The Sun. — London, England, 1834-07-19 00:00:00

Tally those of their own class. Amongst seven murders com-. mitted at. one period in Clare, only one was perpetrated on a person not belonging to the humbler class. He was ready to go every length in any measure which would have the effect of putting down prmdial outrages ; and in proof of this he would state, that it was he who suggested the list of the inmates in the disturbed districts, by which it could be ascertained whether or not any of them were absent from their dwellings during prohibited hours. He would repeat, that he was favourable to every constitutional means of putting down these outrages, and was ready to follow them up where committed with prompt in quiry and immediate punishment ; but then, let the means adopted be such as the Constitution would sanction, and as the delinquents themselves should acknowledge to be just.— ( Cheers.) Though he should agree to the measure, he still did not feel the less anguish when he considered the misery and destitution by which that state of things was created, which compelled its necessity. His countrymen were looked upon as persons peculiarly characterised by recklessness and crime ; but the crimes of which they were - guilty were those incident to warfare, and to a nation placed in an unnatural position. As regarded the crimes which show themselves in a well-constituted society, he challenged Europe to show a country more free from them ; out of the population in Dublin for one year there had been but two capital convictions. Take any county in Ireland, take even Tipperary, and compare the crimes not of this character with those committed in the smallest county in England, and the latter will be found to exceed by three to one. In all the social and moral virtues, he challenged a comparison for his countrymen with those of any other : in fidelity to the marriage bed, the natural affections, the ties which bound father to child, and th e o th er reciprocal duties of man to man, they were not to be equalled. Was it not curious that a people such as this should be thus characterized ? Whence sprung the crime ? Ireland had been under the go vernment of England for seven hundred years, and during that time she had been governed by factions for factions.---( Loud cheers.) This was the cause of her misery. Before the dis tinctions of religion were known, others were acted on. There was the English party within the pale, the English party without the pale, and the Irish enemy:--( Hear.) There succeeded to those another distinction, the Protestant aristo crat and the Papist paria. Was it not time to put an end to this ?—( Cheers.) Even in 1782 it was the faction and not the people who carried the independence of Ireland, and the independence which they thus won they were unwilling to share. Since the Union, did not every Administration go upon the Church and State principle, and—he asked the question not in reproach, but in sorrow—had not the Re formed Government proceeded in the same spirit in the agency by which they governed Ireland ?—( Hear.) Whom did they choose as Sheriffs ? whom did they choose as lieutenants ? who as magistrates ? and who as the police ? The population of the country was Catholic ; and yet in this latter force the Catholics were so few, that they were only to he found in an inverse ratio to their majority in the population. Was this the way to conciliate the people of Ireland, and re move the causes of irritation which rendered necessary the adoption of harsh measures ? To such measures as necessity called for, he would not object. He would protect the sanc tity of the night, even from those who would themselves be sufferers by the violation. He was rejoiced that the Govern ment of the country had at length discovered that those who contended to procure advantages for Ireland, so far from stir ring up disturbances, were most anxious, as he (so help him God) was to adopt the only means which woulcrbe efficacious to repress them. He had himself, at periods of disturbances published addresses to the people, which were successful in their effects. It was not the interest of these who espoused the cause of Ireland to create outrage; on the contrary, outrage only im peded their exertions. It was the faction who wished to sec disturbance increase, as their power increased with it. It gave authority to petty tyrants, and supplied them with pretexts for putting the yeomanry in employment, and calling the police into action. It was to these, and such as these, that outrage gave pleasure. This was a sort of traffic for power which had too long existed. It was wise to put down that state of things by which it was supported, and as long as constitutional means, and law founded on justice, were resorted to for this purpose, he would not withhold his support. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the question before the House was, whether the Bill which had been passed last ses sion, and which a great majority of the House had considered essential to the protection of life and property in Ireland, should now be re-enacted with certain modifications, which leave the law standing in all its severities, levelled against the inferior instruments of outrage, and omitting the clauses whose operation contemplated those who were by their syste matic system of agitation the proximate cause of the outrages. He would rejoice as much as any person, at any opportunity which might occur of restoring the ordinary.course of law, the departures from which, he in most cases locked upon as stimu. !ants of the evils they were intended to col-tea ; and he would be excused in referring to his own conduct on the occasion, when it unfortunately became necessary to pass the Inspec tion Act. When that Act was in operation, he was very un willing to put it in force on many occasions on which it had been called for, because he was of opinion that too fre quent or unnecessary application of it would have the effect of paralysing the ordinary law, and at the same time render the act itself less effective. The question to which he would call the attention of the House was, whether nocturnal outrages were or were not connected with agitation. If it appeared that they were not, then there was good reason why the clauses proposed to be omitted should be left out. But if it appeared that agitation and outrage stood to each other in the relation of cause and effect ; if the connection of outrage with agitation were made manifest, the House would not be justified in tying the knot about the neck of the inferior delinquent, and permit those who advocated and excited to those outrages to escape. —( Cheers.) It was his own most decided conviction that there was the most intimate connection between outrage and agitation ? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that it was wrong to attribute( I will not call them prmdial outrages) these atrocious crimes to agitation ; he says more, and insists that the greater the agitation the greater is the security against these crimes ; and referred to his own letters as being effective in the suppression of local disturbances. He ( Sir R. Peel) did not doubt but the Hon. and Learned Gentleman might be able to effect a temporary cessation of disturbance ; but should agitation be allowed to continue, to enable him to exercise a practical control over rioters ?—( Cheers.) It was not to be denied that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did possess the power of repressing outrage ; but what would be the eventual consequence of his assuming such control as that by the posses sion of which he boasted to have carried the Relief Bill for the Roman Catholics ? If allowed to possess such control as the power of continual agitation would afford him, might he not equally rely upon it as a means of procuring the other measure of which he was the advocate, namely, Repeal of the Union ? —(Loud cheers.) Would it be wise to purchase such a temporary suppression of outrage at such an expense as that of granting the exercise of a power which might ultimately, by a physical force, compel a separation.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) Such, in his opinion, would be the result; and he was led to the conclusion as well by his experience of Ireland, as by the deductions of his reason in considering the subject, which de ductions he further found fortified by facts. Ministers proposed to pass the present measure with the omissions, and supported their proposition by certain documents. He referred to those documents, and found their contents to be conclusive for the extension of the clauses which referred to political agitation. From the lowest to the highest, from the constable to the Mo narch, all the evidence tended that way. They all concurred in the necessity of extending those clauses, and it would be injustice in the last degree to visit the poor instruments with punishment and not include the nobler and more powerful au thors of the evil. He would only ask the House to hear him with patience for a few moments, and he would undertake to show, from the documents on the table, as well as from other sources, that the information contained in them was as conclu sive for extending the Bill to political agitation as to agrarian outrage.