The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-20 00:00:00

GRAHAM:-

" In more than one passage of the noble lord's speech,
he (Lord J. Russell) with a great deal of Christian for-
giveness and charity. had praised Mr. O'Connell very
much. (A laugh.) The noble lord praised Mr. O'Con-
nell and condemned Lord Lyndhurst—that was Lord
Lyndhurst's consolation. (Roars of laughter and much
applause.) Now, sir, (continued the right hon. baronet,)
I stand here the colleague of Lord Lyndhurst. (The
right hon. baronet had no sooner uttered this sentence,
than a shout, long and loud, of derisive and ironical cheer-
ing rose from all parts of the opposition benches. Sir
James Graham awaited with great coolness and good hu-
mour the subsidence of this burst, and of the round of mi-
nisterial cheers that responded to it. He then proceeded.)
Yes, lam his colleague—l am his friend—(applause) and
I am astonished that the noble lord should have thought
it becoming his station and character to speak of the Lord
Chancellor of England in the terms used by him when
speaking of Lord Lyndhurst. Why away with your high
aristocratic notions—with your high and noble birth, and
all its mighty advantages ! There is a man who, from his
first entrance into public life, has risen by his own exer-
tions and pre-eminent talent. Watch his progress at the
university and the bar. He has in politics created some
enemies. (" Hear," from the opposition.) Not many
in this country, where he is best known. (Cheers from
the ministerialists.) But I will undertake to say that no
man ever adorned the judgement seat with judicious facul-
ties of a higher order. His integrity is incorruptible, his
talents are first-rate, and I do think it hard that a man
who has risen to eminence, after a long life, by means not
dishonourable, should be taxed even in the midst of party
debate, by leaders of party, in terms so severe. This I
will say, too, I am fully convinced that Lord Lyndhurst
would not have spoken of any political opponent, in his
absence, in terms like those used by the noble lord. (Re-
newed cheering from the ministerialists. An unusual de-
gree of interest and sensation prevailed in the house
during the delivery of these sentences. Several members
on the back seats rose and crowded to the front, and va-
rious members of the opposition joined in and echoed the
ministerial cheers.) The noble lord had relied on par.
ticular expressions said to have been used by Lord Lynd-
hurst, and it was hinted that it was not for the noble and
learned lord's great eminence in the profession of the law,
nor for his former experience on the woolsack, that his
right hon. friend at the head of the government recom-
mended her Majesty to raise him again to the woolsack,
but that the recommendation was made on account of the
expressions complained of. He (Sir James Graham) feel-
ing sure that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was irri-
tated, did not wish to say more on the point; and he was
equally sure that the noble lord would, on reflection, re-
gret the language he had used that night. But with re-
spect to the expressions in question, Lord Lyndhurst, in
the House of Lords, in presence of those who had heard
them. and knew precisely what they were, came. forward
within live or six days after using them, and positively
denied the use of them in the sense that had been attri-
buted to them. (Cheers.) Not only this, but the noble
viscount then at the head of the government, and the no-
ble marquis then President of the Council, were reminded
that they had been present when the expressions were
used, and that they had not commented nor objected to
them, as it would be their duty to do if they had under-
stood the expressions in the sense attempted to be fas-
toned on them. (Hear, hear, hesr.) It was not until a
gloss was put upon them, and certainly to the disad-
vantage of Lord Lyndhurst, that any communication was
made upon them. (Cheers.) He. would now leave this
topic again assuring the noble lord of the very great regret
and surprise with which he had listened to his (Lord J.
Russell's) remarks upon it."
SIR JAMES GRAHAM'S REPLY TO THE CHARGE THAT
THE LEGAL PROMOTIONS IN IRELAND HAD BEEN
CONFINED TO PROTESTANTS.
" There were one or two other points which had been
brought forward against her Majesty's government, and
he felt it necessary to allude to them on that occasion.
The first was with reference to their judicial appoint-
ments. They had, it was said, appointed a Chief Justice,
a Master of the Rolls, and two Puisne Judges. (Hear,
hear.) They had fought that ground before (hear, hear);
and since they had fought it before they had received
' confirmation strong as proofs of holy writ,' that they
were right in the course which they had taken, and that
in fighting the ground as they had done before, they had
acted properly and justly. They stated, that in selecting
men to fill those offices they should select from the front
ranks of the legal profession, and that in doing so they
were not to select persons on account of being Roman
Catholics, any more than to reject them on such grounds.
(Hear, hear, hear.) Now, in order to ascertain the jus-
tice of the course which they had adopted, he would ask
who were the counsel chosen by the traversers at the late
trials in Dublin? If the government could not, amongst
its political opponents, find persons whom they thought
fit to select for those judicial appointments, he would ask,
had the traversers selected their counsel from amongst
them ? (Cheers.) There were seven or eight counsel
employed by the traversers, and with the exception of
Mr. Pigott, the late Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr.
Sheil, and Mr. Monaghan, he believed all the rest were
conservatives.l [An hon. member said Mr. Moore was
one of the counsel.] True, Mr. Moore was one of tile
counsel, but he was a Protestant, and had been Solicitor-
General under her Majesty's former government. Now,
one would think that there could be no more irrefragable
proof of the justice of the course which her Majesty's
government had taken with reference to the judicial ap-
pointments, than the opinion which had been indicated
by such members of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland,
by a person well versed in the law, and who must have
been as well capable of selecting counsel on that occasion
as any could be supposed to be; and yet, with the excep-
tion of the Solicitor and Attorney General of the late
government—of Mr. Monaghan and of Mr. Sheil, who
had been Vice-President of the Board of Trade under
that government—with those exceptions, all the others
were Protestants and Conservatives. (` Hear, hear,' and
immense cheering.)"

