The Sun. — London, England, 1846-04-28 00:00:00

1 I I Mr. CHRISTIE wished to ask a question from the Hon. Member for Halifax, the chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into this election. In the petition on which this Committee was appointed, it was stated that the grossest practices had prevailed—treating, bribery, and corruption—by which the election had been gained. And it was further stated that such was the extent of this bribery and corruption, that not less than ninety-six individuals had been objected to on the ground of the bribery and corruption alleged. When the Committee met, after some skirmishing, it was determined to bring the matter to a scrutiny, and the result of that scrutiny was a transfer of one vote to the opposing candidate. This was, in fact, effected by an arrange ment between counsel. An Act was passed in the year 1842, at the instance of the Hon. Member for the City of London, for the purpose of providing against any compromise by which a case of bribery should be prevented from being brought under the cognizance of an election Committee. The impression of the Committee in this case was, that there was a compromise to prevent such an exposure. The first clause of that Act provided that in every Committee for the trial of an election, and in which the petition shall have been withdrawn, or in which the eharge of bribery shall have been withdrawn, the Committee shall have the power of examining into the case, and calling such persons as would be likely to give any infor mation. The question he wished to ask was, whether the Committee had instituted any inquiry into the circumstances under which the charge of bribery was not prosecuted, or whether they had considered it necessary to prevent any further inquiry into this case ? The borough of Bridport was the sub ject of one compromise prior to the passing of this Act, and it was right that the pure and independent electors should have the power of justifying themselves against the present imputa tion on their borough. Mr. CHARLES WOOD said that he had to acknowledge the courtesy of his Hon. Friend in giving him notice of this question. His Hon. Friends who were present with him in the Committee were not present, but he had no doubt that he could say on their parts, that they had no objection to make the fullest explanation. He was aware that an Act recently passed prevented any voluntary compromise, but he thought that it was the first duty of the Committee to do impartial justice between the parties, as in a legal tribunal. It was proved before them that a person who voted for Mr. Romilly was entered for Mr. Cochrane. The number of voters objected to amounted to ninety-six, some for bribery, some for improper registration. He would now come to the question as to whether they ought to have examined into the question of bribery. He bad never sat upon an Election Committee in which there was not an allegation of bribery; so, therefore, there was no particular value in the allegation of bribery in this petition ; and there being no evidence w h a t soever o f t h e existence of bribery, he did not think they were called upon to inquire further into the subject. Mr. BANKES did not rise to complain of the discretion ex oarcised by the Committee as to inquiring or not inquiring itno the allegations of bribery. He should hope, however, for the honour of the county with which he was concected, that the borough of Bridport was just as immaculate as any other borough on the question of bribery.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) He found no allegation of bribery in the petition. A vote was tendered for one party and entered for another, and the Com mittee did not inqui re i nto t h e quest i on of bribery. That was the reason why he wished the evidence should be printed. He did not desire to offer any remarks on behalf of the Member who had been unseated, nor had h e any instructions t o d o so What he wished in making those= remarks w as to exculpate the borough from t h e charges ma* against it. For that n p u n r p os e, he begged now to move as an amend ment t h at the evi dence and the dec ision of that Comm ittee be printed.—(lt was here intimated to th e Hon. Member th at it was not competent for him to do so.) Then he would give notice that he would make a motion to that effect to-morrow. Sir GEORGE GREY said he would suggest that it would be well if the house did not interfere in this matter at all._ (Hear, hear.) If decisions of Committees were to be mooted in that way in the House, and discussed here after they bad been arrived at, the result-would be that Election Committe es who decided upon their oath would nave no effect on public esti. motion. Lord JOHN MANNERS said, that two charges had been made, one, that bribery had taken place, and the other, an attempt to compromise the charge. Now, the fact was, that the allegation of bribery had been aenied alto g ether, as well as any attempt at compromise. It was true that four or five thousand pounds had been expended in the progress of the election, but that was merely to carry it on. Mr. CHRISTIE said he had not made any charges, he merely alluded to the decision of the Committee. Mr. BRIGHT said that in respect to the election at Wigan, a case somewhat similar arose. In that case the charge was extensive treating ; in that of Bridport, the charge was ex tensive bribery, and he believed there was some reason for be lieving the charge was correct.—(Cries of " Oh, oh " and laughter.) He hoped there was not ; but if there was, nothing was proposed to be done in the shape of a remedy ; and so long as this state of things continued, the returns to this House would be little better than a mere farce, for a long purse was the test of admissibility to this House. He did trust before long the Government would look into this matter, and bring forward some measure which would reflect credit on the House and the country.--( Hear, hear.) Several Hon. Members having risen simultaneously to ad ress the House, The SPEAKER cried " Order," and said—l hope the House will see the inconvenience of discussing three or four questions at once.—(Laughter.) The order of the day is the first reading of the Bill for the better protection of life in Ire land, and I have called on the Hon. Member (Captain Co folly) to addre ss the H ouse , an d h e i s, t h ere f ore, i n th e possessio n of the H ( Hear, hear. ) Captai n C O N ii,ur servations with respect Limerick s t t h a tee the make s Member for the city o f (Mr. W. S. O'Brien). That Hon. Gentleman had stated in the course of this debate that seven families or persons had ver been ejected from the estates of Sir Francis Hopkins Conolly) held in th a e sed t a ruth of his y han rrently. N ow he (Captain man totally denying a letter from that gentle sear.ch to be made if any Sir Francis Hopkins had es that statement. hist minority, and he declared ejectments had been made during cases of ejectment, in that, during that time, there were Captain Conolly) which five individuals were removed.own,Ceen( fe h r o m w a e t v i e e r a , thought the Hon. Member (Mr.'J. ll the ha i d n , brought it forward under the impression thatne he had received warranted him in doin Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he had no s r o. the Gallant Captain. He (Mr. J. ea to complain of notice of his intention to bring the O'Connell)subject had given full Gallant Captain had a perfect right to defend the and the the ge n tl eman circumsta nces referred to. He (Mr. J. O'Con ne ll) said the referred to had appeared for a lon g t i me; and t he read a list of ejectments, but he did not other n i g h t any thing in reference to Sir Francis Hopkins. A . o e m h m a rt on the returns before Easter, in order to b r i ng the subrvetd for the but he had put it off till after the holid ays, in order to get f get information from parties who promised it. Most parties e o s had not yet furnished it, but whenever they did so, and he brought forward his motion, the Gallant Captain would have the fullest opportunity of meeting anything that might be brought forward. OUTRAGES IN SHEFFIELD. Mr. CALEB POWELL said that he assured his Hon. Friend the IMember for Sheffield, that in the question which he should presently put to the lion. Gentleman at the head of the Horne Department, he had no intention to urge th e Government to take any proceedings contrary to the prin. Fiples of the constitution, but he merely wished to display to the House and the country the great disparity between the treatment of the people in England and Ireland. The other evening, when he took the liberty of addressing a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman, calling his attention to a state- , Meat which fppeared in a local journal, and which accidentally the expiration of sometime, when he returned, he was actu ally besieged by the yeomanry tenants to give them the same ,amount ofmoney that they might pull down their cabins also. He the tenements were Banded back To the criginal ,tenants, not. one single one of them being _ turned out. The . agent's own statement of the matter was, that on afterwards visiting the place the feeling there was quite otherwise than hostile. He had about ninety men draining, and three . hundred men in Tullamore employed at the same work. He thought, therefore, that the Noble Lord should have some protection from those anonymous assailers who were ignorant • of his character. Lord INaESTRE rose to corroborate what fell from the Hon. Member who had just sat down, and he could do so with . the more accuracy, as he had himself resided near the Noble Lord's property in question, and had been an eye-witness of the circumstances referred to. The Noble Lord then read a letter from the agent of the Noble Lord (the Marquis of Water ford), in which facts similar to those read by Major Bet esford were detailed, as also that every exertion was made to give employment by enclosing slobs, &e. hi addition to this, it stated that several applications had been received from cottiers, whose houses were still remaining, that they would gladly pull them down on the same terms as the others whose houses were pulled down. A similar statement to that now made was made some time ago by the Honourable Baronet the Member for Waterford, which he k Lord Ingestre) contradicted at that time. He could give the statement now made a similar contradiction. Lord Waterford was employing 300 men on the river Suir, and had as many employed at Danger van, and wherever he had property the same desire prevailed to afford employment to the working people. He was glad of the opportunity which this circumstance afforded, to bear his testi mony to the conduct of the Noble Lord in giving employment. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said he thanked the Gallant Officer for the manner in which he:had dealt with this subject in reference to himself, and the manner in which he had brought forward this charge. But with regard to the charge itself, the Gallant Officer expressed his surprise at his (M r. J. The O'Con nell's) having adopted it, as he had done , without inquiry. u Gallant Officer had, however, done hi m ( Mr. J. O'Connell) the justice to say that the charge had been before the public for two or three days, and had not been contradicted. With regard to other similar charges they had met with prompt contradictions, but the one now in question had not. He was glad, however, that the Gallant Officer had taken up the matter in this way, and had afforded the explanation the House had just heard in reference to the conduct of the Marquis of Waterford. He was glad also to hear such testi mony borne to the Noble Marquis as a resident landlord, and he (Mr. J. O'Connell) could only wish that other Irish landlords were like him.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the circum stance of the burning of his Lordship's stables and the poi soning of his hounds, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) had heard that that was the act of a refractory servant, and that the people of the district had expressed the strongest feelings of annoyance at the circumstance.—(Hear, hear. ) After the explanation of the Gallant Officer, there was but one course open to hirn (Mr. J. Connell), and that was to express his sorrow for what he bad said, and he had now great pleasure in adding that he was glad to find he had been tins. taken.--( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said he could bear his testimony to the conduct of the Marquis of Waterford as an excellent landlord ; and he had no power of language in which to express how grateful the people felt for the kindness of the excellent lady of the Noble Marquis.—( Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt of it that the Noble Marquis was one of the best landlords in Ireland, and it was in proportion as he was good that this charge was the more felt. He was not only an excellent land. lord, but his tenants were the happiest of their class. But with regard to the charge appearing in the newspaper, that was the only source the poor had ; and when a charge appeared in that way, it could be the more promptly contradicted if un true, and in this case the contradiction would now go all over the empire. After a few words from Major BERESFORD in expla nation, Mr. P. SCROPE said the House ought to draw a moral from these cases of ejectment, and devise some means of de fence fur the population. He should like to ask why the House should have brought under its notice at all the ejections of tenants by their landlords, or why the newspapers should take up the matter, unless it was that the public sympathised the parties so ejected ? There was no other reason. The tenants, when turned out, had no means of subsistence, and they were left to starve, hence it was that the public took an interest in them. He was quite convinced that the Marquis of Waterford was an excellent landlord, still that was no reason he should, under the circumstances, have acted as he had done. It did appear a harsh measure that so many should have been ejected, though it was said they went out willingly. He did not think it was so, for though they received two or three rounds, that was not the reason that induced them to leave, but the knowledge that they would be served with an eject ment if they did not do so. As he before said, he should draw a. moral from cases of this kind, and give I. defence to the tenants and the population of Irela n d suc h as th e people ()- England had enjoyed for centuries. THE BRIDPORT ELECTION. met his eye, he noticed the amount of feeling which he dis played whenever a paper was read containing any account of Irish outrage', while an outrage of a deeper dye in Sheffield merely ex, ited a smile. The Hon. Member here read a stete moot which detailed the 14'0'1.1 , 410n effern'd by en infernal machine formed of an iron tube, filled with powder, and placed under the warehouses of Messrs. J. and W. Marshall, in Shef field. Was not this more atrocious than shooting at a man from behind a hedge? and yet the attention of the House had not beets directed to it. Was it the intention of the Govern ment to adopt any measures to prevent such outrages ? _ Sir J. GRAHAM sa id, th a t w h en th e ques ti on was formerly asked by the Honourable Member, he was not aware as to the real state of facts. He was sorry to say, that these infamoustat crimes had been perpetrated, but he was proud to state committed.Shffied was W Sheffield the only regard olyto to the latterwoinEnglan wherepart d rt l of the t i s adbeen Honourable Gentleman's question he would state that it was not proposed to include Sheffield in the Coercion Bill, but if he was informedt h o a n t l d t he laws there have no o we hesitation, e r in sufficient i a t l o o r a e p p a r o e i s t s y e t u o t rae e, propose he w meaeures to meet the difficulty.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. PARKER could assure the House that the greatest field by these occurrences. and an impress regret, distrust, consternation, and alarm, we io r n e e w xc a i e te v rl ov i v n a S e h n e e f . .. were l u l follow, b , r a o n u d g t h ai t e to trade justice o the mostdisastrous rally d offenders the town would be injured. Every one was most anxious that they should he di s covered. Mr. WARD begged to add his testimony to what had fallen from the Hon. Member who just sat down, as also to the exere tunic made by the Right Hon. Baronet to discover the offenders in these disgraceful occurrences. There coercion, however, would not do. The best mode of meeting the case was by ap peals to the good sense of the working-classes, and by pointing out the disastrous consequences which must result to the trade of the town by such disgraceful proceedings. The leading men among the working-classes saw that a continuance of such a course would prove ruinous to the interest of the town. HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL. Lord DUNCAN wished to know if it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce the Health of Towns Bill this session ? Sir J. GRAHAM said, it appeared to him that this House had quite as much business on its hands as it could dispose of in the present session.—( Hear, hear.) The Government was certainly prepared to carry on the measure in question, but various amendments were proposed in it, and if he saw any prospect of its being carried he would introduce it, but at present he should decline doing so. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Sir G. GREY said that this Bill had been brought into the other House of Parliament, but there it lay and nothing was done with it. He wished to know if the Government would proceed with that measure in the House of Lords this session ? Sir J. GRAHAM said, it so happened that he had been speaking to the Lord Chancellor to-day, and lie told him that it was the intention to proceed with the Bill this session. ADJOURNED DEBATE.—PROTECTION TO LIFE (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. M'CARTHY said that at this stage of the debate, after the subject had been so fully discussed on both sides of the House, he should not occupy their attention to any length, or trouble the House with any statistical documents He wished simply to confine himself to those observations which should arise spontaneously on the subject. The first consideration which would naturally suggest itself to the mind would be, what was the origin of the evil ? New it appeared to be admitted on all sides that the origin of these distresses was to be found in an agrarian cause. This had been admitted by all Hon. Members who had addressed the House on that subject. It would be impossible to take even the most cursory view of the history of Ireland without arriving, a priori, at the conclusion, that the system which had existed for so long a period was in evitably allied to the worst principles, which had tended to bring about those miseries from which Ireland, as a country, was at the present period suffering. The class of the larger proprietors had estranged themselves from the affections of the people ' • those sympathi es w hi c h b oun d t h e peop l e together, from the rich living with the poor and alleviating their sufferings, had been entirely destroyed. The class of larger proprietors found themselves in a state of hos tility with the people, and being aware that their incomes would enable them to live abroad, they abandoned the land, and left the people to live as they liked, and as they could. Another class of proprietors arose ; these were the small landed proprietors. These men, from their narrow circum stances, could not imitate the conduct of the great proprie tors who had abandoned their country. They continued to live among the people, but their means were inadequate to supply their wants. He would ask, did this propose to adjust those perilous relations between landlord and tenant which were so productive of evil ? Had it suggested any remedy for the prevention of those crimes which have of late been se fre quent in various districts of Ireland ? How did it. endeavour to prevent crime ? It was said that the peculiar characteristics of these assassinations in Ireland were, that they were committed in the open day, and to prevent these crimes it was intended to shut up the people after dusk. But would that cause assassinations by day to be less, or would that prevent those ruffians who stalked abroad at night from meeting upon a lonely glen or mountain heath ? No, it would have no such effect, but he did believe that if this Bill were passed the effect would be to shake the foundation of property in Ireland to its very base. The more he reflected upon the provisions of this Bill the more clearly he saw their inadequacy to meet the exigencies of the case. It wanted that fitness for its end, it lacked that adaptation of the means to the end. It was the misfortune of the present Administration, and also of those who had preceded it, that the Government or Ireland was committed only to a body of law officers. May be some Noble Lord, who was excellent as the head of his estate in the country, was selected to fill the office of Lord- Lieutenant, or perhaps the office might be filled by some Gallant Officer whose only qualification to fill the office consisted in his having fought the battles of his country. But one and all of those who went over to Ireland knew nothing of the country, were unacquainted with the people, their character. their wants, their passions and their prejudices. And they were wanting in all these elements which must enter into the mind of any man who knew how to govern the people. This was the description of every Lord-Lieutenant who was sent to govern Ireland. He was assisted by a chief Secretary. They must seek advice. Then the law officers presented themselves— the Attorney-General—the Solicitor-General; then the Coun sel for the Crown appeared. Those were gentlemen who were deeply read in law, and in the knowledge of the practice of the law courts. They were men deeply read in the law history of the country. They were perfectly conversant in white-boy trials, coercion acts, and state trials ; but beyond that their knowledge how to govern was very limited. Depend upon it, if Ireland was to be governed for the benefit of that country, and the advantage of this nation, it must be governed through the affections of the great majority of the people. What, he would ask, had been done to gain the affections of the Irish people? The Emancipation Bill had not been granted until the pressure from without had become too strong to be resisted. It was compelled by necessity, instead of being the voluntary offer of justice. The people of Ireland were still refused the boon of being placed upon the same footing as the people of England. They had an establishment thrust upon them, ad-pted to the wants only of onwleventh portion of the popu lation, and it was refused to apply the surplus revenue of that establishment for the benefit of the majority of that people. That was an anomaly which was pointed at by the whole civi lized word. They had seen the man, whom they had been accustomed to look upon as the instrument of obtaining what ever of good they possessed, subjected to persecution and imprisonment, and the sentence which had been pro nounced upon him had been afterwards pronounced, by the highest tribunal in the land, to be illegal and unjust. See also what they had done in refererce to the magistracy. Because several of that body had sympathized with the people, they hail been struck off the list, and the people were forced to go before tribunals made up of parties who had ever been opposed to them in religion and politics. Could that secure the affections of the Irish people ? They applied with one hand a salve to the wound of Irish distress, but with the other applied an irritant to the constitution ; and when the people were excited to madness the disease was said to be inherent in the patient.—(Hear, hear.) He was not to be led away from the consideration of the evils of Ireland, by the engaging smiles of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the secretary for the Home De partment, for not only the general feeling that pervaded the Government, but the tone that prevailed in another place forbade him to hope for anything like an adequate redress. ".He had seen sentiments in the newspapers attributed to a Noble Duke, and to a Noble and Learned Lord that usually acted as Mentor to the Government, which, if they were to be taken as the guides of the Government, put an end to all hope of the people of Ireland receiving any redress from that quarter.—( Hear, hear,) The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the system of clearing estates, and he called it a great evil, but then " they must not interfere with the rights of property, as that was the distin guishing feature between the civilised and savage man. They were not to interfere with such sacred rights. But he (Mr. Macarthy) would say to that, that property and rights were prevented_ tohu agreement eldim f. ear ido w i 7m i b t ie h dt enos t gft h rn e .o.fy t p irhn i i i gge b h l ts i th e st eaot w sfen. e pn a rv l on — Tpe eh( fromre H t ny e t a th r hwa , eth h e e n a e r e ) but the creatures of society, and were to be committed in — the and flo t w o e b d e . w H i e th w were inconsistent same Noble and, Learned L or d said the Church Esta blishment s an anom a ly the great est one in all ecclesiastical history, and the greatest evil under which Ireland laboured. But because the anomaly was so great, the evil so enormous, they must not remove it. If the people of Ireland asked for redress, they were told that the evils were too great to be removed, and their remon strances neglected. But he would tell them they might manage to exert a power and a force over the land, but they would never prevail over the inhabitants of Ireland.