—( Hear, hear.) The first authority he would refer to was the various reports of the police officers, and these re ports bore him out. The next in order was the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, who, on the first (second) day of the Session, in answer to a question, "whether he con sidered the excitement created by the repeal question was the cause of the disturbances complained of," replied that " he had no hesitation in saying that the speeches made at political meet ings, and especially the strong language used, held out an encouragent to commit a breach of the laws, and, to a certain extent, contributed to the outrages which prevailed in some districts." If such was the 'result of the language used at these meetings, why should the agitation be permitted, whilst the outrage of which it was the moving cause was punished ? The next document which he should produce would be the testimony of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ; and in order to put these records in a connected form, he would read the opinion of that Nobleman, as given in the papers laid before the House. The document was dated 15th April, 1834, and contained the following passage : " These disturbances have been, in every instance, excited and inflamed by the agitation of the combined projects for the abolition of tithes and the destruction of the Union with' Great Britain. I cannot employ words of sufficient strength to elpreSs my solicitude that his 'Majesty's Government should fix the deepest attention on the intimate connection marked by the strongest characters in all these transactions between the system of agitation, and its inevi table consequences, the system of combination leading to violence and outrage. They are inseparably cause and effect ; nor can I •(after the most attentive consideration of the dreadful scenes pass ing under my view) by any effort of my understanding, separate one from the other in that unbroken chain of indissoluble connec tion."--(Loud cheers). These were the opinions of members of Government ; and he thought they were sufficient evidence to bear him out in his conviction. In addition to these, he had other authority. He had the authority of eight out of thirteen persons in the Admi nistration, who were all of opinion that the enactments with regard to political agitation should be renewed. He did not ask who the five in the Administration were, who were dis sentient from the general opinion. The Noble Lord had vo lunteered to name them ; but still there were eight who thought the law ought to pass in its original form. The opinion that it should be thus, arose from the humblest to the very highest functionaries, until it proceeded to the very top of the pillar, and was sanctioned by the very highest authority—no higher could be, except that of the King; he alluded to the authority of the late Premier, who proved by his resignation that he still held the opinion. Nay, there was still higher authority, that of the King himself. In the speech uttered from the Throne at the opening of the present session, the connection between the agitation and outrage was most distinctly pointed out. The words were as follows To the practices which have been used to produce disaffection to the State, and mutual distrust and animosity between the people of the two countries, is chiefly to be attributed the spirit of in subordination, which though for the present in a great degree con trolled by the power of the law, has been but too perceptible in many instances. " . To none more than to the deluded instruments of the agitation thus perniciously excited is the continuance of such a spirit produc tive of the melt ruinous consequences ; and the u n it e d an d v i gorous exertions of the loyal and well - affected in aid of the Government, are imperiously required to put an end to a system of excitement and violence, which, whilst it continues, is destructive of the peace of society, and if successful, must inevitably prove fatal to the power and safety of the United Kingdom." Such was the opinion, not only of the highest executive an thority, but of one possessing the milder power of dispensing mercy. After such testimony as this, the course pursued by the Ministry was calculated to shake the confidence which should be placed in official documents. Was it possible that the Lord Lieutenant, who could not consent to the omission of the political clauses, would now agree to their omission ? Was his change of opinion created by communications made from this side of the water; and was it this which made him now consent to abandon the clauses ? The House had a right to be acquainted with the circumstances which induced this change of opinion. Not an absolute, but a moral right. That there must be letters of a private nature, and written in con fidence, he was ready to admit ; and though the line was diffi cult to be drawn between what was private and what may be disclosed, there must be a line. In his opinion, the moment private letters were made the avowed grounds of public and legislative proceedings, that moment they changed their cha racter, and became public. So it was in the present instance. It was necessary to the character of the Lord Lieutenant that they should be made public. It was also necessary to clear up circumstances with regard to the Noble Lord, the late Premier; for if it appeared that the Secretary for Ireland made sug gestions to the Lord Lieutenant of which the Premier was not aware, it was not surprising that the latter had retired from office.—( Hear, hear.) Though there was no official right to demand these explanations, the authors were called on in justice to explain this. The question for him ( Sir R. Peel) now to consider was, what course lie should adopt, and though he was anxious to rivet the connexion between the two coun tries, he still would not think of enforcing upon Government more power than they themselves thought sufficient for their purposes. He should not move the re-insertion of the clauses intended to be omitted, but still retained his opinion, that it was most unjust to visit the deluded poor with the severity of the law, whilst that which affected those by whom they were abetted was repealed. _ _ Mr. LITTLETON was sure that the House would not consider that he was unduly trespassing upon them, in at tempting to follow his Right lion. Friend, deeply implicated as he was in all the transactions to which he had alluded, and feeling, as he honestly did feel, that he would be enabled to oiler to the House a satisfactory justification of his conduct. But before he adverted to what had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, he would, in the first place, address himself to some of the remarks made by the Hon. and Learned Member for the city of Dublin. And he thought he might fairly ap peal to his conduct since he had been in office, to prove that he was not justly liable to the accusation of desiring the pos session of arbitrary or unconstitutional powers, of which, ex cept in a case of urgent and extreme necessity, he had always entertained the utmost abhorrence.—( Hear.) Never in the course of his life, had he given a vote with more entire satis faction, and with more complete conviction of the soundness of the conclusions upon which he founded it, than he should that night give his vote in favour of the motion of his Hon. Friend. During the last session of Parliament, Hon. Mem bers were aware how great an outcry was raised against the provisions of the Coercion Act; yet it was most singular, that, during his visit to Dublin, where he spent the greater part of the last autumn and whiter, communicating as he did with va rious individuals, of every variety and shade of political senti ment, he never once heard a single opinion unfavourable to the provisions of the Bill, nor, indeed, ever heard them spoken of save in terms of unqualified approbation. Even by persons resident in the proclaimed districts was this approbation ex pressed, together with a hope that the principal provisions of the Bill would be this session renewed.—( Hear, hear.) It was also singular, that in only one instance since the passing of the Act had there been any complaint of the manner in which its powers were exercised. Mr. SHE IL—Yes, the Marquis of Clanricarde objected to its extension to parts of the county of Galway. Mr. LITTLETON repeated what he had said, that in only one instance had any such complaint been made, and that was made not at the instance of the individual aggrieved. The individual alluded to was stopped in the middle of the night, in the county of Kilkenny, and certainly suffered some tempo rary inconvenience, but on reference being made to her, she expressed her sorrow and indignation that any such complaint should have been forwarded. It was certainly true that the Marquis of Clanricarde, when referred to by the Lord Lieute nant, or rather by himself (both being in London at the time), for his opinion, did say that he thought it unnecessary to ex tend the proclamation to certain baronies in Galway ; but as the proclaiming those districts had been recommended by the universal voice of the resident magistrates, the Noble Marquis cautiously observed that he thought the Lord Lieutenant would do right to follow the advice of those whose knowledge was more local and recent than his own, however opposed to his own individual opinion. Feeling that it would be necessary, before the conclusion of the present session of Parliament, to take the sense of the House as to a renewal of at least a portion of the provisions of this Act, he thought he could not better sa tisfy the House with evidence as to the value and working of the provisions of this act than by putting before them the papers recently laid on their table. By those papers it appeared that four districts had been proclaimed--the county of Kilkenny, and certain baronies in King's county, Westmeath, and Galway. On comparing the number of offences committed in the county of Kilkenny (luring the year prior and the year subsequent to the proclamation, it appeared that the number of outrages during the year preceding the 10th April, 1833, was 1,519 ; and in the year following only 330. In King's county. which had been only recently pro claimed, the outrages for three months prior to the proclama tion were 113 ; for the three months since, 4. In Westmeath, during the month prior to the proclamation, 21 ; during the following month, only 3.