The Sun. — London, England, 1833-03-14 00:00:00

Learned Gentleman was quite justified in moving an in struction to the Committee of the nature proposed. He had always heard it laid down as a rule of tbat House, that in structions to a Committee, not giving thatreommittee power beyond what it possessed before, could not be moved. The Committee already possessed, the power of altering the clause to which the Hon and Learned Member bad referred, and therefore his instruction, to say the least, was unne cessary. It appeared to him tdiat the moving of such an instruction could only be intended for the purpose of delay . —(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had told the House he wished to take its opinions upon three great constitutional questions—first, upon the impropriety of abolishing the right of petition ; next, upon the im propriety of abolishing the trial by jury; and, thirdly, upon the impolicy of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Taking these questions as abstract questions, it would, no doubt, be favourable to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's object to ask the House whether it was favourably disposed or not to the right of petition; for there could he no question that every Member would agree that the right of petition was one of the most valuable rights enjeyel by British subjects. But the question now was, whether the circumstances of the times were such as to make it expe dient and necessary to suspend, to a certain degree, but not entirely, certain rights which were connected with the right of petitioning, but which were not the right of pe titioning itself.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle- Man said, that by the first clause of this Bill the right of petitioning was done away with altogether. Now, nothing could be a greater exaggeration than such a statement ; for the first clause of e Bill merely said that the Lord-Lieu tenant might, by order, prohibit or suppress the meeting of any assembly deemed by him to be dangerous to the public peace, or inconvenient with the due administration of the law. From these words he thought it evident that the Lord-Lieutenant, who was a responsible officer, and whose responsibility, in the feeling of Parliament, was not diminished but increased by the present Bill, had no power to prohibit or suppress any meeting which was not deemed by him dangerous to the public peace, &c. He admitted that there were other clauses of the Bill by which no meeting for petitioning Parliament could be held in a pro claimed district without the previous consent of the Lord- Lieutenant ; but the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was decidedly in error when he contended that no meeting could be held for that purpose in any part of Ireland with °it the previous consent of that officer. He (Lord Althorp) eentended, that so far from the right of petitioning being done away with altogether in Ireland, it was not done stwy with even in the proclaimed districts, for, un questionably, petitions might be circulated from man to man, and as many signatures as possibly obtained in that manner,. But," said ►he Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " petitions signed in this way have not the same effect as petitions agreed to at public meet ings." He (Lord Althorp) contended that petitions obtained in this private manner could only be consi dered as expressing the sentiments of those who sub scribed them ; but that petitions voted at public meetings might fairly be taken to express the sentiments of the majority of the inhabitants of the districts in which such meetings were held. In the present state of Ireland, be was inclined to believe that the opinion of a public meet ing was not so much the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of the town or district in which it was held as it generally was, and as, constitutionally speaking, it ought to be considered.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in arguing the propriety of his in struction, bad travelled out of that question, and had treated the House with an invective against other clauses of the Bill which were not at all connected with his pro position.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Althorp) was of opinion that the proper season for discussing the clauses to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had objected would be in the Committee. As to the clause making any place where a party was detained under this Act a lawful gaol for his detention, it was not, in his opinion, a point of much importance to those who supported the Bill. The objections taken to it were strong, and he was therefore not inclined to insist upon it. —( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman bad also contended that even after the statement which he (Lord Althorp) had just made, the right of search by night was continued by this Bill. Now, be (Lord Althorp) was prepared to insist that after the alteration which he had just made, there could be no search by night, either for persons or for arms, under the present Bill. The right of searching for arms by night existed under a law at present in force, and therefore there was no occasion for the present Bill either to give or to continue it. As to the right of meeting to petition in a district proclaimed as disturbed, he really saw nothing more mischievous, nothing more likely to continue the disturbances which all sides wished to check, than the as sembling of large meetings at which discussions were to take place similar to those which had recently taken place in Dublin.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gen tleman had said, that if inflammatory langUage were used at such meetings, it was open to prosecution. Now Ye was of opinion that the Hen. and Learned Gentleman knew well enough bow inflammatory language might be used without coining under the lash of the law.—(lleer.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had alluded to the case of a man who had been prosecuted tor seditious language in the county of Clare. Here Mr. O'CONNELL made some remark across the table to the Noble Lord ; but the remark, as well as the reply to it, were inaudible in the gallery. Lord ALTHORP then proceeded. An Hon. Member, but he forgot what Hon. Member, bad said, in the course of the debate, that the man thus prosecuted was a Go vernment spy. If he were, how did it happen that the Cro n had been his prosecutor ?—(Hear, bear.) He was afraid that in arguing the impropriety of this instruction he had gone further into the question than be ought to have gone; but in a case like the present, where it was not proposed to give to the Committee any power which it had not at present, if it thought proper to exercise it, the only effect of yielding to this proposition would be, to discus, the same question over again, and thus to de'ay the immediate passing of the Bill.—(Hear.) He had now explained the grounds on which he thought the question ought not to be brought forward now as to the abstrac right of the subject to petition, and upon those very grounds he must state his conviction to be, that this in. struction was not called for.