— ( Hear, hear.) They might act on the principles of Elizabeth, and carry out the policy of Stafford, but over the people they would never succeed.—( Hear, hear.) They knew not how to deal with the people of Ireland ; they did not understand their true character. He would call their attention to the opinion of an illustrious foreigner, one high in wisdom, as to the cha racter of the country. M. Thierny said that in Ireland blood was still shed for the old ground of contest. A quarrel, in which the spirit of the people had been sustained through ages against their conquerors , a nd a recollection of th eir lost liber ties preserved, presenting one of the grandest examples o f a the world.—( Hear, hear.) Let not people's character he lost sight of , They this estimate of that people in the history of had sought to govern the peop le of Ireland as an inferior race, and they had failed. If they meant to govern Ireland, they must do her justice. They must not make her the battle field of party and faction, depended that of the whole. — ( Hear, hear.) They had tried all the means of force and but treat her as a porti o n of a g reat empire, on whose well-being penal could do 9 measures • Ire land; but had they tried what conciliatory of either of the great enactments they could devise, in order to govern He had entered that House independent . belonging par and he wished to see justice done to the party of the nation, He hadwitnessed with parties of the state, neither a Whig nor Tory, but as..dove Right Hon. Baronet, in the conduct of the great satisfaction to the country which he represented. reference to great commercial interests o f the countr y , in which he had disregarded all party considerations, for the pur pose of obtaining a great national good.—(Cheers ) In pro• posing that measure for obtaining a great national good , lie 'ration • had shown wisdom and ability worthy of admiration and he u a (Mr. Macarthy) n o w c all e d him to exhibit the same in deal ing with th e wrongs o f I re l an d.—( Hear, hear.) Let him not follow the dictates of party, nor those who sought toit govern Ireland on the o ld p r i nc ipl e o f force, but apply to the same comprehensive views which he had displayed on the commercial interests of the country. Having supplied the wants of commerce, let him also supply the social and poli tical wants of Ireland, and thus emulate himself.—( Cheers. ) Mr. BAILLIE wished to make a few observations, in doing which he would not emulate other Hon. Gentlemen in going into details on the question. What they had to consider was, whether the Bill was necessary in the present state of Ireland? Unless the Government was prepared with a case to that effect, vshcp said :wdlee c e, bd o rtys u bi n l sodeuvglnenhroat his HI England o s o u fne p t.pa p h isA o en r imti t ehn nnet t rhb h et aeh e trdes a g ds or greatpai npn Governmentoti Is n ir tge Ireland . sn o aad f i dh such etm. awo e dfla x ets t e r ornh a ino o mat extraordinary going bo n ; ei a .hr tee r , to enter into a discussion as to the amount of crime that ') re veiled, but he would j ust ca ll their attention to the differ which existed b e t ween t h e two countries . In Ireland it "ice was almost impossible to bring a criminal to justice. They never heard in England o f mur d er taking place during the day with out a hand being stretched out to arrest the murderer; of secret associations to deter witnesses from giving evidence in such cases, or of organised assassination societies. Under such circumstances, he could not see how, in justice, they could re fuse giving increased powers to the Government, so as to pro tect life and property. Some Hon. Members on the other side said the Bill was required, but that it should be accompanied by remedial measures. He would ask, what measures? Some Honourable Members named as a remedy an extensive system of out-door relief ; but if the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, and those who supported 1- en were asked to as.,i•it in postrig such a measure, they would say, no. They were even opposed to the present modified sys tem of poor-laws in that country. The fixity of tenure , and a tax on absentee landlords was another panacea, while other Hon. Members wanted a measure for remedying the defects of the law for regulating landlords and tenants. Where such a diversity of opinion existed, even among Irish Members, it was difficult for the Government to bring forward any measure of relief that was likely to be supported. For himself he would say, if any improvement in the poor-law was proposed, he hoped the absentee landlords would be taxed.—( Hear, hear. ) But the Hon. Members who represented Ireland talked of re medial measures—why did they not state what those measures were which they conceived calculated to do justice to the people of that country? But as long as the representatives from Ire land confined their observations to repeating, and reiterating the complaints calculated to excite the passions of the Irish people, they must not be surprised if their motives were mis represented by the people of England, and if they were con sidered to be wholly indifferent to the calamities of their countrymen. Colonel VERNER said that though it was very easy to blame the landlords of Ireland for the disorganised state of society existing in Ireland, yet he could prove that they they were perfectly innocent of this crime, for he could prove, on undoubted authority, that there was an extensive organisa tion on foot, which had existed for forty years, to extermi nate the Protestants, and to effect a separation between Eng land and Ireland.—( Cries of " No, no ") He could prove it. He could refer to sentences delivered by Hon. Members re presenting counties in Ireland in that House, which would amply justify the people out of the House in keeping alive feelings of resentment. The Hon. Member for Cork had ad mitted that no doubt murder had increased, and that all the measures of Government seemed to give an increased impetus to crime. Now, what would he have done if he wished to put down this state of things in Ireland? He would put down agitation and agitators. He would put down all secret societies, because they were in a primary degree the cause of every evil. He would put an end to all concession—( Hear, hear, and Oh, oh)—and conciliation.—( Renewed cries of " Oh, oh.") (The Hon. and Gallant Member read quotations from the National, to show that the concessions made to Ire land were not productive of any improvement in the social state of Ireland.) He would refer to a petition from the Re peal Wardens of Wexford, which had been printed with the votes, and in that petition he thought the House would find abundant evidence to support the view he took on this ques tion. He did not think it would be necessary for him to say one word more upon the subject. Mr. HAWES said that he could not agree with many of the opinions advanced by the Hon. Member (Mr. H. Baillie), who had spoken that evening, and still less could he concur in the opinions of the Hon. and Gallant Member who had last spoken, that the best way to put down agitation in Ireland was by the passing of strong measures. He should have thought that the party to which the Hon. and Gallant Member be longed had had enough of strong measures.—( Hear, hear. ) He distincly maintained that Government had not made out the case for this Bill, and upon this declaration he would take his stand. Had crime increased in Ireland of late? Most as suredly not; and if the House would bear with him for a while, he would convince them of this. Now, the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had laid a paper upon the table of the House, showing the number of criminal offenders committed for trial in 1845, and this paper showed a considerable decrease as compared with former years ; indeed, it exhibited a decrease of 43 per cent., and this decrease extended itself to all classes of crime, and as regarded the crime of murder, there had been a decrease of 28 per cent. Now, there was nothing in this to show a necessity for a Coercion Bill. But he might be told that it was true crime had decreased in Ireland generally ; but that in particular counties it had increased.—(Hear, hear.) And this Bill was only intended to give power to proclaim particular counties, and in this way it might be said that a case was made out for the Bill. But how stood the fact? He would take the counties mentioned by the Right Hon. Baronet, and see whether the returns exhibited this increase. If the House would take the trouble to look at the returns, they would find that the follow ing were the results, so far as detailed murders were concerned : Years. Tipperary. Roscommon. Letrim. Clare. Total. 1841 22 4 1 4 31 1842 10 8 2 52 72 1843 18 0 11 0 29 1844 21 10 2 3 36 1845 30 0 1 4 35 So that, as regarded the particular crime of murder in these alleged disturbed counties, they could find no justification for a measure of this description. Since this return, however, was made, another had been produced, which was called for by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, and which contained a return made by the police of offences committed in Ireland during the years 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845 ; but he believed nothing would he found in this return to justify the passing of a Coercion Bill. ( Hear ' hear .) The retur n gave th e num b er o f outrages com mitted which had come to the knowledge of the police, under the three great heads, namely, offences against the per son , against property, and against the public peace ; and from this return he gathered the following results : Years. Person. Property. Peace. 1842 1411 2190 2187 1843 1442 2201 2315 1844 1700 2321 2282 1845 1608 2216 4161 There was a branch of offences, in respect of which he ad mitted the return exhibited an increase. The crime of send ing. threatening notices had increased in Ireland of late and in the following ratio :—ln IM2 the number was 1,216 ; in 1843, 1,212; in 1844, 13,332; and in 1845, 2,645 ; but Ministers could not for a momer.t contend that this was a justi fication for the passing of their Bill.--( Hear, hear.) It might be said that undetected crime in Ireland had increased, but he found, on looking to the returns, that the committals of 1845 bore an equal proportion to the committals of 1844. He wanted to know, then, upon what grounds this Bill was to be justified? Si nce the Union, seventeen blots of this cha racter had dropped upon the statute-book ; but in no instance had they accomplished the end for which they were intended. They had, however, the example of a Government who tried the experiment of governing Ireland with a Coercion Bill ; and the result, he was happy to say—and the House and the country must be happy--to find that the result was most suc cessful. It was only necessary to refer to the Administration of Lord Normanby to find evidence sufficiently conclusive of this, and in the report of the Lords' Committee on the state of Ireland, they had the testimony of individuals of known experi ence and ability in Ireland, who declared that during that Admi nistration crime diminished, and the country flourished to an amazingextent. And all this was attributed to,the improvements introduced into the administration of justice. Now, he thought he had sufficiently shown that the returns of crime in Ireland did not justify the passing of this coercive measure; while, on the other hand, he had directed the attention of the House to a period when Ireland was governed without a Coercion Bill, and yet peace and tranquillity prevailed, and crime diminished. They ought, then, to be guided by this experience, and not to resort to strong and vigorous measures unless they were justi fied by circumstances of the most aggravating description. Those circumstances did not exist at the present moment, and he could see no reason for the passing of this Bill, unless it were to increase the discontent which already existed in the sister country. In July, 1814, the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government introduced a Bill of a similar description, but it failed then ; and he thought the experience which they had had in the interval was sufficient to convince them that coercive measuresseldom or never met with success. There was nothing to justify this Bill, either in the outward appearance of the country, or in the documentary evidence which came from Ireland. The measure, or rather a similar measure, was opposed in 1814 by Mr. Warner, and that great and good man, Sir Samuel Romilly, who declared that measures of this description never allayed excitement, or pro duced respect for the laws ; and it was in emulation of those bygone philanthropists that he now, to the utmost of his humble ability, opposed this unjust and unnecessary measure. He was determined to join the Irish Members in their determined op position to this Bill—( Hear, hear)—and he conceived that he should be perfectly justified in so doing. This measure was brought down from the Lords with a full knowledge of its ten dency, and though the Right Hon. Gentleman had withdrawn the declaration which he had made when he introduced it, he (Mr. Hawes) still could not help thinking that had this Bill met with an unanimous reception, it would have produced a great moral effect upon the people of Ireland—(Hear, hear) — and that, on the contrary, the measure had lost all its virtues, if it had any in the eyes of the people, in consequence of the jus tifiably determined opposition with which it had been met— ( Hear, hear.) He firmly believed that it was a useless and unnecessary Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Its moral effect had gone. All the popular representatives of Ireland had denied the accu racy of the statements made by the members of the Govern ment in support of this measure, and they had also unani mously told the House that it would be perfectly useless.