd that, of all elections for Dublin,
this bad been the one at which the least undue and unconsti-
tional influences had prevailed. So far from Lord De Grey
having interfere d, they had heard that his officers did not exert
themselves, and that Lord De Grey had been so cautious, that
he ordered his officers not to show themselves in the streets,
lest they should be compromised.
Lord ELIOT explained. He denied that he had spoken
tauntingly or disrespectfully of the Established Church, the
other night. On the contrary, he had said that he believed
the objections entertanied by many members 01 that Church, to
the present system of education in Ireland, were conscientious
obji ctions.
Mr. GREGORY had only read an account of those obser-
vations, and in that account the word conscientious had been
omitted.

.nir ROBERT PEEL hardly expected that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would press his motion to a division. The speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman was a denunciation of the Irish
Government in the administration of justice in that country,
arid an imputation upon their conduct in respect to the ehalterigi
ing of jur.es ; and the motion by which that speech was followed,
was a motion for a correspondence which had taken place with
Mr. St. George relative to the restoration of that gentleman
to the Magistracy.—( Cheers.) Now at an early period of the
session, the Right Hen. Gentleman, the Lord Mayor of
Dublin, had presented a petition on the subject of the trial of
Hughes, and had also given notice of a motion on the same
subject. That Right Hon. Gentleman had since withdrawn
his motion, arid had returned to Ireland, and now the
Right Honourable Member for Dungarvon, after making
that case one of the main topics of his speech,
made no motion at all on that case, but asked for a cor-
respondence on a matter of totally a different nature.—
( Cheers.) He ( Sir R. Peel) had the honour of the per-
sonal acquaintance of Mr. St. George—he had known him
for many years, and a more honourable and truly respect-
able man than Mr. St. Geogedid not exist.—(Cheers.) He
was proud to call Mr. St. George his friend, but still he
considered he was not warranted in writing the letter which
he had written to the Marquis of Normanby, the representative
of her Majesty in Ireland, and he (Sir R. Peel) thought that
the writing of that letter justified the removal of Mr. St.
George from the Magistracy.—(Cheers.) At the accession of
the present Ministry to power, no step had been taken for the
restoration of Mr. St. George, but a memorial from the Magis-
trates of Galway, praying his restoration, having been presented
to the Government by the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Lord
Lieutenant of the county, and the personal friend of Lord
Nonnanhy, the Lord Chancellor even took no step, but asked
Mr. St. George for some explanation in apology, relative to the
letter which he had written. Mr. St. George hesitated as to
the precise terms ; at last an explanation was offered which the
I.ord Chancellor submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, which ex-
planation was accompanied by . a disclaimer of meaning any
offence to her Majesty. The. Lord Chancellor asked the Lord
Lieutenant whether if it were his (the Lord Lieutenant's case)
he should be satisfied ; the Lord Lieutenant replied that
be should, and Mr. bt. George had been restored. He
could not conceive any public object that could
be gained by the production of the correspondence, and he
hardly expected the Right Hon. Gentleman would ask his
friends to concur in his motion.—(Cheers.) He concurred
with the Noble Lord in opinion that in Ireland, °flail countries
in the world, it was not sufficient alone that justice should be
purely administered, but there must be a confidence on the
part of the public that it was purely administered—( Cheers)—
and when the Noble Lord described this debate as exhibiting an
abatement of animosity and acerbity of feeling, he thought that
proved that his two Noble Friends, the Lord Lieutenant of
Leland and the Secretary, had not tailed in the object of their
public labours.— ( Cheers. ) He had been taunted, in 1839,
with the
,impossibility of making satisfactory appointments in
the Government of Ireland. He had been properly told that
not his expressions but his appointments would be looked to,
and to those he appealed. 'I here was his Noble Friend, the
Lord Lieutenant, who would not have undertaken that
office without determining to judge for himself. He
would not, submit to be dictated to by his inferior
4ents. No man had made greater sacrifices than
his Nnble Friend had done in the performance of his public
duty, and he would not retain it one hour unless he was at
perfect liberty to act upon his own judgment.— ( Cheers.)
i hen, with regard to his Noble Friend the Chief Secretary,
could he have given a stronger indication of the spirit in which
he intended Ireland should be governed than he had given
in the appointment of his Noble Friend—( Cheers)—au ap-
pointment in which bis Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for the Home Department had completely concurred ?
( Cheers.) Then with regard to the appointment of the Lord
Chancellor; that appointment had met with the approbation of
all parties in 1835, and in 1841 that appointment bad been
again made. Then with regard to his other judicial appoint-
ments, he denied that Hon. Gentlemen opposite had any right
to taunt him with having departed from any engagements he had
publicly entered into. 'They could not have been so simple as to
imagine he would make all his appointment s from among his politi-
cal opponents,and he denied that he had broken any engagement
he had entered into. The first vacancy that had occurred was
in the office of Lord Chief Justice, and to that office he had
appointed Mr. Pennefather, who had unwillingly, from a strong
sense of public duty, only accepted the office of Solicitor-
General. Now, that was an appointment made from no politi-
cal or Parliamentarylnfluence, but simply to give to professional
eminence its due reward. He really would advise the House not to
trust too minutely to the report of the charge alleged to have been
delivered. What a different construction did the phrase "no
mincing
.the matter " bear, after they had heard the explana-
tion of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General for
1
Ireland?—(Hear.) But then it was the appointment of Mr.
Leroy. At no period had the Bench ever boasted a higher
equity lawyer than Mr. Lefroy. No gentleman had ever ea-