—(Hear.) Mr. H GRATTAN conceived that those who were opposed to this Biit were bound to express their objections to it at every stage of it. The object of Ministers in bringing it forward was twofold—it was to put down predial agitation in the first instance, and to stop politi cal agitation in ihe second. The House was agreed as to the necessity of effecting the first object, and only differed as to the necessity of the latter. He thought that it was possible to bye put a stop to both without transgressing the limits of the Constitution. The Insurrection Act would have put down predial agitation, and the 10th of Geo. IV., c. 1, u ould have stopped political agitation. The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to condemn the Bill, because it took away the right of petition ; because it destroyed the liberty of the press and the freedom of discussion ; because it was intended to promote the col'ection of tithes ; because, severe as it was, it was not adequate to the purposes for which it was intended ; and because the justification of it was not made out—a justification which rested on the increase of crime in Ireland having been greater during the last three years than the increase of crime in England ; but which was completely contra dicted by returns which were on the table of the House, and which bad bee❑ quoted with such triumphant effect on a former night by the lion. ai:d Learned Member for Dublin. He concluded by calling upon the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland to give the House a distinct avowal that he did not intend to use this Bill as an engine for the more cet t.in collection of tithes. The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the numbers were:— For adopting Mr. O'Connell's instruction (13 Against it 123 Majority There was a second division on the question, •' That the Speaker do now leave the chair." The numbers Were— For the motion Against it 34 Majority -117 On our readmission to the gallery, we found the House in Committee, Mr. BEKNAL in the chair. On the question being put, " That the preamble be postponed," _ Mr. O'CONNELT. said, that the prettnble contained a recital to which he entirely objected. It set forth--‘• And whereas divers meetings and assemblies, inconsistent with the public peace and safety, and with the exercise of regular government, have for some time past been held in Ire land ; and whereas the laws now in force in that part of the United Kingdom have been found inadequate to the prompt and effectual suppression of the said mischiefs, and the interposition of Parliament is necessary for the pur pose of checking the further progress of the same." Now, he denied the truth of that assertion. H e would say, with great respect, that there never was a more false assertion introduced into an Act of Parliament. Anything so utterly devoid of truth never had been before declured in a public assembly, as that the laws in that part of the United Kingdom were found inefficient for the suppression of disturbance and the preservation of property. Mark ! It was known by the experience of E,gland, and by the experience of Ireland, that disturbance was always sup pressed by the effectual execution of the law. Wherever they had carried the law strictly into effect they put an end w disturbance. This was a matter of fact, borne out by the experience of every man—borne out by the report on their table—borne nut by the declaration of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland. That re cital which be had read was falsifying the statements made by the judges of the land. He defied any one to show him an instance where the special commission had not produced the effect which he had stated. He should move, that after the words " that the preamble be post poned," there be added these words " the same containing an untrue recital." Mr. CORBETT said the preamble of every Bi'l ought to be strictly true. He recollected a Bill with which he was connected having been brought before the Lords. The first thine their Lordships did was to inquire whether the preamble of the Bill was true. He proved that it was not true, or rather he threw it on the opposite party to show that it was true. This could not be done, and their Lo! dships proceeded ne further in the business. He had examined the preamble of this Bill, and in his opinion every word contained in it was false. Would a Reformed Parliament, as it was called (and sometimes, he believed, in jest), proceed to take away the liberties of Ireland—to dispense with the functions of judges and juries in that country, without any proof of the necessity of such a measure? He trusted that they would not do so. He should heartily second the amendment, and he hoped that the Hon. nod Learned Gentleman would divide the House on the question, and carry his point. Mr. CHAPMAN opposed the amendment. He had sufficient confidence in his Majesty's Minister to indulge in the hope that they would nut pass the Bill without some qualifications. Mr. O'DWYER condemned the preamble as untrue. He appealed to all acquainted with Ireland to say whether a conspiracy against the rights of property prevailed there? They would, he was confident, declare that rents were never better paid than at present. Had tithes been spoken of, the case would have been different. He admitted that diet e was in Ireland a fixed, settled, detertoined resolution (which he heartily applauded) not to pay tithes. There was another part of that preamble to which he objected. It spoke of " meetings and assemblies inconsistent with the public peace and safety." Now, he would aver that the meetings here a luded to as being held in Ireland were not contrary to the public peace and tranquillity. The effect of this Bill would be to put down in Ireland that system which had saved the country from a sanguinary re volution—lie meant the right to petition for a redress of grievances. Mr. C. FERGUSSON should vote against the amend. ment. There was, however, one part of the Bill to which he was opposed. He did not approve of giving over any portion of his Majesty's subjects to a military tribunal. Mr. O'CONNELL said, the preamble set forth that " the laws now in force in Leland are inadequate to the prompt and effectual suppression of disturbance.'' But if the report to which he had referred were true, if the statement of the Chief Justice were correct, then there was no ground for the preamble, nor for the Bill. He had not been contradicted in his statement, and he defied any man to contradict him. Mr. F. O'CONNOR would support the amendment, on the ground taken by the Hon. and Learned Member ftr Dublin—namely, that there was no foundation for the recital. He, as a barrister, had opportunities of seeing many criminal cases, and he never knew any want of witnesses or of jurors. Mr. STANLEY would read one sentence from the preamble of the Bill, and a short passage from the re port of the Committee on the State of Ireland, and having done so, lie should leave it to the House to determine how far the assertion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, that the preamble was negatived by the report, could he considered to be borne out by the facts of the case. The preamble stated, that—" whereas the laws now in force in Ireland have been found inadequate to the prompt and effectual suppression of the said mischiefs." This alle gation was said to contain a statement which was at va riance with fact, and the report of the Committee; and it was asserted that the laws were adequate to the " prompt and effectual suppression of the mischiefs," including not only " outrages against persons and property," but " dan gerous associations," which, be it remembered, never formed part of the inquiry undertaken by the Commit tee; therefore their report could not negative that por tion of the preamble, even though it should be found to be at variance with the rest—a thing he utterly denied. The Committee state in their report " that although it is quite true, as has been stated by the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, in his charge to the grand jury of the Qaeen's County, that the ordinary and regular laws have been found sufficient to put down the various Whiteboy associations which have from time to time existed, it is equally true that in every instance every association has made itself complete masters of the county where it bas been formed, and committed all kinds of crimes and enormities with impunity, for a considerable period before the enforcement of the powers of the law has produced a remedy." Could it be said, after this, that the report negatived the allega tion " that the liws now in force had been found inade quate to the prompt and effectual suppression of the mis chiefs?" But the report proceeded—" In point of fact, although the law has, in general, proved sufficiently strong and effectual for the ultimate suppression of Wbitehoy associations, it has not been effectual in affording protec tion to the public against being exposed to the crimes and atrocities of those conspiracies for a considerable period previous to their being completely repressed." Would any man tell trim, after thie, that the report negatived the preamble in its statement, that " the existing laws were not adequate to the prompt and effectual" (those were the two emphatic words) " prompt and effectual suppression of the mischiefs?"