— ( Hear.) And from the number of threatening notices which had been sent since its introduction, he firmly believed that that assurance of the Irish representatives was grounded on facts. ft would, therefore, be useless for the House to perse sere with it. —( Hear, hear.) He could hope that the Mem bers of the Government would not think it inconsistent with their duty, under the present circumstances, to withdraw their ill-timed measure.—( Hear, hear. ) Its object had decidedly failed ; and he therefore ventured to hope that the Government would not deem it inconsistent with the suggestions contained in the eloquent and able speech that had been delivered in the course of that evening by an Hon. Member (Mr. M'Carthy) as to the withdrawal of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hawes) would call upon the Right Hat. Gentleman at the head of the Government to look at the difficulties of Ireland, and he need not add to the difficulties of England also, in con sequence of the delay of the Corn Bill ; and he thought that he would see the adviseableness of not pressing the Coercion Bill upon the Members of the Legislature. He would ask him se riously to consider whether it would be inconsistent with his public duty to cease pressing this measure upon the attention of the House of Commons, for it would most assuredly be opposed stage by stage—(Cheers)—clause by clause—(Cheers)—and line by line.--( Continued cheering.) If he knew anything of the Members who sat upon either side of the House, they would not shrink from steadily persisting in their determined opposition to this measure.—(Cheers.) He would say then that it would be a prudent step on the part of the Government to withdraw it.---(Hear, hea r .) Th e state of crime in Ireland did not justify it, and h e did most sincerely hope and trust all as alluded to t o that the House would opp ose i t i n every stage. '1 he Hon. and gallant Member (C aptain Osborne) had said that he had reme dies aw t e o s ) h proposead already a s soon thern in measure was the pa s ro d e , r s a e ° odf he his (sir. H re marks. It appeared that one great remedy proposed by the Hon. and Gallant Member wa s th e suppression of all political or party associations in Ireland. But there were great ques- , tions which would have to be duly weighed before a measure of that sort received the sanction of the Legislature. He maintained that the question of the waste lands of Ireland was of more im portance to her peace and prosperity than the carrying of such proposed a measure as had been b y the Hon. and Gallant Member.—(Cheers.) There were many minor measures, including no less than eight, ten, or twelve, which, he laid down before Lord Devon's Commission, and be lieved, would be eminently practical as we.l as acceptable to the Irish people.— ( Hear, hear.) They were calculated to confer great benefits upon Ireland, and he had no doubt that of th e if they were carried out the peace and happiness p eople of that country would be the result. He believed, moreover, that the people of England would not much longer sanction the present injustice to Ireland.—(Cheers.) The English peop •le were not ignorant of the present heavy taxation to which they were subjected for maintaining the present police and mili tary Member concluded by re peating n force in Ireland. The Hon.• his hope that her Majesty's Government would with draw the present harsh and unnecessary measure, and proceed at once to the proposal of some remedial measures, which would have for their tendency the real interests and prosperity of the Irish people.—( Cheers. ) Sir R. PEEL—Sir, whether or no her Majesty's Govern ment would obtain more popularity by persevering in this measure, or by abandoning it, is hardly a consideration. which ' ought to lead a Government responsible for maintaining the peace of the country.—( Ministerial cheers.) It may be true that more popularity might be gained by a willing acquiescence in the proposal of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Hawes), but that popularity would be gained at a costly sacrifice, for it would be a sacrifice of those who are responsible for main taining the public peace.—( Ministerial cheers.) It would also be at the sacrifice of increased injury to life and property in Ireland.—(Cheers.) I should think I was wanting in due respect to the people of that country to which this measure refers, and to the importance of the subject, if I permitted the remarks of the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to pass without some observations on my part. And as would hope, after what has been said during the full and able discussion which this measure has undergone in this preliminary state of its progress—as I would fain hope that we are now drawing towards the close of this preliminary debate, pt.stpone to a more dtsrant period the itprform an'ee of that duty which I feel to be incumbent upon me. Sir, I wish in the first place to explain to the House what were the motives of her Majesty's Government in proposing that the first stage of this Bill should be interposed to the progress of another Bill of the deepest importance, in my opinion, to the welfare of this country.—(Cheers.) Sir, I assure the House that it was not from any countenance of an adherence to a mere usage that we felt it to be our duty to propose the first reading of this Bill. What were the circumstances under which this Bill or this subject generally was brought under the consideration of both Houses of Parliament? On the first day of the session in a speech from the throne, the first practical was the me asure f or t h e purpose o f g i v i ng , measure which her Mijesty recommended tiof p o o u ss r ib c re on , s i i r d ic e r r , a ,a t s io ed n security to life and property In Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) Her Majesty recommended to the consideration of Parliament three or four measures of great importance, the first of which was the calling of the attention of Parliament to the state of Ire land, and particularly with respect to the frequency of the crime of murder, and the necessity of taking some precautions to prevent the frequent recurrence of that crime. What was the answer returned by this House to that speech ? There was an assurance on the part of the House not that it would adopt any measure proposed by the Government, but there was an assurance that this House was deeply impressed with the importance of the object, and that this House would take into its consideration any measures which had for their object the prevention of these evils. The Bill was brought into the other House of Parliament, and it met with very little opposi tion in that House. The Irish Peers, connected by political sentiment with many of the Honourable Gentlemen, felt convinced of the necessity of this or of some such measure, and gave their support to it. I believe that there was no opposition to the principle of the Bill—no oppo sition, at least, bearing the usual characteristics of an opposition. The Bill was sent down to this House. It has been, indeed, uniformly I believe the invariable practice in respect to a mea sure undertaken by the Government—in a measure of this im portance—in a measure recommended to the consideration of Parliament on the first day of the session from the Throne—it has been an invariable usage that any measure brought to this House from the House of Lords—a measure introduced by the Government into this House—to give that measure a first reading. The House of Lords—each Member of that branch of the Legislature—has a right to lay a Bill on the table of the House, and, as a matter of course, to that Bill a first reading is given. No su c h usage prevails here ; but it is in respect to measures of this description, brought in by Government, recommended from the Throne, and passed by the other branch of the Legislature, it has been the invariable practice to treat the measure in such a manner, and to show such unwillingness to oppose its introduction that the preliminary stage—the first reading—is allowed. Now lam not denying Hon. Gentlemen opposite the perfect right to oppose that first reading. lam not implying that they have unduly exercised any privilege which they possess by calling the attention of the House to the general state of Ireland. I am only considering the question whether or no her Majesty's Governs ent would have been justified in the present instance in departing from the course heretofore adopted by Parliament, to ask the House to permit this Bill to lie upon the table of the House without the slightest opposition. Sir, Ido not admit the House of Lords would have any right to ask us to give any measures of theirs a first reading.—( Hear, hear.) It was in deference to the House of Lords that we took this course, but of this we felt deeply con vinced, that if we do permit this Bill as recommended by the Throne, as passed by the House of Lords, to lie upon the table without notice, that the representatives of Ireland would have accused us, and justly accused us, of offering an insult to that House.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill has been pro posed, certainly, to suspend the ordinary operation of the law. --(Opposition cheers.) Let us look at the character of it, and the more you insist upon the unconstitutional character of the Bill, the more you establish the necessity that a Bill of this kind should be introduced by her Majesty's Government. It gives a power to the Lord-Lieutenant to deprive the subject of the liberty which. under all ordinary circumstances, he is entitled to enjoy. And in the consideration of the especial application of this Bill to one part of her Majesty's dominion, would it have been right of the Ministers in a matter of such immense importance to have shown such a total disregard to the principles of that liberty that is proposed to be taken away by this Bill ? I admit that this measure does aim at depriving the subjects of her Majesty in Ireland of some portion of their liberty, but had we propossd a measure of this sort in a different manner to that which we have, we should have been doing a great injus tice towards Ireland, and we should show an indifference to that liberty which we so much value. Sir, I think I need hardly refer to that dangerous surmise which I heard thrown out, that her Majesty's Government had become indifferent to the progress of the Corn Bill, and that they had interposed this discussion, or rather this first reading of the Coercion Bill, with the view of defeating that measure.—(Hear.) Bus_ Mr. B. HAWES—I did not say so. Sir R. PEEL—No, I know the Hon. Gentleman did not say so, but I know that some Hon. Gentleman in the course of this discussion said, not that they themselves thought of, but that Sir, —(Hear,inheeearrit.y) t e.— t ( h iri e e discussion u hear.) ssion o n It thisis l it th w i a o s k a it ee is ne o r o a t l o i e m e p e r ss e a ss ry ion to o r u e t -a o r f o d w oo th rs e . perfect cien of fmy f convictions to sub ject and from the lapse of time which has now intervened, I r me nowo state am the more strongly convinced of the necessity of that mea sure—(Cheers)—and that it is our wish and object to proceed on thisa te h m e a a t, s e from r with that measure.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I will not deny that even during this debate my opinions upon that subject have undergone a change ; but it is this change—that the restriction which I first believed to be impolitic, I now believe to be un just—(Cheers)—and that I am only the more determined to pursue the course I then adopted; and in answer to those injurious suspicions I think it is enough to say I shall be perfectly pre pared—l am prepared to maintain the justice and perfect sin cerity of my course.