—( Hear, hear.) He could not bet ter point out to the House the real condition of the proclaimed districts, than by reading a passage from a letter addressed to him by Lord Oxmantown on the 9th April last, describing the state of King's county, but which was in reality applicable to the whole of the disturbed districts. The Right Hon. Gen tleman then read the passage alluded to, in which the noble writer described the power of the combinations as greater than that of the law, and disobedience to the commands of the former infinitely more frequent, though severely and certainly punished, than any infraction of the latter. He had not had time to compile what would have been extremely instructive, as illustrating the actual state of society in Ireland—viz., a comparative view of the committals in the two countries. But he might generally say, that the result of that inves tigation was, that in England there were a few cases of murder, forgery, and other heavy crimes, but that the rest and great majority consisted of cases of larceny and robbery of a smaller description. In Ireland these latter offences constituted but a small portion of the calendars, which were principally filled with cases of outrage and violence of an in surrectionary character, whose features were in this country utterly unknown. Surely, then, this proved that the laws adopted to put down, or at least restrain, certain classes of crime in England, could not be expected to be equally power ful in restraining an entirely different species of crime in Ire land. It was anticipated at first that a great increase of ex pense would be the result of the Coercion Act. But this had net been proved to be the case. On the contrary, in the county of Kilkenny, which had been proclaimed, a considerable saving had taken place, consequential on the r es t ora ti on o f tranquil lity ; and two chief constables, four private constables, sixty peace-preservation officers, and one chief magistrate, had been dispensed with.—( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle man, in the course of his speech, adverted to the ad van t ag es which had resulted from sending a special commission to Clare, and from the still greater advantages which might be ex pected to result from a permanent legislative measure founded on the report of the Queen's County Committee. With regard to the latter suggestion, he was inclined to agree with the Hen. and Learned Gentleman, and he was ready to admit that the issuing of a special commission to Clare had been productive of the greatest advantage. But the correspondence which he had had with the principal Irish officers on the subject, together with his own experience, had satisfied him that neither of these measures would have been adequate to produce the comparative tranquillity which the Coercion Act had happily effected. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had complained that, notwithstanding the three clauses which suppressed meetings generally would be given up, still no meetings, except under certain restrictions, could be holden in the proclaimed districts. He did not know whether the House had remarked the fact, but he had, and it was made a matter of boast by the Hon. Member for that county, that the greatest number of petitions against tithes which had been presented this session, had been sent from the County of Kilkenny, which was proclaimed. This, therefore, , clearly showed, as indeed had been admitted, that this clause of the Bill did not operate as a bar to a legitimate and powerful expression of the opinions of the inhabitants of the proclaimed districts.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman also adverted, in terms of great severity, to the political cha racter and conduct of Mr. Blackburn, the Attorney-General for Ireland. It was possible that a strong feeling on that sub ject might be entertained by some Members from Ireland ; but he should be doing great injustice to his Hon. and Learned Friend (and he was proud to call him so), if he did not de clare that he entertained the highest opinion of his honour, integrity, and firmness, and that he had ever found him give a ready assent to the most liberal line of policy that he (Mr. Littleton) was prepared to suggest.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had been also complained that the number of Catholics em ployed in the police was immensely disproportioned to the number of Protestants (as we understood, 300 only in 5,000). He certainly was not aware that such a disproportion existed ; and he did not hesitate to say that it was most desirable for the peace of Ireland, and to secure the sympathy of the Catholic population in that country with the Government, that the proportion of Catholics in the magistracy and police should be materially increased.—( Cheers.) Having disposed of these points, he might now be permitted to advert to what he had before alluded to, and again to expresi the deep pain and regret which he felt, and must ever feel, when he reflected, that by the indiscretion of which he had been guilty, of dis closing the opinions of the Irish Government to any individual, he should have caused to the country the great and irreparable loss of Lord Grey's services. Of that Nobleman he would say that he had never, in the course of his public life, been connected with any individual who more powerfully attracted him (Mr. Littleton) towards himself, not only by a similarity of views, not only by his powerful and courageous advocacy of liberal principles, but likewise and especially by the uniform kindness and frankness of his conduct.:—( Hear, hear.) From no person had he ever received more kindness--for no one liv ing would he make greater sacrifices—from no one living would he more readily submit to a rebuke. He repeated, he felt the deepest pain at the position in which he was placed.-- ( Cheers.) Feeling thus strongly on the . subject, when the present Government was in the course of being constructed by Lord Melbourne, he took the liberty of pointing out to his Lordship th a unnatural position in which he should feel_ him :elf if he who was the cause of Lord Grey's resignation should still retain his office ; and he expressed to his Lordship THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1834, his strong repugnance to continuing in the situation which he had the honour of occupying.—( Hear.) Why he remained, it was not necessary to state. That it had not been of his own seeking, Heaven knew ; and whether it was prudent to desire him to remain, he would leave it to the House to judge; but he felt he should not have done justice to his own character, had he not declared in the strongest possible manner his re luctance to remain in office. Having said thus much, he hoped it would not offend the Noble Lord's feelings; nor the feelings of any other party, if he spoke boldly and uncompromisinE,rly, his opinions on the question before them. His Right Hon. Friend, with the excellence of memory for which he was re markable, had adverted to a declaration made by him early in the session. He was aware that be had made such a decla ration ; and he stated then what he was ready to state now, that he did think the moral effect resulting from political agitation in Ireland was most pernicious, and tended, if not to create, in some measure to--he did not like to use the word sane tion"—but at least not to discountenance, these outrages. But because he entertained this opinion, it 'by no means 'fol lowed that he would, therefore, feel the certainty that these powers against meetings of a certain description, to put down which those powers were, on the passing of the Act, imme diately and successfully applied, were necessary under existing circumstances in Ircland.