—(Cheers.) No: it could not be pre tended that they were. If the Committee thought the existing law adequate for the suppression of the mischief, why did they recommend the Legislature to streugthen its lowers?—(Hear.) If it was then necessary to arm the Government with additional strength, it was now et mere necessary to do so. Thus, instead of the preamble being conirailicred, it was fully borne out and strengthened by the authority quoted by the Hon. and Learned Member fur Dublin.—(Cheers.) Mr. HUME was of opinion that the report did contra dict the preamble. Who w:is to blame if those unlawful associations gained strength ?—the Magistrates and Go vernment, who were remiss in not putting them down immediately. Did the Committee recommend such an atrocious measure as this? No ; they suggested the utility of special commissions. With rig.rd to the question be foie the House, it related to the postponement of the preamble (which was the usual practice), in order to snake it correspond, at a future peliod, with the causes who li should be agreed on in Committee. He submitted to his Le o net! Friend that the present was not the time to affirm or contradict the all. gations of the preamble, and that lie would do well to withdraw his amendment, and allow the preamble to be postponed with a view to pro ceed to the clauses which must ultimately govern the preamble. Mr. O'CONNELL was willing, in conformity with the recommendation or his Hon. Friend the Member for Mid dlesex, to withdraw his amendment. Mr. H. GRATTAN asked the Right lion. Secretary to say, fairly and explicitly, whether it was meant to collect titles by means of this Bill ?—(Hear.) Mr. STANLEY said it was not the intention of Go. vernment to make this Act in any way available for the enforcement of any civil process, whether for the recovery of rent or tithes.—(Hear.) He had also stated that the mere opposition to the payment of tithes would not alone bff.rd a reason for the introduction of this Act into any particular district, but that in cases where it had been in troduced the property of the clergy had as much right to be protected by it as the property of any other individuals, and that protection would he afforded by this Act. Mr. J. GRATTAN had no doubt, after this explana- tion, that the Act was to be applied to the collection of tithes. lie maintained that there was no "conspiracy against the rights of property," with the exception of tithe property ; and asked the Right Hon. Secretary , to state what he considered to be the other rights of pro perty that were invaded in Ireland ? What did the Right Hon. Gentleman mean by rights of property ? Against tithes, be repeated, there did exist a conspiracy, and if the Right lion. Secretary would introduce the word " tithes" into the preamble, lie (Mr. Grattan) would support that part of it, but he never could be brought to affirm that " property" generally was attacked. Let the House understand the preamble as being (exclusive of its application to public meetings) solely directed against canspiraties in opposition to tithes, and against nothing else. Mr. STANLEY—The Hon. Gentleman asked him " what he considered to be the rights of property ?" Ile was perfectly prepared to answer the Hon. Gentleman. He considered it to be a right of property that a man should be allowed to let his own land to whom he pleased. (Hear, hear.) He considered it to be a right of property tout a marl should be permitted to take land from whom he pleased.—(Hear.) It was a right of property to cul tivate land as a man pleased.—(Hear.) It was a right of property that a man should be maintained in the safe and secure enjoyment of his dwelling and his land, with out being exposed to the incursions of nightly marauders and murders, terrifying the peaceable inhabitants, burn ing their houses over their heads, dragging them from their beds, murdering them at their doors, and parading the roads an d hi g h ways b y n i g ht an d by d ay i n t h e com mission of every atrocity.—(Loud cheering.) Rights of property ! Had the Hon. Gentlenaan read the accounts recently received of a murder committed within these few drys ? A Roman Catholic gentleman had been brutally massacred in the noon day in the county of Kilkenny, on the borders of Waterford, near the residence of the Mem ber for the city of Waterford—that Hon. Member who denied the existence of disturbance in his part of the country. This unfortunate gentleman, who was described to be a moat inoffensive man, was met on the high road by a party of ruffians, between twelve and one o'clock in the day, in the county mentioned. (A Member said that the murder took place near New Ross, in the county of Waterford.) It mattered not as to the precise spot; be believed the transaction happened at a place on the borders of Kilkenny, Waterford, and Tipperary, but, be repeated, the circumstance was not material. Suffice it to say the murder was committed on the high road. in the noon day, on an inoffensive, liberal, and indulgent landlord, without intormation or assistance being rendered by any. This gent:einan was brutally massacred, and after hi• death his head was so be sten with stones that his features could not be distinguished ; and the gig in which he travelled was suspended by the side of the road, as a sign and intimation of the scene of blood to all who passed by. What was this gentleman's offence? He had ventured to eject a tenant two years ago, and was about to put in a distr tint for rent on t' e following day; but on all hands it seemed to be admitted that he was a harmless and inoffensive man, and a good landlord. Was this an interference with the rights of property? Let it he observed that the act for which this unfortunate gentleman had been btu. tally murdered was a simple enforcement of rent, with out any features of oppression or harshness—it was no case of tithes. The act interfered with the right of every man to the peaceable possession of the highway. " Here is a murder openly committed in mid d ry, with no cause of provocation except the enforcement of a legal right. Tell me, after this, that with the exception of tithes, there exists no conspiracy against the rights of property —(Loud cheers)—and that murders and outrages such as this may be put down by the ordinary powers of the law." (The narrative of this murder produced a very powerful impression on both sides of the House, and the Right Hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks elicited loud and protracted cheers.) Mr. SHEIL said that be, and those by whom he was surrounded, fully concurred in the sentiments, feelings, and opinions, manifested by the Right Hon. Gentleman upon this subject ; and no doubt there was in this case an invasion of the rights of property, if the causes that led 'o the murder had been rightly stated. But did the fact, striking as it was, bear out the preamble, in so far as related to a failure in the administration of justice under the ordinary powers of the law ? The murderers might yet be convicted without resorting to extraordinary expe dients. Passing from this point, he called on the Noble Lord to introduce his promised clause for preventing the application of the Bill to any case of collection of tithes. —(Hear.) He complained that the Right Hon. Secre tary only adopted such a portion of the report as he thought suitable to his purpose, at the same time that be introduced a measure never contemplated by the Com mittee. He took the liberty, with great respect, of ask ing the Right Hon. Secretary whether, as far as a Judg ment could yet he formed from the result of the assizes now taking place, he conceived that justice had or had not been fairly and fearlessly administered ?