—(Cheers.) In pursuance of an antique usage, the first reading of this Bill was, on. the grounds that I have stated, proposed by her Majesty's Government, conceiving that the measure ought not to be delayed for a single day. Sir, I proceed to the consideration of those reasons which have induced her Majesty's Government, with great pain and with sincere confidence, to propose this measure with respect to Ireland.— (Cheers.) Sir, the Honourable Gentleman the Member for the city of Cork, who spoke in the course of this evening, and who made a speech as remarkable for its ability as it was distinguished, for the brevity with which he made the observations—( Cheers)—the Hon. Gentleman did me the favour to express his belief that I have no other dispositions than kindness towards Ireland, but he thought I was overruled by some Member of the Cabinet against my convictions. I assure the Hon. Gentleman that he does me but justice in expressing his belief that I have the sincerest in terest for the welfare and peace of that part of her Majesty's dominions. He does me injustice in stating that he believes that lam overruled by some Member of the Cabinet. If I did not believe that the imperative necessity that required the proposal of some such measure as this for the pur pose of giving protection to life, for the purpose of preventing social disorganization, and the frequency of crime in Ireland, I should not have been a party to theproposition of this measure. Sir, I was struck by an observation of one Hon. Gentleman, a representative of Ireland, and the Member for Drogheda (Sir Wm. Somerville), with respect to the grounds on which this Bill was proposed, that, in proposing this measure, we were bound to establish facts. He maintains that we have failed to show the necessity of this measure. He said that we were bound to show that all the ordinary resources of the law had been exercised—that we bad done all we could with the instruments which the institutions of the country placed in our hands—that we were bound to show that the law was not suf ficient for the purpose of preventing these crimes, and that the particular measure which we proposed was riot likely to be effec tual for its object. Ido think that we are bound to esta blish our arguments as far as our proof is available—our argu ment, as far as reason is concerned; we are bound to bring these three or four facts to the Honourable Gentleman. We are bound to prove that there is at the present moment a ft equency of crime, I speak particularly of the crime of assassination, or crimes affecting the public peace. I think we are bound to prove that Ireland is in an unusual position at this moment. We are bound to prove that we have exercised all the means which the ordinary law places at our disposal.— ( Hear, hear.) We are bound to establish an argument on the probability that the measure proposed will conduce to the end in view. —(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) Now, Sir, the Hon. Gentl eman who spoke last has contested the facts—( Hear, hear)—which were introduced by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the purpose of showing that there was at the present period an increase of crime in Ireland, such an increase as justify us in proposing this mea sure.—( Hear, hear.) I don't think that it is necessary merely to show the increase of crime to justify this measure. Our consideration must be directed to the character of the crime. Your consideration must include the possibility of removing that crime by punishment. You must regard, in the first instance the impunity which exists. You must regard the nature of these crimes and the increase which arises from s its impunity—(Cheers)—before you come to the conclusion that a law of this nature is unjustifiable. Well, now, let us first take the statements of the Hon. Gentleman who preceded me, ieaaert:taoseking houses, with respect to the frequency of crime. I do not know whether crime has increased in the manner stated, but I will refer the House to the frequency of crime of late. I speak of all crime, whether it be that in which life or the public tranquillity is injured. I speak of the pressure of crime, and I will now compare the year 1843 with the year 1845. We were most unwilling to apply to the House for any extraordi nary powers. Let us take a comparision and show the diffe is that ? Sir R. PEEL—The document before us. I think the Hon. Gentleman referred to the years 1842 and 1843, and I will read from the document, which I believe has been pub lished and provided by the police of Ireland. and has : a n d o m ns in ic i ide, conspiracy gfi.d to murder,., been very recently lard on the t l a r b zw l n e gi of House.ovvnelityibinteag:otuhs those ss e. as saults upon the police and magistrates, aggravated assaults, .de mandll 'stem unlawful oaths, sending Iwill threatening et ar take robberyetnotices,he cor rob bery, stealing cattle and other things, which may not be con f the character of the country—l leave Those crimes which may exist in any country, such as sidered as indications o crimes, the frequency of which is characteristic of a disturbed state of society. I will then read to you a statement of these crimes, they are taken from areport of the constabulary force in Ireland. Ido not know whother it is the same as that to which the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred. them out of the question altogether. I think it must be the same. Mr. HAWES—It is the same. Sir It. PEEL —Well, then, we will take the two years, 1843 and 1845. There were in the year 18 43 1845 Homicides Conspiracies to murder ..................... 3 Assaults upon police and magistrates s . 48 • - s 28 Aggravated assaults ...... 440 54 Demanding and robbery of fire-arm s ▪ 119 Administering unlawful oaths ........... . 51 55 - Sending threatening notices ▪ 940 .• 223 1944 The Hon. Member who spoke last seemed di I will not say lightly, but at any rate he se disposed to treat, the offence of issuing threatening notices : o ra l s ) to consider should hardly enter the account.—(" Hear, heaer one which Hawes.) There is, however, an increase of from 940," from Mr. An HON. MEmBER—A great number to 1,944. of them may be fabrications. Sir ROBERT PEEL—With all deference tothe of the Hon. Member, I think that the increase from opinions 940 to 1,944 is a very serious matter.. A threatening notice fficient h inflicts no bodily harm. It is su 'however, t o those who may receive them. disturb the peace of I apprehend that few know the amount of misery inflicted by these notices. Parties who receive these notices are aware of this fact, that the execution of the sentence of vengeance too frequently follows, It may be possible, and I believe it is true, that there h instances where these notices have been fabricated. mlaryisak every deduction on that account; still the increase in that e o ff en ce, coupled with the increase in other offences to which I have referred, is to me a strong pro o f o f a diseased state of society.—(Hear, hear.) Now, let us take the other crime that of attacking houses. In 1843 there were 215 ;in 1845, 483. W.e will now t a k e th• tics of the ' .ho e statis crime of firing dwellin g uses. There were 87 of this class in the year an d i cases 1843, n the year 1845 there of were 130. Now take the nature. these off ences, and the rapid increase in crimes committed unde r th e head of these offences. and surely I have given tt an answer to the Honourable Members who attempted to show that cr i me was less frequent in 1845 than any previous 'Tar. c much then for the frequency of crime. There is no lang uage I can use more emphatic upon the subject of these crimes, than the language used by the opponents of this paean!' Te. he HOU. Member, speaking of the nature and quality of crime committed in Ireland, says thatlhe viewed them with horror as indications that the national character of Ireland was undergoing a change. fie stared that heretofore there had been, on the part of the Irish, a respect to age, and respect for sex, and that helplessness of age, and the character of the sex had always been sufficient to protect the wrong and guide the weak.--( Hear, hear.) What said the Hon. Gentleman upon the question of these atrocities? I fear he said that there is a great change coming over the character of w w e hel t m n the Iri s h p eop l e. I see that there is no security in age or sex against the mo s t s h ame f u l attacks. These crimes were a black stain up on a c h aracter which has stood so high in that chival• ed be wi p th as d si i v s e gus a t and shame rous spi r it w hi ch has distinguished the Irish nation for so long a time. I w i ll take the words of the Hen. Member for Kil kenny. I took them down at the time: he said, "I am over whelmed w i th disgust and shame at the hideous crimes which have ridadotno a n m d ea i s n u d r e e s s cr i t b o ab c le ha s n o g rr e ow th a e t been comm i tted in some parts of Ireland. lam over these cri mes, " and yet these crimes remain unpunished. Are atrocities which fill the Honourable Member of that I country with di sgust and shame ? These words which have quoted, are not those used by the advocate, of the Bill, but the words used by the opponents, as to the effect of crime upon the nat i onal character. I admit that it is un • fair to judge the character of any nation by its crime. They are how ever,•from th e i r nature to be disregarded, iniunotd , f o the character of th e country. The Hon. Member th ging en proce e d e d g to read some p art i culars respecting the murder o f d three bro thers; tw o o f whom had for a considerable perio , after th e death of the eld er one, two policemen stationed at their h ouse to protect them. T he third one was at length shot when within a few yards of his own house, and the only re signed for this murd er was , that he had taken possession s o n n f as an acre of land adjoining his farm. If, said the Right Hon. Baronet, you exact allegiance from such persons as these. I do not think that we should be fulfilling the duties of a Go vernment, if we did not afford them protection to pro perty.—( Hear, hear.) The Right HOneurable Baronet then referred to the case of the murders of Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Hegin. He also referred to the case of a mining company, who, on the 26th of November last, re ceived a great number of threatening notices, in centeguence of which the Directors issued a notice, stating that the works should be suspended, as they did not wish to expose to danger the lives of the workmen employed by them, who had also received threatening notices. The Right Hon. Baronet next proceeded to read the names and occupations of the first twenty which appeared in the report of persons murdered, amounting. to 147, between the Ist of February, 1843, and the Ist of February, 1845. From that statement it appeared that a great number of persons murdered were farmers and farmer's wives. Is it not, then, said the Right Hon. Baronet, our duty to afford additional protection to these parties ? The gentleman, or the large farmer can protect themselves in their own houses, but these poorer persons require some additional protection. The Hon. Member for Drogheda said that the onus was upon us to establish the necessity of this measure. I have attempted to show the frequency of the crime, the cha racter, nature, and qualities of these crimes, the injurious effects upon the character of the country, frequent instances of complete impunity with which these crimes were committed, and the fear of giving evidence to magistrates or Courts of Justice, the danger there is that crime will become conta gious, and spread throughout other districts, I do think I have made out a strong case in the character and frequency of the crimes, to do at least no more than this—to consider whether any effectual remedy can be adopted to prevent this state of things.