—( Hear.) He was not of that opinion. There were two descriptions of meetings. It was not in the contemplation of the law passed last Session to put down meetings legally convened for legal purposes—holding out no dangerous combinations, threatening no existing institu tions, the peace and order of society, or the connection be tween the two countries. Before this Act was passed, there were two descriptions of illegal combinations—the Irish Volunteers, and the National Trades' Unions—both highly dangerous in their character—both holding central meetings in Dublin, communicating with similar combinations in the provinces, and thus enabling those individuals who would rule the central meetings to direct the excited energies of the whole of a discontented population to any object which they might have in view. These combinations were altogether put an end to, and from that time to the present no attempt had been made to revive them.—( Hear, from Sir R. Peel.) He understood the cheer of his Right Hon. Friend. No doubt his Right Hon. Friend thought it was impossible to re-orga nize them, on account of this Coercion Bill.—( Hear, hear. ) Surely, then, if this argument were good for 1834, it would be good for 1835 and 1836. They had now had fifteen months' experience since these meetings were dissolved. They had no occasion to increase these powers in that Act ; and surely that was good reason for abandoning them, in the full expectation that their revival would not again be ren dered necessary, the Government pledging itself, if it should find itself disappointed, instantly to call Parliament together, and ask a renewal of this law for two years. He certainly could not deny that on the 15th of April Lord Wellesley re commended the unqualified renewal of these powers ; but an interval of two months having elapsed, it appeared to him to be his duty to call the attention of the Lord Lieutenant again to the subject. He submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, in general terms, much the same arguments as he had addressed to the House to-night ; and he said that he retained his opi nion that they would find great difficulty in carrying on the business of the country during the remainder of the session, if the retention of those clauses were insisted upon. In thus expressing his fair and candid opinion, he was not aware that he had taken any course inconsistent with his duty, his cha racter for (the remainder of the sentence was drowned in loud cheers)—but he deeply regretted, that in taking that step he had not previously consulted the matured judgment of his Noble Friend then at the head of the Government ; but not at that time feeling any certainty that the Lord Lieutenant would agree with him, he did not sufficiently feel the import ance of making such a communication. He felt bound, how ever, to observe, that the precocious letter of Lord Wellesley, and the evidence of Sir John Conroy, related to agricultural disturbances principally, and were not specifically directed to the class of disturbances which it was the object of this Bill to put down. It was not his intention to have addressed the House at such length ; he would not further trespass on them. Lord H OW I C K should exceedingly regret to throw any difficulty in the way of the Noble Lord ( Althorp) who sat below him, whose Government he was not less anxious to sup port than when he had the honour of being an official secre tary ; but he still thought that, in what had just passed, there were some points which required further elucidation. If he committed any error, he trusted the House would bear with him. He stood in a most difficult situation. He had been unable to consult any one individual. With those of his friends who remained connected with Government, delicacy forbade his communicating or asking advice ; whilst still less would he ask the advice which he most valued, because he knew that the individual with whom he was most nearly con nected, and whose reputation, if anything, would throw a cloud over it, which he did not think was the case—( Loud cheers) he knew that individual would, out of delicacy, have declined to speak of anything that might have affected others. But he thought that in these matters delicacy might be pushed too far.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") What he remarked in the speech of his Right Hon. Friend who had just sat down was this—he acknowledged the force of the arguments which he had urged against those clauses, and admitted that he had placed it in a point which rendered the expediency of retaining them doubtful. But if his Right Hon. Friend entertained these opinions--if he thought these clauses unnecessary under existing circumstances, why did he not bring that opinion under the notice of the head of the Go vernment prior to the 2:id June ? It had been stated by Lord Grey in the House of Lords, aryl it had not been denied, that shortly antecedent to that period, the question of the renewal of the Coercion Bill was formally brought before the Cabinet. The Right Hon. Gentleman, from his official situation, must have known that it was to be so brought forward. Why did he not get some member of the Cabinet to state his objections to these clauses? But no—it was stated by his Noble Friend below him, that the Cabinet came to the unanimous vote that it should be renewed in the shape in which it stood, minus the Courtmartial clause. On that decision, Lord Grey gave in structions to the Attorney-General, and the Bill was prepared. What happened next? On the 23d June, his Lordship re ceived a letter from Lord Wellesley, directly at variance with the whole tenour of his former correspondence, public and private, with the Irish Government. Up to the moment when Lord Grey broke the seal of that letter, he had not the most distant guess or suspicion that his Right Honour able Friend was unfavourable to these clauses. Did his Right Honourable Friend see the effect of this conduct upon the Cabinet? Did he see, that in taking credit to himself for popular views, and for an abhorrence of un constitutional measures, he was in effect, though not, perhaps, by direct implication, throwing a censure on those who took a different view of the case? He did not wish to enter further into this subject ; but having perceived, on the part of many Members of that House, a considerable disposition to throw discredit on one with whom he was dearly connected.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") He was sure such was not the feeling of his Hon. Friends near him; but was not some such feeling displayed when they were asked for three cheers for those who had stood up for the people in the Cabinet ? just as though those who had taken an opposite course had desired to trample upon the people. He wished to put to his Right Hon. Friend one simple question, and in asking it he should state that he had studiously abstained from seeking any conference with Lord Grey which might fetter him in any observations he might think it right to make, and that he knew nothing under the seal of secrecy which he should violate by asking this Ties tion. He would ask his Right Hon. Friend if, when this com munication took place which induced Lord Wellesley to change his opinion, he made the communication simply by himself? Was he the only person who suggested that alteration of opi nion, or did the suggestion take place in concert with others, and unknown to the person at the head of the Government ? He thought that, for the honour of all public men, this ques tion ought to be answered. Mr. LITTLETON thought the Noble Lord was not mo rally entitled to put to him that question. It was not because he had committed one indiscretion that he was, therefore, to commit another.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He submitted that he could not fairly be called on to answer such a question.— ( Cheers.) As to the delay in ,the expression of his opinion, he understood the Cabinet to have made up their minds to re new the Bill as it was, except the Courtmartial clause.. He did not feel himself justified in expressing his opinion till he had ascertained whether the Lord Lieutenant had retained his sentiments. And, indeed, his opinion of the non-necessity of those clauses was not fixed till he came to make up the pa pers for Parliament, when he saw at once that they could not sustain the application. On this he communicated with the Lord Lieutenant, and had his answer been unfavourable, the public would have heard nothing about it. Mr. F. O'C ONN OR expressed his surprise that the fight Hon. Gentleman would not answer the question. He was sure that if he could have conscientiously denied the imputation thrown out, he would have done so. The slight pretexts on which the Bill was proposed were quite laughable. Nothing was ever done by the Legislature for the benefit of Ireland. It was contended by some that the Reform Bill had benefitted Ireland ; but he called upon any man who knew Ireland to look at all the classes of the population of that country, and to tell him how the condition of any one of those classes had been bettered by reform. Before they coerced the people of Ireland would it not be just—would it not be wise, to give the people of that country something, to which, after that coercion had ceased, they might return with pleasure ? But would it be a temporary coercion ? It was clear that the late Cabinet had meditated a measure of great severity against Ireland, and its headless trunk might yet coerce Ire land permanently, as had been threatened by the Noble Lord. The Coercion Bill, even if suspended, would henceforward always be kept as a rod of tyranny over the heads of the pea santry