—(Cheers.) Lord ALTHORP said that a good deal of confusion had been produced by the different subjects and questions introduced to the notice of the House on this occasion. WWII respect to the answers of his Right Hon. Friend to the Member for Wicklow, his Right Hon. Friend did not mean to apply the case quoted to the particular part of the preamble referred to by the Learned Member for Tip. perary. The Hon. Member for Wicklow had asked his Right Hon. Friend for some proof of a conspiracy or attack against rights of property other than those involved in a resistance to tithes; and in reply to the demand, his Right Hon. Friend stated a case of murder which had no connexion with tithes, but which did involve an attack upon another description of property. Doubtless the preamble was not founded on this case, which had hap pened since the framing of the Act, but Minist rs did found the preamble on the general state of the country, —murder being referred to among other crimes,— and this recent instance of murder showed that the state of the country remained the same as it was when the Bill was framed ; consequently, that the provisions then called for were still necessary. —( Hear, hear.) He had stated before, and he now stated again, that it was not the intention of Ministers to use the Bill for the collection of tithes ; but if gentlemen supposed him to have said (what be never did say) that this Bill was not to be used to prevent outrages and crimes committed or produced by resistance to tithes (as well as to repress crime and outrage in general), they were very much snis taken.—(Cbeers from both sides of the House.) The Bill was for the protection of the peaceable, and the sup pression of crime, and if crime were produced by re sistance to tithes, that, as well as every other species of crime, must be put down.—( Hear.) With respect to the assizes now in progress, if he were not misinformed, though there might have been some convictions fur offences described in the Bill at the assizes, the outrages were still going on, and it could not he affirmed that the assizes had been success'ul in the repression of crime. Mr. O'CONNELL said the question raised was, whether the Bill wa , not, in truth end in fact, a Tithe Bill, though it embraced some other objects ? Ile was of opinion that it was a Tithe Bill. What had all the meetings referred to in the preamble, and which it was sought by this Bid to repress—what had they been held for if not for the abolition of tithes? Mr. SHAW confirmed the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) respecting the late atro cious murder in the county of Waterford, and read a letter which he had received that tley from a respectable gentleman residing in the neighbourhood where the out rage had been perpetratr d. The writer stated, that the mode in which the ruffians committed the murder mani festly proved that they were certain that no witnesses would date to come forward against them hereafter, should they be apprehended. The murder was perpetrated on the very property of the unfortunate gentleman who was thrir victim, in a valley surrounded by a thickly inha bited district, on the high road to Waterford, and not two miles from the town of New Rose, at 2 o'clock in the slay, and while all the people of the neighbourhood were at work in the adjoining fields. It was under these circumstances, obviously conscious of certain impunity, that these wretches battered out the brains of this unfortunate gentleman ; and did not such a fact, he would ask, go strongly to show that Ireland was at present in such a state of anarchy and in subordination, that it was absolutely necessary to give additional powers to the Government for the purpose of putting down such outrageous proceedings?—(General cries of " Hear, hear," and cries of " No, no," from several of the Irish Members.) The House was not now called upon to put down the law in Ireland by passing this measure. The law was actually put down there and laid prostrate by those ruffians—by those perpetrators of every species of outrage and crime; and the question now was, not whether the House should put down the law, but whether it should raise it up, vindicate its powers, and crush its daring and hitherto unpunished violators.— (Hear.) In proof of the disturbed state of the country, the Hon Member read an extract from a charge recently delivered by Baron Smith to the Grand Jury of the county of Armagh, and he then proceeded to say, that though it was alleged by the advocates of the measure that a calm now prevailed in some of the formerly most disturbed districts in Ireland, it was a treacherous calm, and such as should not induce the House to pause in its present course. They should not mistake the hollow sounds of peace for its real and proper establishment. A pretty peace it was that such a pacificator as Mr. Steele id been sent forth eo preach !—(A laugh.) The Hon. Member here read a passage from a recent article in the Dl,blin Pilot, in which it was stated that the efforts of " Tom Steele" to re-establish tranquillity in Kilkenny had been attended with the most marvellous success— that a few days since he had, at their own desire, paid a visit to the prisoners confined for Whitefoot offences in the Kilkenny gaol, anti that they premised to have all their arms given up, and to do all that O'Connell wished them to do to restore peace and tranquillity i❑ . that county.—(Hear, hear.) Was he (Mr. Shaw), he would ask, and the other peaceably disposed inhabitants of Ire• land, to be indebted to the efforts of this seditious maniac, and a parcel of felons confined in Kilkenny gaol, for the re-establishment of peace and good order in their unfor tunate country ?—(Loud cries of " Heir, hear.") Why, such a state of things was infinitely worse than an open state of war. He, for one, would not be indebted for the preservation of his life and property to the breath of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. If the Hon. Gentleman could give them peace he surely could destroy it—he was at least as powerful to do evil as to do good, and he (Mr. Shaw), for one, would never consent that tee peace of Ireland should be dependent upon his man d ites.—(Cheers.) Mr. O'CONNELL very much doubted whether it was becoming on the part of a Judge of the land to pursue the course which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was now pursuing. In the first place, he called a gentleman who was under prosecution by the Government, and whose trial would probably take place upon the very day that the report of this debate would arrive in Dublin—he called that gentleman a "seditious maniac." Was it a far-fetched conclusion to suppose that such an invective might have its influence upon the Jury that would have to try that gentleman? In the next place, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman thought proper to cast the mint unfounded imputations upon the Juries of Kilkenny. At the very assizes to which he alluded every Whitefoot that was prosecuted was convicted, and the acquittal of the prisoners in the Carrickshaugh case was owing to the want of sufficient evidence against them. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman went into a long detail of the circum stances connected with those trials to show that that was the case, and then he proceeded to say that he was not surprised at the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's advocacy of this measure. It was a measure that would he hailed with delight by men beneath whose factious tyranny Ireland had long suffered, and was, it would seem, still to suffer—by men who had hearts of stone, souls of and fangs of iron—by the remnant of an expiring faction that long bad possessed the domination of that country, and eho had foul y used it.—( (-fear.) The Honoura ble Member bad favoured the House with an extract from one of Baron Smith's late polities' dissertations. Was it hemming, he (Mr. O'Connell) would ask, for that Learned Judge to make such an address to the Grand Jury o: the county of Armagh, where no such offences as those to which he alluded had been committed, and where there was no reason whatever for his delivering himeelf of such a political essay ? Perhaps the reason for his doing so might he fount in the rumour that had gone abroad, that the Learned Judge was negotiating with Government to have his son appointed as his successor on the bench. If there was any foundation for that rumour, they might expect many more political essays from that Learned Judge. The murder that had recently taken place in the county of Waterline!, and which had been adverted to that evening, was a most atrocious one, and the perpetrators of it de served the severest punishment of the law ; but was it not puerile to cite it in support of such a measure as that be fore the House? Did the Waterford ruffians murder a boy in order to prevent him from disclosing a crime that, thank God, had never been known or heard of in Ireland ? (" Hear, hear," from the Irish Members.) Did the diabolical wretches, first having made him the victim of their infamous practices, then brutally destroy him, that he might not discover upon them,—beat out his brains with savage ferocity, and throw him into the canal? Oh ! there was no law, there was no justice in this country with such horrible deeds staring them in the face, it was absolutely necessary that they should pass such a measure as this for England, and m eke martial law universal throughout the kingdom. —(Cheers from the Irish Member s. ) Mr. M. O'FERRALL would be as ready as any man to strengthen the hands of Government, for the purpose of putting down the atrocious system that prevailed in Ireland, but it should be done in the way recommended by the Committee of last session. The Hon. Member was about to propose an amendment, when he was reminded by the CHAIRMAN that the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had not yet been disposed of. Mr. SHAW was not a judge of the land, but even if he were, had he been wholly unconnected with the trials in question, he did not see how it would be unbecoming on his part to give an opinion on the subject, and he fancied that he had as good a right to do so as the prisoner's counsel. He would repeat, that in the cases to which he had alluded the juries in Kilkenny did not dare to do their duty. The moment that the acquittal of the prisoners in the Carrickshaugh cases was known, bonfires were lighted from hill to bill throughout the county, and it was obvious those bonfires must have been ready prepared, in anticipa tion of the result, in order to convey the glad tidings throughout the county of Kilkenny that the murderers had been acquitted. The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to read a letter from a magistrate of the county of Kilkenny, with regard to the result of those trials, and the general state of that county. There being loud cries of " Name, name," from some of the Irish Members, the Hon. Member said that the magistrate from whom be derived this information cv,:, one upon whose character and respecta bility he could nay, but Ire would not name him, and for this reason—that if be did his life would not be safe a single moment where be wa..—(Loud cries of " Hear.") They were told by some Hon. Members who had spoken that evening that the political agitation that had been car• ried on in Ireland was of a most disinterested description, and tbat the political agitators there were of a most dis interested character. He would deny that it was a disin terested agitation, and for this reason, which he believed few that knew Ireland would dispute, that in point of fact if that agitation bad not existed, most of those Hon. Members whom he now saw below him—(the front op position bench was almost wholly occupied by Irish " re peal" Members)—would not be there that night.—(Ge neral and repeated cheers.) When those Hon. Members had displaced from their natural position the landed pro prietors and wealthy gentry of the country—when upon an outcry for a measure that they knew never would be carried, they bad succeeded in ousting those gentlemen from the representation of their native counties in that House, was it to be endured that the sentiments of those gentlemen, when they transmitted them here, should not he stated to the House?—(Hear.) As to what the Hon. Member for Dublin had said about the remnant of an ex- piring fiction, he (Mr. Shaw) would only say in reply, that he had never belonged to any club or association in l►is life, while the individual who had thus att irked him had spent his life in fictions at,itation, ,nd would lather die titan live without it.—(Hear.) The Hon. M-mber concluded by apoloa►zing to the Hon. Member for Dublin for the warmth of his observations, which had been occa sinned by what had fallen from that Hon. Member. Mr. O'CONNELL did not want an apology. He was in the habit of being maligned, and he did not mind it. He had agitated, and he had agitated successfully, against that faction which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman now publicly disclaimed. But before that Hon. and Learned Gentleman's meats were known—and no one was more ready to do justice to his well-known merits in the situa tion he now filled than he (Mr. O'Connell) nal—that faction placed him where he was, in the office of Recorder of Dublin, and they could place whom they pleased there, and the rest of the Irish bar had no chance of competing with the object of their choice. He must protest against the Learned Gentleman's calling his (Jr. O'Connell's) clients at the Kilkenny trials " murderers." The Hon. Gentleman had brought forward his red box too, hut the red box of the Right Hon. Secretary was quite sufficient. Were they to legislate on such tales as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had read to them, and that too upon anonymous au hority ? If he had any material facts to state, why did he not communicate them to Government? Were they to legislate upon the statements of such a vo lunteer Attorney-General, who usurped the functions of the Ministers, and had a little clique of correspondents of his own ? He flung back the attack which the Hon. and Learned Maintier had made upon those Members who had been sent there by the Irish people. He denied that they had obtained their seats there by means of agitation. Were the representatives of Kerry, which was never more quiet,—were the representatives of Meath, which was never more tranquil--were the representatives of the county of Cork, which was never in a more peaceable condition, returned to that House by means of agitation ? It was a gross calumny against a set of as_ independent gentlemen as ever were in that House.