—( Hear, hear.) With reference to the second ques tion, have we exhausted the existing law ? There is an increase in the police force in Ireland amounting to not less than 10,000. I have riot heard it stated by any Hon. Member in the course of the debate, that the police force have been improperly dia -1 tribnted. Ido not think that any addition to the police force would be of any advantage, nor do I think that that force has been applied in any manner as to require any explanation from the Government But you say that we have not issued a sufficient number of special commissions for the trial of each offence. Why a special commission is a very inefficacious instrument for the prevention of crime ; there is no use in it unless you are pre pared to convict by evidence unimpeachable. But the exist ence of crime is no proof that a special commission should issue. It is not wise to risk a trial upon imperfect evidence, It is not wise to exhibit the inefficacy of the law. It is not wise to demonstrate the frequency of crime without demon strating also that it shall meet with sure and certain punish ment ; and unless you can prove the double effect, the fre quency of crime, and the probability of conviction, you do not demonstrate the use of a special commission. It is no consideration of expense which has deterred the Govern ment from resorting to frequent special commissions, and therefore I do not see in one single instance the Government can be made fairly chargeable with not having used every in strument which the occasion and the law placed at their dis posal, for the purpose of bringing a termination to the fright ful catalogue of crimes which exist in I, eland. And that was the second point on which explanation was demanded, and now we come to the third.—( Hear, hear.) What is the probabi lity that this particular measure will be efficacious in its pur pose ? It is a bad thing to show indifference towards constitu tional right when it can be avoided, and the question is—can you show that this as ill not be a superfluous enactment, for, it it is, it is of ne avail to put it on the statute book ?—( Hear, hear.) Well, I think I can show that there are urgent reasons for its adoption. Why, what do I find? I find that, in the year 1835, you have adopted the very principle of this Bill, and what course shall a Government, responsible for the peace and security of the country, pursue, when it finds, in 1835, the representatives of a country, who are best acquainted with its wants, consented, without remonstrance, to a measure, the principle of which was the same as this ? There are differences, I admit.—( Hear, hear.) An Hort. MemeEk—There were differences. Sir R. PEEL—Oh, yes ; I admit them.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, come let us discuss them. I find an increase of crime, and we do propose that the Lord-Lieutenant shall be empowered to apply this law, and to compel the inhabitants in those districts where crime has been frequent, to keep their homes from sunset to sunrise. But you consented to a law which was the same in 1835, the law which you passed being an amendmeut on a former enactment ; and that law did en able the Lord.'Lieutenant to say, on a requisition of the grand jury to the inhabitants of a district, that they should keep their homes from sunset to sunrise, making it a misdemeanour to disobey ; the onus of proving innocence being thrown upon the accused. Surely your conduct then is not a ground for rejecting the present measure. Well, 1 will give you credit for being uninfluenced by any change in the persons of the Government. When we find the representatives in Ireland in 1835 consenting to a law, the principle of which is identical with the one we now propose, what are we to do, what are we to suppose? Why, the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth, in boasting of the effect of a former Government, and the diminishment of crime, forgot that during the whole of that period you had enforced this very enactment. In that case the grand jury had the power of making a pre sentment before the district was proclaimed; but we thought that if we again proposed the same provision, it would be one of the grounds of your objection, and that you would say that it would be a new instrument in the hands of the landlords to carry on the clearance system. Why, is it not better, then, if that is your opinion of Irish landlords, to throw en the Exe cutive Government the entire responsibility of calling this measure into action? Which course is more likely to maintain an amicable relation between the gentry of Ireland and their poorer tenants—which course is more likely to give weight to the decision of the magistrates ? We thought to place the power and the responsibility in the hands of the Government was a great improvement. But you will have an opportunity of proposing additional securi ties. I myself have the strongest impressions that it is in finitely better that the calling this Act into operation shall rest exclusively with the Executive. Well, this measure which you framed in 1835, you continued on the statute book for a period of five years— Mr. HAWES—It was not enforced. Sir R. PEEL—And do we say that it shall come into ope ration ?—( Hear, hear.) We seek the same power, not ne cessarily that it should be exercised. But you argue now that the existence of this power will exasperate the people of Ireland. Why did it not do so in 1835, when, if I recollect rightly, the.e was not even a division on the question of its adoption ? Sir. W, S. O'BRIEN—Yes, I divided the House. Sir 11. PEEL—The Hon. Gentleman divided the House on the question that the Bill, instead of having a duration of five years, should be limited to two.—( Hear, hear.) What was the result? Four di v id e d w ith th e H on . Member. You per mitted it to pass in 1835, and permitted it to endure for five years without a motion for its erasure from the statute-book. Mr. S. O'BRIEN—I made one for its removal. Sir R. PEEL—And how many divided with you? Two.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member endeavoured to remove this disgraceful statute, this blot on your legislative enactments, and only two Members were found to support him. Now, were not the Government justified in the course which they pursued? Nor do I see how we can be charged with wishing to inflict injury or insult upon Ireland, when, in 1846, we have taken a course which they have approved in 1835. Let us hope, in assenting to this measure for a period of three years, this law will not be called into operation, but that by its dormant energy, it will repress all outrage and violence. Let us en tertain sanguine hopes that the knowledge that this law exists will be efficacious in future, and I should rejoice if we should be able to dispense with it in a less period. If it be true that there are frequent murders committed in any district, if it be provided that the family of the murdered man shall have pro vision made for them by a tax being levied on the vicinage, will it net have a great effect in checking these evils? I think that we have beard that strangers committed these murders, , but lam afraid in some cases that strangers are harboured. Well, if you tax the district you will give a great security to the inhabitants, as strangers will not be encouraged when they know that they will be made to pay if outrages are committed. I admit the evil of scarcity to be so intolerable—so impossible to meet by any appeal to benevolence—as to impose the neces sity of considering whether or not something could be done for the purpose of alleviating it. Let us not consider the matter too hastily, and at once come to a conclusion that the principle of the English law, namely, the right to relief Is applicable to the state of Ireland. A comprehensive review of the whole case must be taken, the position of those who would have to bear that burden must be taken into account, and how little superior they are in society to those who would receive the benefit of that relief. While, therefore, I admit the pressing nature of the can e , I wou ld b e unwilling, after the discussion that has taken place on the modified poor-law in Ireland, after the difference of opinion that has been expressed by the gentle men who took part in that debate, I would pause before I com mitted myself to the opinion that the English poor-law should be established in that country. I uphold as strongly as any man, that in no country is it more necessary to maintain the great principles of property than in Ireland ; but, though such is my firm opinion, it is impossible for any one to consider without a feeling of emotion the evictions that have taken place there. I find it impossible, however, to apply a remedy to control the power of the landlords. Even if the Bill brought in by the Hon. Member for Rochdale were passed into a law, and if it were enacted that the tenant should re ceive full compensation for the improvements which he had made, that power would curb the landlord in such a manner as would disable him from proceeding against a pauper tenantry who were making no improvements. You must ex cuse me, then, if I think that you rely too much for the amelioration of your social condition upon the Executive Go• vernment.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) You rely too much upon the Government passing laws to effect what yourselves should accomplish.—(Cheers.) My firm belief is that you yourselves have it in your power to apply a remedy. I speak to absentees as well as the resident landlords. By pursuing a course adapted to meet the requirements of the disorganised state of society which prevails, you would be able to effect more than could ever be done by legisla tion. This would do all that any Government could accom plish..._( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Is it true that a gentleman in 1838 has purctased from 18,000 to 20,000 acres of land, in one of the wildest parts of Ireland, and said to himself on taking this property, I will act towards my tenants as a landlord should act. I will do my duty to them, and will persevere in my attempts to improve their condition—is it true that he has suc ceeded ?—("Hear, hear," from Col. Conolly.) Is it true that in dealing with this misery, by his perseverance, by his deference at first to the ignorance and prejudices of the people, by the kindly feeling with which he treated them, a revolution has been effected which has astonished all who have considered it ? --(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Has not his property been im proved ?—( Hear, hear.) Has not his rental improv e d?— Friend (Colonel Conolly) (Hear, hear.) My Hoe. says it is all true.—( Hear, hear, and c h !ers.) This sh ows done by legislation, the foundation that though much may be landlords resident and must be laid by a combination of the absentee— byfellowing the ex amp le of Lord George H i ll, in endeavouring to improve the condition of the country. These complaints of the relationship existing between landlords and tenants are not now made for the first time. Dr. Madden, a writer on the state of Ireland, 1737, and who was on intimate terms with the then Lord Chesterfield, gives the followingladvice to the proprietors and landlords of Ireland. (The Right Hon. Baronet here quoted several passages from Dr. Madden's work, where he describes the tenants' houses as huts, and made like bird's nests, and as it were a temporary residence, and ad vises the landlords to build better houses, and by this means cultivate a more kindly feeling with their tenants).—(Hear, hear.) This was the description given of Ireland a hundred years ago, and I fear is one which is still applicable to that country. lam not undervaluing the good which may be anticipated from legislation, but I think if the landlords of Ireland would consider what measures were best calculated to meet the evils under which that country labours, if they would act towards their tenantry as is done in this country, if they would enter into a noble combination for the purpose of diffusing the greatest amount of good among the people, if they would endeavour to procure accurate informa tion as to the means best adapted to effect that glorious result— if they would follow the example of Lord George Hill, and endeavour to cultivate a more kindly feeling and relation ship with their tenantry the consequence would be that outrage would be put an end to, that peace would pervane the most disturbed districts, that industry would be stimulated and more confidence in the law established, than will ever be the result of any mea sures of legislative enactment. By recognising the principles of moral feeling and benevolent sentiments in their dealings with their tenantry, more good will be effected than will ever result from the operation of laws. I hope I have said nothing in the remarks I have made, to embitter the feel. ing with which this debate has been conducted.—( Hear, hear. ) All that I have to find fault with is, that being anxious for dis cussion on this measure, they have not proceeded with that discussion without introducing matter foreign to it. They ought, I think, to have proceeded with the debate; they ought not to have delayed it for two days, by introducing, I think th ey h ave done, many Irish questions, which which have had no other eff ec t than to cause delay to many other measures o f great import ance to this country. Ido hope, that having • g oc cupied so m uc h t i me upon this question , hav ing and ha dne their duty t o t h e i r country, they will now allow this uetoion to be read a fi rs t ti me. I do not question the steps thfienav taken, but I d o thi n k t h at they may now without injyurytoe their principles, h av i ng di sc h arged what they felt to be their duty, permit the sense of the House to be taken on the Bill at this preliminary stage.