of Ireland by their landlords. He well remembered the tyranny that had been occasioned in Ireland in 1825, by the Duke of York's speech on emancipation ; which speech had been printed in gold, framed, and hung over the mantel-piece of every Orange landlord in the country, by whom it was re ferred to for the purpose of keeping down the peasantry. Sent to that House as he (Mr. O'Connor) was, by the largest "county in Ireland, he would never con sen t th a t the principles of the constitution should be destroyed in the persons of the peasantry of Ireland. He knew not what precise course the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin would adopt with res pect to this measure ; but he trusted that, if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not oppose it altogether, he would endeavour in the Committee to get rid of some of the harsh ness of its provisions. For himself (Mr. O'Connor), he would oppose the bill that night, if he walked out of the House alone, for he could never consent to coerce a starving population. He must say that Government had no more his confidence now than they had before they were remodelled. Mr. BARRON considered the proposed Bill to be a pro tective measure against those lawless ruffians, who, having neither character nor property to lose, attacked the lives and property of all the respectable classes of society in Ireland. Such being his opinion of the measure, it was unnecessary for him to add, that he thought it was one which every honest man ought to support. ( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) • He could easily understand why the measure was not palateablc to the Right Hon. Gentleman near him, who had once been Chief Secretary for Ireland. That Right Hon. Gentleman wished for something more arbitrary. His disposition had been evinced by the mad acts which had nearly produced rebellion in Ire land ; and it was not unnatural that his disappointed ambition should not relish such a measure as the present. He (Mr. Barron), however, was confident that the measure would give great satisfaction to the people of Ireland. At the same time he must declare; that he would have given the Bill his strongest opposition, if it had been brought forward in that House in the shape in which it had been introduced into the House of Lords. The conduct of his Majesty's present Go vernment with respect to the measure, had been perfectly jus tifiable and laudable. Indeed, it was impossible that they could think of bringing the measure forward in the same shape ; for it was evident that as soon as it became known in Ireland that the Lord Lieutenant and five Members of the Cabinet were op posed to the severer provisions ofithe Bill, it would have been im practicable to carry those provisions into effect. He trusted that from the present time a milder and a better mode of governing Ireland would be resorted to than that which had been hitherto practised. All measures of severity had totally failed in go verning that country. Was it not time to have recourse to a new system—to a system founded upon affection, honesty, and common sense ? Was it not time to try to govern Ireland like England? That he was persuaded would be the only way to render the people of Ireland attached to the Govern ment. The Irish were a high-minded, a talented, and a brave people; they were determined to he free, and God forbid that they should ever show themselves to be unworthy of the free dom which they sought. He repeated that he should give his support to the present Bill, but only as a temporary measure, passed for the purpose of putting down temporary disturb ances. He hoped that before the next session of Parliament his Majesty's Government would be prepared, not with one, two, or three, but with a long series of measures, for the im provement of the condition of Ireland ; for it would be found that a long series of measures would be indispensably neces sary to remove the existing- and varied causes of discontent. He agreed to the Bill, because he wished to protect lives and property, now in danger ; but he did not agree to it for the purpose of supporting a system in Ireland which must be totally eradicated before that country could be placed in a condition in which it ought to be. Mr. CLAY thought that the papers on the table afforded ample justification for the Bill, deprived of the clauses which were formerly annexed to it ; but he could not see in those papers the slightest justification for those clauses. Those papers afforded no proof of political disaffection, but they afforded ample proof of the distress of the population. He had sought in vain in them for evidence of any connexion between agrarian disturbance and political disaffection. He congratulated the House on the return to power of a Govern ment which, professing liberal feelirgs and opinions, was en titled to their support. As to the changes that had taken place in a few of the individuals of that Government, he did not think that that House or the public had , much to do with them. They ought to look only at the measures which were pursued. Indeed, the day had almost gone by when indivi duals could add to the strength of Government. That was now a weak Government which attacked the popular will and intelligence ; that was now a strong Government which ac corded with the popular will and intelligence. He trusted that the present Government would avail themselves of alit* ad vantages which Parliamentary Reform afforded them for car rying a temperate and conciliatory, but a firm spirit of reform into all the various departments of the public service. O'C ONNOR DON could not support the Bill in its present shape. If it did not undergo the modifications in the Com mittee to which the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had adverted, he must undoubtedly vote against it. He con gratulated them, however, on the different tone which pre vailed in the House on this Bill, in comparison with that which existed on the introduction of the Coercion Bill of last Session. Mr. H. BUL WE R could not refuse his approbation to the greatest part of the Bill then before the House. It was highly gratifying to find that a measure having the same ten dency as the Bill of last year, could still be moderated in so material a degree. Though he admitted that great distress prevailed in some parts of Ireland, still he must beg to assert that such distress furnished no reasen whateverlwhy they should not protect property.—( Hear. ) Mr. RUTHVEN said, that modified as the Bill was, he must still vote against it, as it authorized a material interfe rence with the rights of the people, by debarring them in cer tain cases of the power of petitioning the King and Parliament. He must express hie surprise at what had been asserted by gentlemen on the ministerial benches as to the favourable view which was taken of the Coercion Bill in Ireland. He was satisfied, if such opinions had been expressed, they came from individuals having the passport of the Solicitor-General and the police, and not from the really independent gentry of the country. He must, however, express his great delight at the course which Ministers professed themselves anxious to pursue in Ireland, assuring them that in granting justice to his coun trymen, they would be certain of a grateful return. Mr. CHRISTMAS was understood to oppose the Bill on the ground of the omission of the three clauses, when the same necessity of coercion which existed last year prevailed at the present period. Mr. SHE IL said he was not aware that in the part of Ire land with which the Hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Bar ron) was connected, and in which he justly exercised a consi derable influence, the peasantry were particularly solicitous to have the locks turned on their hovels, or a power given to the Government to suppress the public voice. But the real ques tion before the House was this, had the Noble Lord the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, or had he not, made out a case to jus tify the House in passing the Bill then under consideration ? He (Mr. Sheil) answered that the Noble Lord had not made out such a case—that he had not brought forward sufficient evidence to induce the House to consent to another violation of the constitution of the country. Was the measure a violation of the constitution ? The Noble Lord must answer with him (Mr. Shiel) that it was. But it seemed that Ministers had been wrong in their first views with respect to the Bill—by their subsequent conduct they admitted this, for they gave up one Bill for the purpose of introducing another. If they had been wrong in supporting the whole Bill, might they not be also wrong in supporting a portion of it? Should they not, after such changes, doubt their own judgments ? Last year they had marshalled their forces—summoned all their friends— expended all their eloquence in demonstrating the utter impos sibility of carrying on the Government of Ireland, and main taining anything like tranquillity without drum-head justice— they had condemned all those who denounced such a provision —and yet they now found, after all, that they were in the wrong. Again he asked, ought they not to doubt their own judgment ? In the year 1830, when Ministers came into office, and when nocturnal fires were blazing throughout the country, what would have been thought of them if they had brought in a Coercion Bill like the one before them, on the evidence of whom? of Cou n ti es ? N o . Of t h e J u d g es of the land? No. Of Of the magistracy? No. Of the Lord Lieutenants the Grand Jurors ? No,—but the evidence of policemen—of men whose testimony should at all times be taken with caution—who drew their livelihood from the Government on which they were ever impressing the ne cessity of maintaining their own authority.