—(" Hear, hear," from the Irish Members.) Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL— The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has called Mr. Steele " a seditious maniac :" as Mr. Steele is not here to defend himself, I, as his friend, will answer for him, and I say that there never was a more unfounded sta,ement made, and I give it my most direct, positive, and unqualified contradiction. Mr. FINN said that the magistrates of Kilkenny did not do their duty, and that they had only themselves to blame for the state in which the county was. Mr. LAMBERT spurned with the most sovereign con tempt the in.inuation that the gentlemen who sat around him had been sent to that House by agitation.—(Cries of " Older.") He did not conceive that his expressions were too strong. He repeated, that they did not come to that House biassed by any undue influence. But when the Hon. Member talked of agitation, did he not forget that he himself obtained his seat by agitation the agitation of the Reform Bill? His opinion of the measure was, that it was concocted for the purpose of collecting tithe, and for that alone.—(Question, question, a nd Withdraw.) Mr. O'CONN ELL would not press the question to a division, but withdraw his amendment. Mr. T. ATTWOOD rose, but was immediately inter rupted by loud and repeated cries of " Question." He persevered, however, and commenced some remarks on the description of the murder given by the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) amidst great confusion. The Hon. Member concluded by desiring to be informed how the Bill would impart greater security for the punishment of murder than at present existed under the law.—(Ques ti,)n, question. ) The CHAIRMAN then rose for the purpose of putting t h e question, when Mr. BUCKINGHAM stood up, but the noise which itninudiitely succeeded, occasioned by coughing, and cries o f ai Question," was so extreme, as to induce the Hon. Illember to resume his seat. Upon this Mr. HUME rose, and declared that if the Hon. Mem ber were not allowed to express his opinion on the ques tion before the House, he (Mr. Hume) would at once move that the Chairman leave the chair and report pro gress. Did they wish to prevent their opponents from b e ing heard ? DI -. BUCKINGHAM proceeded to advocate the alte ration of the preamble of the Bill. He contended that it was of the utmost importance that the truth or falsehood of the preamble should be decided, inasmuch as all the consequent parts of the Bill depended on it. The CHAIRMAN then put the original question, that the preamble of the Bill be postponed, which was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN next put the question, that the first clause stand part of the Bill, and proceeded to read it as follows :—" Be it further enacted, by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland,—" Mr. O'CONNELL .here rose, and proposed, as an amendment, to insert after the word "Ireland" the 4)llom in :—" By the consent and authority of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, in Ireland, or any two of them." Toe Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that the object of his motion was to make the sanction of two judicial per sons, who would be immediately responsible to Parliament for their act, necessary to the prohibition or suppression of meetings and assemblies. The clause went to vest this power in the Lord-Lieutenant alone, the power of inter dicting any meeting of any kind, civil, political. or reli gious. Ut.der the authority of that clause the Lord- Lieutenant might suppress all corporation meetings; nay, he might even extend his interdiction to hunting, and every kind of social assemblies. How monstrous was such an extension of authority ! It was really without limit. The Lord• Lieutenant might, armed with the powers conferred on him by the Bill, forbid the meeting of any two persons in Ireland, anti this without having recourse to evidence of its dangerous tendency delivered on oath, without, in deed, the slightest necessity being shown for its sup pression, without information, in short, without any other reason than his own pleasure-- " Stet pro ratione voluntas." The Hon. and Learned Member concluded by observing that he had so shaped his amendment as not to render the sanction of all, but only two of the Irish Judges necessary to legalize the suppression of any meeting. Mr. STANLEY bad heard the amendments proposed by the Hon. and Learned Member, himself a lawyer, with the utmost surprise, because that Hon. and Learned Mem ber had on so many occasions, in terms as just as they were strong, deprecated the mingling of judicial with ex ecutive functions. And now he of all men proposed to introduce an amendment which must have the direct effect of blending the judicial and political character. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman surely could not be igno rant of the way in which such a union would work. Un • doubtedly the powers intended to be placed in the hands of the Lord. Lieutenant by the Bill were very extensive ; but they wtre strictly executive, as they ought to be, and net mixed up with any thing of a judicial authority ; for what could be more injurious—more decidedly dangerous to the due and impartial administration of the law, than first of all to call in the opinion of a Judge as to the par ticular tendency of a meeting, then to act upon that opi nion, and afterwards to apply to the same Judge to decide upon its legality? The Lord-Lieutenant was certainly responsible to Parliament for the abuse of those powers ; but though he were not, his entire independence of action would be 10 —nay, 100-fold preferable to the extension of judicial authority proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gen. tleman. On the grounds he had stated, therefore, he ob• jected to the amendment. Mr. O'CONNELL said that dec'amations in favour of the preservation of the Constitution cause with a peculiar grace from the Right Hon. Secretary, who had done his best to trample on the Constitution, as far, at least, as it re lated to Ireland ; who now, by that very Bill, was about to put down charity meetings and meetings totally un connected with political feeling.—(No, no.) He contended that the Right Hon. Secretary was putting these assemblies down by an'icip awn, and consequently advocating a measure which would starve the orphan With respect to the immediate question, could an3thing he (Mr. O'Connell) bad said warrant the conclusion that he wished to mix up judicial with legislative functions ? Were no other judges to be found to try the legality of a meeting but those who had previously pronounced an opi nion of its tradency Mr. Sergeant PERRIN objected to the transfer which the Bill proposed to make of the legislative poker to the executive. He entertained, however, very strong doubts as to the illegality of the meetings and assemblies which were pointed at by the Bill. They certainly did not come within the scope of the common law, and the danger of their continuance consequently rested with the Govern ment, which was subjected to all the odium which such a state cf things naturally excited. He thought, however, it would be more injudicious, and more generally dangerous to liberty, to vest the Judges with the power of interdict ing meetings, than to transfer that power at once to the Lord.. Lieutenant. Lord ALTHORP should hardly have thought that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman needed to have declaimed so touch about the Constitution, on the subject of a Bill which was a suspension of the Constitution. There was no alternative in this case but to place power in the hands of individuals. Experienced men, in past times, had attempted to define illegal meetings, but the law had been always