—(Cheers. ) Mr. WYSE would assure the House that he felt with the Right Hon. Baronet, that much time had been occupied with this debate. The question of the corn-laws had been delayed by the introduction of that measure before the House. He could not agree with the Right Hon. Baronet that the Go vernment was entirely free from the blame which attached to the delay complained of in the debate on this question. The Right Hon. Gentleman had attempted to throw the blame of that delay on his (Mr. Wyse's) side of the House. It was for him to have seen what course should have been pursued with regard to the measures occupying the attention of the country. It was for the Government to choose what measure was the most important—the one before the House, or the corn-law measure—for immediate consideration. Having made a selection, they had no right to complain of the opposition met with.—( Hear.) He could not see what discourtesy would be shown to the other House by delaying this Bill, and giving pre cedence to one of greater importance to the country at large. There was a precedent for delay on a measure emanating in the other House. He would beg to call the attention of the House to the year 1833, when a Bill for the same object as the present was sent down to that House. It was treated in the very same manner. It was matter of surprise, that while the world was looking at the great measure of the Government with regard to our commercial interests, that the interests of the sister country should be so neglected. He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that there might arise times when a sus pension of part of the constitutional laws would be necessary. He was not so ignorant as not to know that the first thing to be done, to render society what it ought to be, was to render life and property safe. But the Right Hon. Baronet had not read any report which proved the necessity of such a measure as that before the House.—(Hear, hear.) ( The Hon.'Member then proceeded to read extracts from a re turn he held in his hand, by which it appeared, that its the year 1842 the number of homicides committed in Ireland was 106, while in the year 1845 it amounted to 139.) Now, con sidering the great amount of distress that existed in the coun try at both these periods, he would say that that state of things did not exhibit such an enormous excess of crime as would justify such a suspension of the law as this Bill amounted to. He found, by the same returns, that crime of less magnitude—such as aggravated assault—amounted, in 1842, to 249, while in 1845 they were only 237. He should certainly admit that there was one class of difference—namely, the robbery of arms, which did appear to have been on the in crease, for in 1842 the number of that crime amounted to 160, while in 1845 it amounted to 551 ; but he should here remark, that lie did think that such a state of things had been prophe sied upon the introduction of the Arms Bill, when gentlemen made a parade of the amount of arms they possessed. But in re gard to crimes of a less aggravated character, it would be found that there had been a great diminution, such as resistance to the police, and the operation of legal processes, for he found that in the year 1845 they had considerably decreased, as com pared with the year 1842, as had also such crimes as were called offences against property, cattle stealing, &c., greatly diminished. He was, no doubt, compelled to admit that there had been an increase in the number of another class of offences—that which came under the head of threatening letters ; but many of them might have been forged, and under no circumstances were such documents indicative of a wide spread conspiracy against life. But all these crimes were in dicative of the peculiarly unhappy stare of the people of Ireland. i Now let him compare the state of crime in that country with the state of crime in this. He joined in the re probation of these crimes as cordially as did any other Member of the House, and he was ready to admit that they indicated a departure from the general chivalric character of the Irish people ; but the way to prevent this state of things was by adopting such a course of policy as would make the people sympathize with the law and be ready to act with the police of the country.—( Hear, hear.) Such was the case in this country and in all other well ordered countries,and why should it not be so in Ireland ? Now he saw no disposition on the part of the Government to attempt to deal "with this question as it ought to be dealt with. He would beg of the House to re member that on former occasions, when Coercion Bills were in troduced, Committee after Committee were appointed to in quire into the cause of crime in Ireland, but what was the result ? The Coercion Bills were passed but the re ports of the Committees were allowed to remain inoperative. He would beg the House to remember the many crimes which were committed in Ireland, which were the result of the tithe system. In other times Coercion Bills were passed, but it was not until the tithes had been done away with that the Bill had become operative. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that this was no new state of things. No doubt in former times crime also existed in Ire land. Crime caused by the change of religion, and the inva. sion of Cromwell, but more than all, to the operation of the penal code. Ireland contained 8,000,000 of inhabitants, 7,000,000 of whom depended upon agriculture for subsistance, while the vast amount of manufactures in England and Scot land bore no proportion whatever to those in Ireland, for in fact in the latter country there were none. He should also say that there was no justification in his mind for the conduct of some landlords, who exercised a power over their property con trary to divine intention; but then the Legislature gave him that power, and, therefore the Legislature should regulate it. He had not seen as yet in any of these measures, that any thing beneficial was to be done for Ireland, and would they allow all Europe to see that under the present state of things nothing was to be done for that country ? The Right Hon. Baronet had admitted that with respect to its internal state that Ireland was now in the same position as she was in 1736. She had been kept in a state of poverty and depression, and was labouring under evils which had arisen during the ascendancy of England, and now when she was unequal to stand on her own resources, he thought that some measures of atonement and reparation were due to her. When the union between the countries was spoken of, ought it not to convey an idea of sympathy and good feeling, and should they not give them aid and assistance? There was a great difference between the amounts of wages given in the two countries, and in Ireland al one t h e amount of wages varied very much. The Irish labourer could not gain more than 2s. 6d. per week, while the English labourer could gain 10s. per week. There was, as he had said, a similar difference in the amount of wages in various parts of Ireland, for in one part the amount given did not exceed Bd. or 4d. , while in other parts it was Is. per day. That arose from the want of a proper communication between this coun try and the various parts of Ireland, and it would be a beneficial measure if Government could establish that com munication, for they could lose nothing by it. If they did lose by it there would be a just ground for declining to in terfere. The Irish Members only asked for such assistance as would remedy the evils under which the country laboured, and the effect of it would be felt by the increased excise, the in creased customs, and, above all, in the increased prosperity of the country. No such measures have accompanied this coercion measure—no remedy had been provided for the grievances of the people. If any coercion law was necessary, still he would o bje c t t o thi s l aw , for it wou ld n ot meet the crimes enum e r a t e d by th e Ri g ht Hon. Barone. It would not prevent daylight assa s sination or sending threat eningt notices by post. Su c h an end could not be attained by shutting up the peasant during the night, nor was that course likely to establish a more kindly feeling between the upper and the middle classes ; and least of all, would it be likely to give the people a confidence of the law by placing them on a more secure relation with reference to their landlords. The Right Hon. Baronet would see that Ireland had come to such a posi tion that she could no longer receive such measures as this, and he hoped that the Right Honourable Baronet would be convinced that any momentary interruption which this Bill had given to the proceedings of the House, did not proceed from any wish for unnecessary delay, but from the anxiety o f eac h Irish Member to declare before th e House and the country his feeling on the Bill. He did not apprehend the outbreak of any violent eruption in Ireland, but there was ample room for conciliatory measures, to anticipate such an evil from the disorganised and diseased state of toe people in that country. There could not be a nobler effort of a minister than to relieve a country from the state in which Ireland was at present placed, The Minister who did that would acquire a fame which would never die. ' Colonel CONOLLY said that he had been directed by the grand jury of the county of Donegal, to support the measure. They looked with horror on the state of things at present ex isting in Ireland. The magistrates of Donegal had done their duty, and had called on the county Members to support this measure as necessary to the security and well-being of the country. They hoped by this measure to suppress some of the most atrocious and degrading crimes that ever disgraced any nation in the world. Hon. Gentlemen opposite deplored those crimes, and yet they resisted every effort to stop them. This measure was called for by all the peaceably disposed inhabitants of Ireland. The lower orders in that country had long suffered from a system of menace. This Bill was called an interfe rence with the liberties of the subject, but there was very little liberty in Ireland at present. The people could not carry on their trade ; and, therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the Government should come forward with some strong measure. The system of interference with landlords and tenants was ex tensively carried out. The threatening letters referred to were as nothing compared to the acts of vengeance wreaked on houses, cattle and persons. This was a state of things not to be endured. In supporting the Bill, he did so in obedience to his constituents, as they considered it absolutely necessary. In the amendment which had been proposed, it was stated that the measure did not go to the root of the evil. He agreed in that sentiment, and he believed they would never go to the root of th e ev il w hil e t h ey t o l e rated the factious and seditious asse m bly th a t meets i n D u bli n _ deal of the discord that existed in I r el an d was attri n is f u a t A attributable in greate to the machinations of this seditious body. H which an elector had his ea r s cut off because he h k e ne r w oted against ng this a Coercion a repeal candidate. Such was the spirit that p re vailed ani in many parts of Ireland. He did not agree calli ng Bill, but it was, as its title stated, a B i ll for the protection of life and property; and had the Govern me nt failed in bri ng i ng it forward, they would have been highly criminal. It was a measure to protect the innocent, pu nish the guilty, and t o secure the well-being of society generally. Mr. RICH deprecated the supporters of the Bill, charging Hon. Members on that side of the House with being indiffe rent to the existence of crime in Ireland, because they opposed the Bill. He was convinced that Hon. Members on that side entertained the strongest feelings of horror against the crimes referred to, and only differed from those who supported the Bill as to the mode of putting them down. He considered the Right Hon. Baronet, and th ose w h o acted • ng this m easure, h a d failed in showing that it would put a j end to the crimes alleged, or that the present laws were ineffi cient for that purpose.