—( Hear, hear. ) Then as to the imperfections of the existing Bill. They had extended its provisions over the county and city of Kilkenny ; and when the people had applied for permission to hold a pub plic meeting to express their opinions on the tithe question, the Castle of Dublin had refused the request. And did they mean this power still to be given ? Did they mean to allow the Lord Lieutenant the power of suppressing a meeting in districts which had been proclaimed 1 Why, this was an easy way, in deed of gagging public opinion. Let it be but rumoured that a public meeting was to be held in such and such a place, and all the Lord Lieutenant had to do to hinder unplea sant truths from coming to the ears of the Government, was to proclaim the district ; and when applied to for permission to hold the meeting, to refuse it, as he had done in the instance of Kilkenny. Without even giving a reason, the Lord Lieu tenant could do, by these indirect and unworthy means, that which he would blush to do by a direct course.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) Therefore, he (Mr. Sheil) submitted two propositions—that there was no evidence to justify the Bill ; and the Lord Lieutenant was armed with a power insidiously to do that which openly and directly he would shrink from dointr. Why, the Government had ad mitted the grievances of Ireland ; the Noble Lord the Pay master of the Forces (Lord John Russell) had himself de clared there could be no greater injustice than that under which the Catholics of Ireland laboured in having to maintain in enormous wealth, a church in whose doctrines they did not believe. Now what he ( Mr. Sheil) required them to do, was to redress first; and if obedience to the law did not follow, then to coerce. A pretty strong hint had been thrown out in the other House by the Noble Viscount at the head of the Government, of his intention, at whatever season, of summon ing Parliament, should the state of Ireland require that fur ther powers should be vested in the Government. Now this was in fact a threat. But if the Noble Viscount was prepared to take this step, why not let the present Bill stand over, and if the necessity arose, call Parliament together ? Prandial dis -1 turbance did not now exist to any great extent. Let them try over till next Session ; if the necessity arose in the inter ' mediate space, then let them be called together to legislate for the emergency. If this held good in the one case, why not in the other ? Ministers themselves acknowledged that juries did their duty; and if this Was the case, why not allow the law of the land to take its course ? Why suspend the course of the constitution? The present Administration were adopting the old policy which they themselves had so often reprobated. He felt it his bounden duty to vote against the Bill in the first stage. He knew that there would be a large majority against him, but he trusted he should receive general support in his endeavours to modify the Bill in Committee. Mr. A I3E RCR OMB Y said that the speech of the Hon. Member for Tipperary appeared to have been delivered by him in the character of a lawyer rather than that of a legisla tor. With respect to the change of opinion which took place i n th e mind of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that was con fined to the three clauses which it was not now proposed to continue. With regard to the other provisions of the Bill, the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant remained unchanged ; and it was entirely the argument of a lawyer, when it was at tempted to show that because there had been one change of opinion, it was not unlikely that another might take place. He (Mr. Abercromby) considered it very remarkable, that the Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Sheil) had seriously ventured at that late stage of the discussion, to argue that no case had been made out to justify the proposal of the Bill before the House. He asked the House whether such a case had not been clearly proved ? In the first place, he would refer to the report upon the state of Ireland, which was presented to the House in 1832, and which report had been mentioned with so much re spect by several Hon. Members. He was prepared to main tain, in concurrence with the Hon. Gentleman who presented that report, that there did exist h most lawless spirit in Ire land ; and that it was likely to continue, because it arose out of the tae of society in that country. Whole counties, and , several baronies, had been proclaimed ; and it 'had' not been pretended that the Government had misapplied the powers of the Act in so doing. As the tranquillity of that unfor tunate country was not restored, and as Government was re sponsible for the preservation of the lives and property of the inhabitants, it was evident that measures of severity were still requisite. He thought that the House would do well, on a future occasion, to consider the suggestion in the report of 1832, for passing some permanent measure which might se cure both person and property in Ireland, and which should be as consonant as possible with the principles of the constitu tion.—( Hear, hear.) This would be a much wiser course than the periodical introduction of temporary measures of severity which tended to excite much ill feeling and discord. He did not wish to enter into a discussion on the effects of agitation upon the minds of the people ; but he certainly felt that the use of strong language to the populace was calculated to in flame them to acts of violence. In reference, however, to that point, he for one, thought that, under all the circumstances of the case, they were in a condition which justified them in making the experiment whether they could not safely govern Ireland without having recourse to the arbitrary powers for suppressing and preventing meetings. As the Government undertook the responsibility of carrying on the Government without these clauses, he trusted that those who possessed great power over the people of Ireland would not forget the responsibility imposed on them by the country, and the necessity of exercising that power in a wise and con ciliatory manner. Should the Government he compelled here after to call for the enactment of the provisions now omitted, it would be recollected that the Government had not shown a want of confidence in the people of Ireland, and that the whole responsibility rested on those who abused the indulgence of the Government and the Parliament.—(Much cheering.) Colonel PE RCE VAL regretted that the Bill had not been proposed without any modifications, for nineteen out of twenty of the intelligent inhabitants of Ireland considered its re-enact ment essential to the protection of life and property. But Ministers succumbed to an Hon. and Learned Member, who, it appeared, was their right hand. The Gallant Col o n e l, after denying that Lord Westmeath or Lord Mountsandford had acted with cruelty towards their tenants, concluded by calling on Ministers to act a straightforward and manly course instead of temporizing, for the purpose of delaying the storm a little longer. Notwithstanding their coalition with the Hon. and Learned Member, who he understood had agreed to put an end to agitation for the time, the storm would come at last upon them like a great extinguisher, and the sooner, the better.— ( Laughter. _ _ _ Mr: O'CONNELL said he had made his statements rela tive to the Noble Lords on the authority of a newspaper. Mr. SPRING RICE said, that if _they had resolved to act upon the principles of the Gallant Colonel, they would have been lauded for their impartiality ; but now that they had determined to conduct the Government of Ireland without reference to party principles, the opposite course was pur sued. The Right Hon. Gentleman denied the charges which had been made against Lord Mountsandford, and s a id th a t they were refuted in a rival newspaper, which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) might have seen. The Right Hon. Secretary then contended, at great length, that a sufficient case had been made out to justify the House in passing the Bill. With reference to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, he begged to remind him of what took place in the year 1822. In the February of that year, at the time of the formation of the Wellesley Govern ment, and when the Right Hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was Chief Secretary for Ireland, two Bills were introduced into that House. One was intended to put down political agitation, and the other to put down what was called prmdial disturbance. One was the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the other was the Insurrection Act. These bills were founded upon papers then laid upon the table of the House, and he acted with regard to them precisely as he intended to act now.