evaded. The only mode, therefore, was to enable the Lord-Lieutenant to declare meetings illegal. In the only attempt of this kind made hitherto, the object had succeeded. Colonel DAVIES looked at the clause with considerable alarm, as it invested a Lord-Lieutenant with very arbitrary powers. Mr. W. PETER said that the question had been rested on its proper grounds by the Noble Lord (Althorp). was not, as the Hon. and Learned M-mher for Dublin, and others, had stated, a question of liberty, on the une hand—of despotism on the other. The real question to b e decided by the House was simply this —whether the danger to be apprehended from the agitation and outrage, now prevailing in Ireland, was or was not greater than any danger that could result to the country from intrust ing these increased powers to the Lord Lieutenant, for the purpose of suppressing the evil ? No man was more op po-ed than he (Mr. Peter) was to the existence of all un nece-sary power, wherever vested—whether in the hands of One or many. Still, however, it must be recollected, that it was not so much on the exact quantity or amount of power Riven, as on the responsibility or irresponsibility under which it was exercised, that the security and free dom of the people would depend. In the present case, there would be responsibility. Both the Lord Lieutenant and his Ma . Hity's Ministers would be responsible to a Reformed House of Commons for the manner in which these powers were exercised. Mr. O'CONNELL complained of the deplorable and pitiful ignorance of the Hon. Member, in supposing that what he had stated was really the question before the House. —(Considerable noise. ) Mr. W. PETER, in reply, defended himself against the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and appealed to the House whether he had said any thing to justify the violent attack that had been made upon him. Mr. O'CONNELL—The question was, whether there should be freedom or slavery in Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) Would the framers of this Bill mitigate this clause, or must the Lord. Lieutenant have the power to declare what meetings should take place? He liked to bear the talk about agitation. The present Ministers heard this charge with admirable mock-modesty, when they bad themselves been aided by agitation.—(Hear.) How did they sit there ?—(Cheers from the Opposition.) By agitation.— (Cheers.) They had been placed on their pedestal by the Birmingham Political Union—(Cheers)—but this was considered a rotten pedestal for Ireland. Who was,, it made the late Lord Ellenborough a Privy Councillor and a Lord Chief Justice at the same time?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. STANLEY said, that as to a Lord Chief Justice being a Privy Councillor, it had been always the practice for him to be so. Mr. O'CONNELL—And a Cabinet Minister? Mr. STANLEY—As to a Cabinet Minister, be could only say if he had been a Minister at the time he should not have supported the appointment.—(Hear.) But he rose merely to ask the House whether it was proposed to bear with the language which had been used by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin?—(Cheers.) A❑ Hon. Member for an English county had made a remark, and h al been met by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman with a charge of deplorable and pitiful ignorance.—(Cheers on the Ministerial side, answered by cheers on the other, in which Mr. O'Connell's voice was distinctly heard.) Such language was well adapted for the volunteers of Ireland— (Cheers as before)—and for those out of doors for whom the Hon. and Learned Gentleman wasted so much of his time and talents ; but it was not consistent with the forms and practice of the House.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member behind him (Mr. Peter) had said that the ques tion was whether the Lord-Lieutenant should be intrusted with a power beyond the law, or whether the system of agitation should continue in Ireland; and that had not been stated ignorantly, for it was the question which the Committee had to decide. fu ll e r ; g O a ' , C e O , N v ay. L and Mr. Humz rose tog e th er; t h e Mr. HUME (amidst calls for Mr. O'Connell) expected that the Right Hon. Gentleman would set an example of the manner in which Members should conduct themselves. --(Cheers from the Opposition, echoed by the other side.) He did not rise to defend every one of the expressions used by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but to deprecate (sic) that every question which the Right Hon. Secre tary spoke on became a personal question.—(Noise.) What had the Right Hon. Gentleman to do with the volunteers of Ireland ? What right bad be to taunt ► persons out of doors?—(Cheers fironuel:nyrojeastg, There was an appearance of persona ql r. Hom o err i f; —(Cheers, and cries of "Oh !") He (I' f i ne ht M would On that the Right Hon. Gentleman he held i t n n ° ea t what passed within those walls , „f the r' ° Is consistent with the practice and ru a ce nol o the Hon. and Learned Member with insk t i . 4 „ s „ n oo e l allude to matters which had taken was not p ree —(Laughter.) Whilst be (Mr. 11 ", n et L on. a nd 143 5 to defend the expressions used by the " petttP. Gentleman towards the Hon. Member (00.,,eereor, 0; i t ‘ rsj .d r becoming to him; It was wrong in Ho a d ' rap'', considered the remarks of to sh"t r .„ berf' ticularl so in a Cabinet Minister 4 , evert —(Oh, oh.) Hon. Members may say (Laughter, and cries of " Question.) , 01005 1 An HoN. MEMBER (name unknolwi n ia ber far surprise at the language of the Linn. e w ere sex. He had never heard in that H(.O - thrown tbsts personal language than had been o d Pv" ntleala n, • first by the Hon. and Learned Ge e to the Hon. Member for Middlesex, who com .04 S, tance. It reminded him of the alliance uereeiriale philosopher and a certain animal,' be bead' service to his friend, broke the philosophers 000 did not say what the animal was, nor could . 1 1 jo sat' personal allusion—(A laugh)—for the j o ts the Right Ho Middlesex was not more unlike the 117 i : r 60 ,0 11 appearance than in internal appearance philosopher.—(Laughter.) me rle' • g Lord PALMERSTON bad never h e ard in e Ho°' for observations than those made by the se fir for Middlesex on his Right Hon. Friend. o° throwing out any thing in anger, be hod ° 0,10 the defence of an Hon. Member from the , rbi o. attack of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman' stiff Member for Middlesex thought it impropertibo any thing but wh a t had taken place in the' ap i tb ro , that they should abstract their attention 015 which had occurred in Ireland.--(A la u g n i d might be a conveni e nt do c trine fir the 1 1 °°' $ Ar i ett ibet Member for Dublin, and for the 1 10 °' b sobl Midolesex ; but the House, in discussing 1r ' would not he likely to comply with the re° o ru wea lilt:; of the Hon. M em b er . H e hoped the 1-I °°.l o tiollt direct its attention to th e clause u nder consuretbefiar that there would be no attempt to add fue l t° (Hear, hear.) in errs Mr. O'CONNELL admitted that be w as & ea speaking of Lord Ellenberough as a pri v y Gent instead of a Cabinet Minister. The Right Hon' the had committed as grievous an error, in Member for Bodmin a County Member. a On ° I Mr SHEIL would adopt the rev-nmet:l°,loo Noble Lord, who was an admirable pacificator " t ea ' sions, and now came forward to mediate be an belligerent parties. The Right Hon. Ge ° Kist' argued against combining the judicial and the .q? power. But wh a t h a d b een d o ne in this 1 . 