IMPORTANT DECLARATION OF GOVERNMENT WITH RE-

SPECT TO THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND.
After briefly describing the nature of the various pro-
positions for appeasing the Romish party in Ireland,
amongst which was included the alienation in their favour
of a portion of the revenues of the Established Church,
Sir James Graham thus proceeded :--" Those were the
three propositions from which they had to choose; but
with respect to the Protestant Church of Ireland, he (Sir
J. Graham) rejected all those nostrums. (Tremendous
cheering.) He considered any of them, even if it were
feasible, as inconsistent with that preference which the
Protestant State of England had decided upon maintain-
ing with regard to the Protestant Church. (Renewed
cheering.) That decision was made at the Reformation
—it was confirmed at the Revolution—it was sealed by
the Act of Settlement • and ratified by the Act of Union.
(Loud cheers.) He held it to be the firmest foundation
of our liberths—he believed it to be the work of the
greatest statesman, and IT SHOULD NOT BE OVERTHROWN
BY ANY REPEAL ASSOCIATION, OR ANY BODY OF CON-
SPIRATORS, SUCH AS THEY (the government) HAD SUC-
CEEDED IN CONVICTING." (Immense cheering.)

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC GRIEVANCE AS TO THE STRI-

KING OF THE itittY•
The alleged grievance, which the civil and religious
liberty people have made so much of—viz. the challeng-
ing of the Roman Catholics on the panel—is thus
clearly done away with by Sir James Graham. " The
house would observe that by the act of parliament
the parties should strike alternately, and here he might
remark that, if there were any thing remarkable in
the Crown solicitor striking the names of Catholics, and
the strike being alternate, it was also worthy of observa-
tion that the traversers struck out the name of no Roman
Catholic. (Cheers.) The case, as represented to the
public, was this, that the ten Roman Catholics were
struck by the Crown, not because these individuals were
repealeis but because they were Roman Catholics. A
challenge was thrown out very early in the Court of

Queen's Bench on this subject, that it was desirable that
the traversers, who were known to have access to the
books of the repeal association, should verify the fact that
the ten individuals alluded to were not members of the
association. One of the counsel for the traversers early
undertook that an affidavit to that effect should be filed.
It was not, he believed, till near the close of the trials
that the affidavit was really filed, and a most important
affidavit it was, because it disposed at once of eight out
of the ten names. (Hear, hear.) He could not believe
that a deliberate assembly, to whom the cause of justice
was dear, would contend that the Crown would be justi-
fied in keeping names on the jury because their owners
were Roman Catholics, even though they should be repeat-
ers. The question in striking the jury was to ascertain
whether any names on the panel were those of persons
having a strong prepossession or bias, and he would in-
deed be astonished if any gentlemen in that house had the
boldness to contend that the names of Roman Catholics
should not be touched—that because they were Roman
Catholics they should not be touched by the Crown, even
though they were repeaters. (Renewed cheers.) He now
came to the case of the two who, though catholics, were,
according to the solicitor for the traversers, not members
of the Repeal association. Their names were Dunn and
Hendrie. And, first, with respect to Michael Dunn. He
wished not to go into too lengthy details ; but they were
discussing a great principle—whether it was the wish of
her Majesty's Government to administer justice in Ire-
land with equality and without distinction of classes or
religion. The Michael Dunn in question resided in St.
Patrick's Ward, in Dublin. He (Sir J. Graham) was in-
formed that in that ward resided four persons bearing the
same name of Michael Dunn, and that three of them had
signed the requisition for the. Repeal meeting at Tara.
And the Crown then and still believed that Michael Dunn,
the brazier, the person he was now speaking of, was the
one that had signed a requisition fora repeal meeting in
St. Patrick's Ward, where he resided. That individual
had now made an affidavit, and negatived the fact of his
being a member of the Repeal association, but he
(Michael Dunn) had not negatived the fact that he signed
a requisition jor a repeal meeting. (Prolonged Ministe-
rial cheering.)

As a proof that Government are now released by the
respectable portion of the Roman Catholic body, in Eng-
land at all events, we gladly quote the following remarks
upon the subject, which fell from Lord Beaumont in the
House of Lords on Tuesday night, after receiving a similar
explanation from a member of. the Government in that
house t

" He would here take the opportunity, therefore, of
stating, that he did not blame the Attorney-General for
challenging the Roman Catholic jurors, on the ground
that they were Repealers : he thought he was justified in
doing so ; and that being the case, he was bound to admit
that the traversers had nothing whatever to complain of—
(hear)—and he was perfectly satisfied, from the explana-
tion which had been given by a minister of the crown that
night, that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL HAD DONE HIS
DUTY CONSCIENTIOUSLY!" (Hear.)