—( Hear, hdar.) To the Insurrection Act, which was intended to give protection to life and pro perty, by putting down prwdial agitation, he assented reluct antly ; but still he - did assent to it. To the other Bill, the political Bill, that for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, he refused his assent. The Legislature, however, passed both ; but what happened on the Ist of August on the same year when they expired ? Why, that the Government abandoned the act which related to political agitation, but renewed the Insurrection Act. He did not complain of ! this ; but if it was proper in the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite and his friends then to make this kind of distinction, it was rather strange that they should now turn round upon the present Go vernment to reproach it for following their example ; for the severance of the parts of the Coercion Bill amounted to no more.—( Hear, hear.) It had been truly stated, that after the declaration of the Irish Government had become known, it would have been impossible to carry the Courtmartial clauses in that House ; but supposing it had been possible, what, he must ask, would have been the effect of carrying them under such circumstances? He moved the amendment to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin for the repeal of the Union, and had the honour of being supported by a large majority of that House ; but he would put it to the Hon. and Learned Member, he would put it to the House and to the country, to say whether a stronger argument could have been desired by the Hon. and Learned Member than the being able to say that the objectionable clauses of this Bill had been disapproved of by the Irish Government, but that an English House of Commons and an English Cabinet had forced them upon a re luctant Irish Administration ?—( Hear.) He would take another opportunity of putting the Hon. and Learned Gentle man in possession of the particular facts to which he had alluded, and if he should satisfy the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, as he did not doubt he should be able to do, he should leave it to his candour to acknowledge it. He was reminded that it had been said by the Hon. and Gallant Member (Col. Perceval) that his Majesty's Ministers had come -to an under standing with the Hon. Gentleman opposite. Certainly when his Right Hon. Friend said that whilst the Government was prepared to do without these clauses, it knew perfectly well that others were also responsible for the tranquillity of the country, he used terms not without significance ; but if the Hon. and Gallant Member thought they proved the existence of such an understanding as he described, the meaning he attached to them was very different from that which, Tightly construed, they properly bore. It might be relied upon that the Hon. and Learned Member and his friends would not dragoon them out of measures they thought beneficial, by threatening them with the kind of understanding alluded to.— ( Hear, hear.) His Majesty's Government would not be frightened from doing that which would be popular in Ireland, by the dread of such an understanding being imputed to them. They would do their duty to Ireland • and if it met the appro bation of different parties in that House, so much the better. They took it as incident to a proper measure, and it would be as great cowardice to shrink from the supposed approval of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, as it would be to shrink from his opposition. He had not shrunk from his op position, and he should not shrink from receiving support to a measure good in itself, let it come from what quarter it might. Mr. D. RONAYNE opposed the bill, as he had the autho rity of the Judges of the Assize in Ireland for saying that the ordinary law of the land was sufficient to maintain the peace of the country. Mr. CO BB ETT would vote against the bill, and put up his prayers that its only effect might be to injure those who brought it in. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion l4O Against it Majority --97 Lord A LTHORP accordingly presented the bill, which was read a first time, and appointed to be read a second time on Monday next. CHURCH TEMPORALITIES ACT AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill went through a Committee 7to be reported on Monday next, and bill to be printed. LANCASTER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BILL. On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, re port farther considered ; the bill to be read a third time on Monday next. TRADING COMPANIES BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill. Mr. P. M. STEWART hoped it would be postponed. He had no objection to the principle of the first clause, enabling companies to sue and be sued by one of their number ; but he objected to the last clause, which went to set up rights in the Bank of England which the House had thrice this session ne gatived by large majorities. The Attorney-General, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. O'Connell thought the Bill might be safely read a second time now, as it would be competent to the Hon. Member for Lancaster to oppose the last clause in committee. Mr. ATT WO OD should oppose the Bill as tending to en courage the junction of capital in Joint Stock Companies' to the discouragement of private traders. The issue of joint stock shares up to 1800 had been held to be nuisances, and he thought justly. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Tuesday next. SABBATH OBSERVANCE BILL On the order of the day being read for the third reading of this Bill, Mr. POTTER opposed the Bill. Mr. PO ULTER supported the`Bill, and said it was called for throughout the country. Hon. Members need not be under any alarm for its passing, for if they liked to spend the whole Sabbath in a wherry on the Thames, the Bill would not prevent them, for it only went to forbid Sunday trading. Mr. HA WE S said if it only went to prevent Sunday tra ding, the Bill would have his support; but it went much fur ther than this, for it revived the severe Act 29th Charles 11., with additional severity ; it would prevent all travelling on Sundays, and all Sunday trips by steamers, than which nothing could be a more wholesome and Innocent recreation. If such a check as this Bill were to be put upon innocent amusements on Sundays, it would be useless for the House to appoint Com mittees to inquire into the state and causes of drunkenness. Mr. POTTER moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the third reading 57 Against it _ . Majority —33 Mr. CA YL E Y then proposed a clause, by way of rider— " That nothing in the Act should extend to prevent any games or exercises in the open air, such games not being played in the time of divine service, and not being played for money, or on tne premises of ale or beer-houses.'] Mr. BAINE S opposed the clause. There were 100,000 petitioners for this Bill, who desired the better observance of the Sabbath, yet it was now proposed to add a clause which wonld give a license to the worst and basest of sports. Ile trusted the clause would be rejected. Such innovations as therein proposed, had cost one of the Stuarts his A laugh)—and had driven another from the country. Mr. O'CONNELL said, if the Hon. Member for Leeds had not looked so solemn on the matter, he should hare though he was joking—( A laugh) ; but the Hon. Member must INK even more grave, before he would make his version of this Piece of history pass current.—(A laugh.) What! Charles I • was decapitated by reason of the Book of Sports, was he ? ( A laugh.) His near successor was driven from the throne by reason of the Book of Sports, was he ?—( A laugh.) These accidents were in no way attributable to a people's indignation and resistance to tyranny. Oh, no ; the one king was decapi tated, the other expelled, by reason of the Book of Sports This certainly was a new version of history. As to the clau se in question, it met with his (Mr. O'Connell's) entire aPPr e bation. It was very clear that if the poor classes were net allowed to recreate themselves out of doors; in a wholesome• and innocent manner, their only resource was to get into the_ alehouse and drink ; for it was absurd to suppose that a coun tryman would sit on a bench all day, contented with the rear' ation of twiddling his thumbs—if, indeed, that extent 0 1 . recreation were not prohibited too.