31 : oti they had combined . the legislative, the judiete9,4o executive powers. Two j us ti ce s of the poe t il li ter y powered to disperse a meeting, and they tnig h °a a ° act in a judicial capacity, and convict a party that mary proceeding. Let not the House suPP ° 4 Cos° offences under this A c t were t o b e tried in w iv o to King's Bench; one o f th e o ff ence s at leae t „ w er tried before two justi ces o f th e p ea ce. I° I° ' bat ... yj there were exceptions of charitable nreetig g ' d . ht there were no ex ce pti ons . H on . Member° might there at the idea of 150 o rph ans b e i ng deprived of p m , 1 30, —(No, no.) What mi g ht ta k e p l a ce ende r got al A more arbitrary Secretary than they had o°W rec - cote i ,./ come ; and might not the orphan meetings be P_ pe eps) Mr. O'DWYER said, that by this Act 0' j a m Ireland were deprived of the protection of t : h t !.att4 transferred to an unmitigated despotism, or a b-l' re by the personal character of the men they w e oiee tiß o to. What wa s L or d A ng l esea ' s id ea o f a n illeg' i etak O r a " In his conversation with the Hon. Member for ibly Baldwin), Lord Anglesea said that every 0 100 lj alarmed the nerves of • be pt or any man ought to bly that the criterion of the illegality of an a's em ,rty of its tendency to disturb the peace, but the c l u- D i oese lf ) nerves which the Lord-Lieutenant happened t f a 'i,ioOt The amendment was negatived without ou l " the original clause agreed to. .„ to r 4 On the cla use em p ower i ng t h e L or d-Lieute l3 7: o Jere . , hibit " any body of p ersons " f rom assemblill t i a (P r cumstances calculated to l ea d t o a b re ach °' being read, t hat Colonel DAVIES proposed as an anrendore°',." clause should obtain only in .‘ proclaimed dig°, t oa, Mr. STANLEY o bj ecte d to t h e a mendtr e :jaL) ground that its effect would be the temPt l y riatre" - ofr lorcing—the Lord-Lieutenant to proclaim 0,71 e data - was nut actually in a state of disturbance. ago - ( c : ject of the Bill was the suppression of tul, bs l3 schemes which were the chief source of the di in Ireland. Now, the grand focus of this ini ec " e -e f l ree, ‘ " - tation nes the city of Dublin, which was wh0 ,7,. durar distutbance—(Lorol cries of " Hear " Iron n t 0 ,0 7 nell)—su that if the Gallant Member's amen t urf` adopted, the Lord Lieutenant would be f o rced r that city,—that is, prevent its peaceable inha t i t 10 0 ";11 being out of their houses after sunset and be l° ' - i i e Hon. Members should recollect that the Lord- et St":;• would be invested with three powers, each di tttl° o elni the other—one for dispersing and pro hibiting 1 joitt tending to a bre ac h o f th e peace, another f o r Pr °c :ol 9 ll, district, and a thi r d f or t h e esta b l i s hi ng o f colt; Jr, These three were not connecte d w i th ea ch ot be : o pr" by no means followed that where a district 0 ed 1! claimed court martial should b e a l so e stabli 4 fie° Then, Ministers were prepared to make an °ell' 0 the clause which would have the effect of rel"diet's purely political offences, in even a proclaiffl eu altogether from the cognizance of a m ilittolo juor• leaving them t o b e d ea l t w i th by the ordi na ry diction.--( Hear.) ( lead e r Mr. O'CONNELL b egge d t h e R i ght H0n..,:c 0 1-I' l,' ;$1 to bear in mi n d t h at if. on the one band, the "..;040.,;11 tenant would b e f orce d b y t h e amendment top r' d otor'• 1 undisturbed district, the inhabitants of those us be clo::1 districts mi g h t b e , on the other hand, force d by toottlt.it as it stood to follow the course pursued in th e 07 , ones, seeing th a t their peaceable conduct did °- sit o io o .o . • them an exemption from d es p o ti sm . The a chn' 311- the Right Hon. G ent l eman t h at t h e f ocu s o . f ei r was perfectly free from disturbance, was a r et- ; 01 4111 ment on the Bill an d t h e un f oun d e d as serg o- fl' • framers and supporte rs , w hi c h identified agitation disturbance. s R I O Mr. BEAUMONT wou ld support t h e c lause 1 00 because be conceived it necessary to putting t Whitefoot agitatio n w hi c h was t h e curse of I rr " - :4 0. was not against th e mere pidnight predial t ollt ill d i the mere physical Whitefeet--that the energies 11 . 0 0 i t formed Parliam ent s h ou ld b e di recte d , but tl e li r i o /f tt Whitefeet agitat ors — t h e i nte ll ectua l mars 0;740 , were the sole cause of the unhappy state of til l ' be s' —(Hear, hear, hear.) It would be unjust to ti lbite/ -- Whitefeet to confound them with the political "1 1 4 Mr. O'CONNELL felt that the malignity ° He - 3 0 1 Gentleman's charge carried its antidote in its 1.° " #. 1" ,l whom the Hon. Gentleman had presumed 0 w iiOCP - 6 rauders" were his equals in every conventional 411 „:00 0/ 00 —not to say anythi n g t ouc hi ng en d owm ent', acquired. The attack of the Hon. Memberll4 iwiraes,eanbtsusrtdotani,d because polit y svit ti c .,l a a l A t l i e T:r e l . a f E: r . i ß t as a U t i l t .LEß opposed the amendment. 0 0 5 t ; 0 14 dMart.taiLnAedMaßpEitßchTwchoineshidweraesdu utterly ri n y ec i e n s c sa o r m y p t : 1 iti tifr : goo: lr g . ov c e H rn tz m l e s n .r t. lTA ( s He a a p r n . Member fur ' f C ur ON w N e E xi L o L m ex o p i r r e k) . ss e ed his surprise that eta di' ißrit t i i ieo f ßttT p of t hl il e, i i tical agitation, because if it had not bee n 7 3:" v°l t • ii i(i)nr.:l:ewsAptAehleaßtitiEihgße LAMBERT observed a e osb C ste a or t v h ae o pd li p e rtoh q ya u et es o ti afl o tt n hhoe ll uag e: hit be ahtei ' ,o - sl3 : i: 3 d'ell sen otc p , re sh v o ai u h l . d rig no i t n h i a r ie la h n a d la (sleiaetairn.)that H .r ouse' e the ) agitation respecting the Catholic que'" °" Ex i l r Mr. N: C m it se t un A pi r ip : o l : A nt N etd , wt il an i se r :h clause,lYn A n i e La x g ga na H an nt a il i ni v , t : ei et id r a e r n t . d r e o Bl%a u bwri : I aci L L : ci a llll4 t fli r e e i l tr : 2l.4 c ll b an alarming to suppress political agitation, which l'' alarming height. IJ‘ iie, ll :ir l ita . w.t, O nfu :C it a O tsi i N see N nr.: E i.:lny L a, L ,i ati t d v fe i ,r s u h lot e if d btei to oe mpniritattieupdcsie:e, a s an , s, r $ O.. : E f i t t er b : h t . ee i ta b i ; ll :3 l self quite exhausted. He had now been aviv el) ; v i l yt i ‘o in discussion since five o'clock, and he liar " v ; i ce' ; strength to go on further. Under these ciruities_ beiAll, hoped the Noble Lord would consent to the clatis, 1 4 postponed till t o - morro w.--(Cries of " Go 00. 1 i CA moved that the Chairman should report progle"' .„03ilt Lord ALTHORP expressed a wis h that the "" should come to a decision upon the clause. port i‘lB l ll l rrrp...„ progress. —(Cries iL L etsb % hoe v anf i t d I m‘ d zio r n( e ) vii "Divide.") i dni e, his et.:, a da) t tm n e et i rl ! i ct e oh n a t p i rraiop o loe f f i o the clause, but at that late hour he was unwilling x 1 1)° inence a fresh discussion. ~,, ~,ap:il :i ol n iLr e i. t seisacG r aan( l f) e udß t inl,i‘eNiloeniGirnotEthi:lesatroetthisignhahodatranelix,tiinhglwa,:ualastteo(tdpo:oeleiabidrtai:db, eehel t tf y ia i u a brs t .ye) t at b oiti e tee fl o : i : i i Mr. O'CONNELL denied that he bad At° IRIS ] The tael4 Intel'St try 4 14 17 1 th of e ttihtr h oUhl ) siti t , 4 14 . did b r i t no t 'NY tad , n fi re d r qt,' r ende b , for e rul ita ti th e 1011, S At erthe 4 f 1 1 V E t, k er o w-on di on kl let , 1,1; Sgt,,)' co. tlm W e , 4 04, 1 . 44 'let ti /) , 5 . , .1 4 ....... ...... F„ ~, 't Xk li ''' 1 ot th,,C b 4 , e th4 N 7 l ' t IN' ai t N, 1 ar1 e 7...... 4) , ‘‘, ,t4....'N , .C, ' ,' b ari e t4) ,........ 44 11h 4,1e,a,,tz..,.. e. . 1, '2: . . - ` 4 4 . k ' 4 ' 4 e ), tt i % F„ ef ill b a lov,Le ll: e 14 1 1 41 ) .4 O at 'er l i atio I N Straw) Ile ~ -'ber ate .i. Co,, tie - le h 'II ti e l N 1,411, kir o 4 l6Z l t O 1101 tkir ( l ,'l , l l) itto 4 . 4 t S t 1- 1, y ` 1 1,, ~r 1 , 11 ,, ., Z b Ir ettetd ' : tlat T ma ) -0 - ncr r ' l jilt " : Pt. W lL 4 th' ' : hiri tEs ! I i' direct. tilqi