—( Hear, hear.) The tranquillity which prevailed during the Whig administration arose from a steady perseverance in well-doing, and administering the law in a kindly and tolerant spirit. Let the Right Hon. Baronet follow this example—let him feed the hungry, and remove some of the glaring causes which produced so much distress and suffer ing in Ireland, and he might depend upon it he would have no necessity to ask the Legislature to assist him with a Coercion Bill. From the oppression to which the poor of Ireland were sub jected sprung the secret conclaves, the murders, the disease and death, which afflicted that unhappy country. Then fol lowed the trials, the false evidence, and the revenge on those witnesses ; and these were followed by Castle proclamations and Government assassinations. He scarcely knew whether to pity or to b'ame the acts of the peasantry of Ireland; he very much feared that their misfortunes were in a great measure attributable to the foolish conduct of a blind Government. Why did they not introduce into Ireland those measures which, for centuries,_ had p rove d to b e of service to the people of this country ? He felt convinced that it was utterly hopeless to ex pect that the outbreak:, in Ireland could be put down by violence. _These evils were not to be put down by violence, The Gl.- vernment must go to the root of the evil, if they wished to give peace and prosperity to Ireland. If they wished to put down violence by coercion, they should coerce the coercers— ( Hear, hear)—and prevent those grievous evictions which had taken place. The present Bill was harsh, and tardily intro duced. If there was any necessity for the measure, why was it not introduced before Hear, h ear .) Mr. SOMERS moved the adjournment of the debate. Sir ROBERT PEEL then proposed that the debate be ad journed till Thursday next. The other orders of the day were then proceed with. POLLING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. GREGORY moved that the report of this Bill should be received that day six months. He considered the Bill would give a direct encouragement to fraud, perjury, and personation. After a few words from Mr. Caleb Powell, Mr. Smith O'Brien, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. R. Grattan, the debate was adjourned. Several orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) MONDAY, APRIL 27. The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and the 11111 s ordered to be brought in by the undernamed Hon. Members : North Gravesend —Mr. Ward and Mr. Hudson. Derbyshire. Staffordshire, and Wor cestershire—ViScOtMt IngeStre, Mr. E. Staffordshire, and Mr. Iteresford. TA. - IV ORDERS' COMMITTEE. The following resolutiono 1. That, in the case of the e t r i e n ;•eported from this Committee thhls:koetwi,stu.Ocahs a ßi n il it a tt i , n r e o n as dm in en i t t ; en t third reading, the amendments Ze he Morayshire Railway petition, the adopted by thei tlifioeusceasifethoefyt standing orders ought to be dispensed with :— That the parties be permitted to proceed with th e i r Bi ll. o Canalrd e rs 3. That, in the case of the M anchester, B lto n , a s n t d an ß di ry g Navigation and Railway Ext ens i on petition, the ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to pro coed with their Bill, with the exception of that part which enables them to make the Clifton Branch ; and that the Committee on the Bill do examine, in the first place, how "far such order has been complied with, and do report the same to the House on the report of the Bill. 4. That, in the case of the Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Wor cestershire Junction Railway petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill. 5. That, in the case of the Great Eastern and Western Railway petition, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with. 6. That, in the case of the Somersetj Small Debts petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be, permitted to proceed with their Bill. 7. That, in the case of the .Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Edinburgh, and Direct Glasgow Junction Railway petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill. 8. That, in the case of the Banffshire Roads petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill. 9. That, in the case of the Oxford, Coventry, and Burton-upon- Trent Railway petition, the st nding orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill. 10. That, in the case of the Lanarkshire and Lothian Railway petition, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with. 11. That, in the case of the London and Birmingham Railway (Coventry to Nuneaton) petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with. th Jr Bill. 12. That, in the case of the Northern and Southern Connectinz Railway petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with : That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill. 13. That, iu the case of the Edinburgh and Perth Railway petition, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with. 14. That, in the case of the Edinburgh and Leith Water petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their BM. 15. That, in the case of the Hull and Barnsley Junction Railway petition, the standing orders ought net to be dispensed with. 16. That, in the case of the Liverpool Improvement petition for additional provision, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to introduce such additional prey!+ sions accordingly. 17. That, in the case of the Ipswich, Norwich, and Yarmouth Rail way petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—.That the parties be permiaed to proceed with their Bill. 18. That, in the case of the Shrewsbury' and Hereford Railway (No. 2) petition for leave to present a petition for a Bill, the sessional order ought not to be dispensed with. 19. That, in the case of the London and Birmingham Railway (St. Alban's and Luton Branch) petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with : - That the parties be permitted to introduce such additional provision accordingly. Second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth, sixteenth, and nineteenth resolutions agreed to. —Report to lie on the table REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON GROUP (No. 12) OF RAILWAYS. GLASGOW, PAISLEY, AND GREENOCK RAILWAY (BRIDGE OF WEIR BRANCH) BILL. Mr. Vernon Smith reported from the Select ommittee en Group 12) of Railway Bills, to whom several petitions against the Bills comprised in the said group were referred, that in the case of the Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Bridge of Weir Branch) Bill they had heard counsel in support of several of the said peti tions, and had also heard counsel in favour of the Bill, and that they had examined the allegations contained in the preamble oth but that the same had not been proved to their satisfaction.fe Bill, COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen and Prince Albert honoured the. rehearsal of the Concert of Ancient Music, at the Hanover -square rooms, with their presence yesterday. The royal Futite consisted of Lady Portman, Lord Byron, Hon. Colo,:.el Grey, and Lieut.- Colonel Seymour. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent visited her Majesty yesterday, at Buckingham Palace. Her Majesty, attended by Lady Portman, took an airing in an open carriage and four yesterday. The Equerry in Waiting, the Hon. Colonel Grey, was in attendance on horseback. His Royal Highness Prince Albert rode on horseback, attended by Lieutenant -Colonel Seymour. Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales, Prince Alfred, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice, took airings yesterday in the royal gardens. The Royal dinner party yesterday at Buckingham Palace included her Royal Highness the Ditchess of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch, Lady Augusta Bruce, Baroness de Speth, the Earl of Liverpool, the Earl and Countess of ' Delawarr, and Lady Mary Sackville West, Lord Portman, and Captain the Hon. James P. Murray. The band of the Scots Fusilier Guards attended during dinner, and performed th e f o ll ow i ng pieces : Overture—" Ruler of the Spirits"—Weber. Polka—" Dobranoz"—Fahrbach. Selection—" Robert le Diable"—Meyerbeer. Quadrille—" Maritana"—Coote. Waltz—" Natal i en"—Labitzki. Polka—" Marien"—Streck. in a Her Majeety the Q ueen D owager took an airing yesterday earriage. His Serene Highness the Hereditary Prince of Saxe Mein ingen, attended by Captain Taylor, Mr. Bedford, and the Baron de Reitzenstein, left town yesterday morning for Portsmouth. A Cabinet Council was held yesterday afternoon at the Foreign-office. The Ministers present were Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke o f Buccleuch, the Earl of Haddington, the Earl of Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Earl of Ellenhorough, the Earl of Ripon, Lord Granville Somerset, the Earl of Dalhousie, the Earl St. German, and the Right Hon. Sidney Herbert. The Council sat an lour and a half. Mr. Forges and Mr. Lockhart, with Mr. Dalglish, on the part of the Glasgow General Terminus, had an interview with Sir George Clerk yesterday at the office of the Board of Trade. Lord Kinnaird had an interview with the Earl of Dalhousie yesterday at the office of the Board of Trade. Mr. Wilson Patten had also an interview with his Lordship. Dispatches from the Governors of New South Wales, West Australia, and New Zealand were received yesterday at the Colonial-office. Mr. Hawes, M.P., Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Pearce, and 3 lr. George Wilson had an interview with Sir Clerk yesterday . The Earl of Aberdeen returned to town yesterday from the Priory. The Right lion. Sidney Herbert arrivel in town yester day, from Wilton House, Salisbury. The Marchioness of Hastings and Captain Hastings Henry left Farrance's Hotel, yesterday, for Efford House, Hampshire. WILSON'S SCOTTISH ENTER STREET. TAINMENTS --M USICAL HALL, STORE- Mr. Wilson gave his first Entertainment for the season last evening, at the Musical Hall, Store -street. Judging from the state of the room, it would appear that MAW, Ilk • jealousy, " rows the meat it on, for never hasG the Store- from street Musical feeds Hall " been more crowded than it was last evening. In fact, Wilson's powers of attraction seem to go on in geometrical progression. This is his sixth year, and if he gees on as he has gone on hitherto, he must next year have the large Exeter Hall to contain his audience ; for, truth to say, although the late comers last night were compelled to stand, the early corners were inconveniently crowded. The entertainment was a melange, consisting of various old songs, which, like old wine, were all the better for being old ; and one or two new ones, which before the end of the season will be old favourites. Among the modern antiques which are more particularly de serving of notice, is the revived version of " Ower the waterto Charlie," which, as a musical composition, is much superior to the more popular song, and which, as the original of the old Jacobite song, will drive Young England (called young, we presume, ut locus a non lucendo), mad. Then we had two exquisite songs by Robert Nicoll, the modern Burns, whom we hail as a brother of the Press, seeingss. that he was ditor of the Leeds Times. " Bonnie p l! Lee," and " The Married Man's Lament," Roberts a . s ta To p iidof' a Nicoll as a true poet, and as a true joke, as the latter song testifies. " Devil's who is not ? Byron wrote " i p lP ; V o he " et w r e a r h o n ei t d s e wt t ‘l e D e Cowper wrote "John Gilpin ;” 0 2, o t n ru J e u p an oe .' t ' Walk Pes o f i b the roc h F o r ' g s ll o naankdMice." i "and Then Homer we wbraodte the TbgeSi glorious "Pibroch which song, was"T "The new te Flowers as m Ballantine,. en titled,ll), I uh,e" Forest," rs a . , C d oc t k h e b n u r c ; b e ea . u s t e i f n u g l , and all about " auld Wattle, and auld auntie attie, one of uncle An au.,lidhefarrAaanitd sang," by t- h m ost exquisite specimens of true pastoral p oetry that ever was penned, and was given by Mr. Wilson with the most exquisite taste and feeling. Blessing on ye Auld uncle Wattie An' auld auntie Mattie." Willingly we travel afoot all the way for London, to your Ain house at hame," to shake ye by the hand. Ye are patterns to the human race, and much obliged are we to Mr. Wilson for havi ng introduced us to you. But Mr. Wilson did not confine his illustrations of married life to the sweets. lie gave us. with infinite humour, the lament of a married man, who, in pitiful tones, announces— " My auld mither died in the year aughty-nine, An' I ne'r ha'e had peace in the world sinsyir. And also the far-famed "Get up and bar the e d n r g. . ' " H W e il w so a n s was never in better voice than he was enthusiastically cheered throughout, a i n l , d i s i t t an e d n v u o r should give an entertainment every night ' in n ; It e t s h e a a t s o h n e , which announcement was hailed with loud applause. It is said that the arrangements consequent on the death of Sir William Boothby, Receiver. General of Customs, have not yet been completed. The salary of the late Reeeiver•Genera THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APR I -1 4 -28, 1846.