—( A laugh.) What th e poor people wanted was liberty •to amuse themselves in the open air after church time ; if they were debarred from ttlis , their only resource was the pot-house. Mr. DIVETT thought it would be unwise to press th e clause against the feelings of those who were anxious for th e passing of the Bill as it stood. Mr. C. WYNN trusted the House would pass the clause. Mr. PLUMPTRE was surprised to hear such an opinion from the Right Hon. Gentleman with his known prinmplo , and with his experience as a magistrate. Mr. BEAUMONT supported the clause, and condemned the partiality of enforcing restraints upon the poor which Wer e not enforced upon the rich. Mr. G. F. YOUNG thought the clause inconsistent Wit h the preamble of the Bill. Lord MORPETH opposed the clause as likely to o utrage the feelings of religious persons. Mr. MAXWELL thought the clause ought not to be pressed. Mr. PEA SE hoped the clause would not be pressed. u Mr. PO ULTER said it would be utt er ly i ncons i s tent Wit h the object of this Bill to thrust this clause into it, and he lon' protest against it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he thought it his duty to point out to the House that the clause would open the door to many other games than were intended. For instenl under it a fox-chase might take place of a Sunday, so that I was suspended during the hours of divine service: Mr. HAWES, Mr. BROTIIERTON, and Mr. H. Htlollllll OP' posed the clause. Mr. TENNYSON said the poor ought to be allowed r e ; creation. He would vote for the clause, because he believed it would tend more to recommend the Sabbath to the poor er classes of the country. Sir A. AGNEW was decidedly hostile to the clause. Mr. T. ATTWOOD wished the clause to be withdrawn - After a few words from Mr. RUTHVEN, the Hom e divided. Ayes Noes Majority in favour of the clause Great cheering followed the announcement of the numbers. On our return to the gallery we found Mr. POTTER moving a clause to repeal so much of I statute of Charles the Second as imposed penalties on higgler g ' drovers, waggoners, &c., for plying their trades on Sunday's• The House, after a shoe t discussion, divided, when the re appeared— Ayes Noes 33 - 1 Majority Immediately after our entering the gallery, another divisr s on a verbal amendment took place, when, the numbers bel • equal, the Speaker gave his voice for the ayes— Ayes Noes 30 Majority The House then divided on the question, that the Bill ds pass— Ayes Noes Majority against the Bill -4 The Bill is consequently lost. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a quarter to three. LIST OF THE MAJORITY In favour of going into the Committee on the Beer Bill, as corded in the Votes of the House of Commons, the division be"' taken in accordance with the Resolution of the House on O r M instant. Abercromby, Right Hon. J. Althorp, Viscount Ashley, Lord Attwood, M. Brines, E. Baring, A. Baring, W. Ti. Barnard, E. G. Bentinek, I, m 1 G. Berkeley, C. F. Bewes, T. Bo ling, W. Briscoe, J. I. Brocklehurst, J. Brodie, W. B. Brothertoti, J. Buller, E. Burrell, Sir C. M. I:urton, H. Buxton, T. F. Byng, aptain E S. Childers, J. W. Clive, It. H. Co , e, Lord Crompton. J. Dare, It. W. H. Denison, Evelyn Dillwyn, L. W. Eastnor Viscount Ebrington, Viscount Egerton, T. Ellis, W. Estcourt, T. G. B. Fellowes, H. A. Fenton, J. Forster, C. Gladstone, W. E. Glynne, Sir S. Holcomb, J. Hall, B. Liaise, J. Harland, W. C. Hawkins, J. H. Hay, Sir J. Heathcoat. J. Hodges, T. L. Howard, P. H. Hughes, H. Hutt, W. Inglis, Sir It. H. lrton, S. Labouchere, H. Lefevre,' C. S. Lefrsy, A. Lemon, Sir C. Lester. B. L. Littleton, E J Lloyd, 3. IL Lowther, C. H. Manners, Lord It. Marjoribanks, S. Marryatt, J. Palmer, R. Palmerston, Viscount Patten. W. Pease, Joseph Pendarves, E. W. Philips, . M. • PhiHipps, C. M. Phillips, Sir G. Phillpotts, J. Peter, W. • Pinney, W. ,t • Plumptre. J. P. Rice, T. S. Ridley, Sir M. W . Ross, Charles Roar Ryle, J. Sanford, E. A. Mawe, R. N. SLeppard, T. Skipwith, Sir • Somerset, Lord LI • Stanley, H. T. Stewart, J. Strutt, E. Talbot, J. Tennyson, C. Thompson, Aid. Throckmorton, Todd, J. R. Tower, C. T. Townley, R. Walker, R. Wall, B. Wedgwood, J. .. Whitmore, W. Nv• Whitmore, T. C. Wigney, I. N. Williams, -- Winnington. H. J. Wood, G. W. Young, G. F. LIST Aglionby, H. A. Attweod, I'. l3eauclerk, Major Blake, M. Buller, C. Codrington, Sir E. Divett, E. Fryer, It. Gisborne, T. Grattan H. J Gully, J. ll..ndley, B. OF THE MINI Hume. Joseph James, W. Lister. E. C. Lushington, Dr. O'Connell, D. O'Connell, John O'Connor Don Parrott, J. Poulter, J. S. R+ che, W. Roe, J. Rolfe, R. M. RITY Romilly, E. Romilly, J. Ronayne. D. Russell, W. C. Seholetiqld. J Torrens, Colonel Trelawney, Sir Vigors, N A. Wfiter, J. Warburton, H. Wagon, R. Wilks, J. t g NATIONAL HOLIDAYS.—There are f o ur 0 3 r , which ought to be religiously o b serve d i n th ese kingdoma, s h national holidays for thanksgi v i ng an d j oy : t h at on wh'c, Magna Charta was obtain e d ; Q ueen Eli za b et h' s Aocessi'ry, that of the Restoration of th e M onarc h y ; an d that on rib' the Prince of Orange landed at Torbay.---Southey. PROPELLING RAILWAY CARRIAGESe- 1 : 11 : Mechanic's Magazine contains a novel plan for propelb% carriages on railways. Persons working the machine are : have a division of the, vehicle to themselves, to be seated, ai to rowing, and work with a winch handle, which, with the Wl4 ance of wheels, turns an upright sh a ft, th u s g i v i ng t h e reqwe ie a power. The cost of a carriage i s es ti ma t e d at lOW., the ra te 20 miles an hour, and will yi e ld am pl e pro fi t at H. m ile f° , each passenger, and lid. , a ton for goods. The plan, the II; jector estimates, would afford employment to all the surf" labourers in the country. ARCHITECTURAL MAXIMS.--11l bookcases, io • robes, and all similar articles, the spa ce b e t ween Wee few" and seven feet from the ground is all that ought to be apP rt ; priated to shelves ;asit is only between these points tha t • person can conveniently reach anything. All above and b° o ; • f low these points, if it be used at all, should be cup - boards he bulky articles seldom wanted. Doors should be hung en tet side nearest the fire, whether they are at the same wall °co right angles with it; otherwise they will draw out the sni ° „ every time they are used. In every building, in order to In s serve unity of expression, there oug ht not on l y to be prealc,if the same forms, but the same c h arac t er o f li nes . I n corree`.l Grecian architecture, the forms extond in length, the proca l : ing lines are horizontal ; in the Pointed style, the forms e s o ceed in height, and the prevailing lines are perpendicular ..„ the horizon ; in R o m an arc hi tecture w h en t h e arc h i s duced, in the Anglo-Norman style, and in the Elizabeth law'ef ner, there is, or ou g ht t o b e , a h armon i ous com bi na timl , 'horizontal, perpendi cu l ar , o bli que , an d curv ili near lime s When two forms tot a lly diff eren t, as a c i rc l e an d squa re, %I unavoidably placed together, unless th e one i s a gre at de., • smaller than the other, they will never f orm a w hole. A 1 i; cious combination may become tolerable, and even satisfacte r /j by long habit ; for example, the barn-like form of the bol e , church, and its tower or spire.—Loudon's Architectural gazine. BIRTHS. A, 0 1 On the 18th inst., at Champion-grove, C am b erwe ll, th e law Thomas Eyre Wyche, Esq., of a son. _A, Of On the 18th inst., in Eaton-place, Belgrave-square, the law Philip Champion Toker, Esq., of a son. 4 On the 9th inst., at fonte Video, in Ireland, the lady of .' u e Smith, jun., Esq., of a still-born daughter. ..---" MARRIED.• On the 15th inst., a t St. J ames ' s Ch urc h , Ed war d Elli c e, J',7f son of the Right H on . Ed war d Elli ce, to Mi ss J ane B_,a 11 1 1 " daughter of Lieut.-General Balfour, of Baltrinie, Fifeshire, On the 17th inst., at Wateringbury Church, Captain rlp Gibson, 4th Light D ragoons , t o Ch ar l o tte, fourth d aug hter 0' dcrman Lucas, of Wateringbury-place, Kont. parOn the 17th i ns t., a t St. Margaret's Church, Mr. Robert of the St ran d, t o M ary A nn , on ly daughter of M r . V ac her, of r' liament-street. On the 17th inst., at St. George's Church, Hanover-sit re ; Lieutenant-Colonel Francis J. Davies, Grenadier Guards, of vsit hurst, Sussex, to Elizabeth Anne, second daughter of Adnii"' Byam Martin, G. C.B. dO Ar On the sth of March, Frederick Catherwood, Esq., of Lon to Gertrude, eldest daughter of Peter Abbott, Esq., his Britell INlajesty's Consul at Beyrout, Syria. On the 12th inst., at A qu alate Park, Staffordshire, Fr ci° -- Wedge, Esq., in his 83d year. 0 01 On the 17th inst., in his 19th year, Thomas Abbey, yenage s of John Cock, Esq., of Tottenham. tol'On the llth inst., at Edi n b urg h, J o h n B o ne r , E s q., o f mcrghame. • f t,ire On the 14th inst., aged 19, a t th e R o y a l B arrac ks, Dublin' 0 derick Bousfield Carmickael, of the 35th Regiment, eldest 114 Frederick J. Carmickael, Esq., Twickenham, Middlesex. .., 20 1: 0 ' On the 15th inst., in her 16th year, Anne Katherine m l . O O eldest daughter of John Burke, Esq., of St. Michael's -3 Brompton. On the 15th inst., William Buck, Esq., of Gibraltar - O tis? : near Monmouth, and late of 'Tendon, Middlesex, aged 74. 1311 0 ',' On the 17th inst., Elizabeth, the wife of George Mart i " Esq., of Dartmouth-lodge, Sydenham, Kent. ' mogrO e i On the 15th inst., in Eaton-place, General Christopher -- Colonel of the 76th Regiment of Foot. __/, London : Printed and Published by 1111lRDO yo at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand. • quanti on ! . lab, Coat s , by pi Tu u , to on 7 l Bo t suiltab ~~ ~~ Ix T 11 Lod .J 1 ' :o, R'Ja' 7 ~'~ tq l :11, 1 o r Roi 4 -Ay. ttiMr ra st; ; 8 41 • 317 1 17el'Y I I .ti • (J ane , t al t l a d.thes pastslett:. tl ! I nd t •if t l h l l ey th il ! " s P a l ~,,,F°1 14 C47 tri , lea N e a, 11 ! dit. r o l . ditto Onen ditto, 43 z 6n 0: e ditt o , 3 One (li.t taeditto Oat The: . /4 4rtt..- ns tel 'ed pr; da thQ 8 C o y Toy t DIE Pore,