The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-03 00:00:00

I IMPERIAL P ARMAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 2. Their Lordships met this morning at half-past twelve o'clock, and proceeded in procession to to the Palace to present the address. Before leaving the House their Lordsh:ps ad ourned until Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 2. The SPFAK ER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. Several petitions on private Bills were presented. STATE TRIALS. Mr. THORN ELY presented a petition agreed to at a public tweeting in Liverpool, at which several thousand persons were Present, and signed by Mr. Hathbone, the Chairman, on the übject of the State trials in Dublin. The petitioners cemplained ,f the selection of the jury, from which sixty-five names load been withdrawn, as a dangerous invasion of the right a trial by jury —( Hear, hear)—and of the challenge on behalf of the Crown of every Roman Catholic, as a practical repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Hear, hear.) They moreover complained of it as an affront to the whole Roman Catholic body, and they prayed the House to inctituse an inquiry on the subject, and to adopt such measures as would remedy the evil already inflicted, and pre vent the recurrence of such a serious evil in future.—( Hear. ) Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from Thomas Clark, 3f London, stating that he had been confined in the Queens l3ench Prison for seventeen years, and praying for an alteration '‘n the law with regard to imprisonment for debt. ANIMALS' FRIEND SOCIETY. Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition from the Animals' Protection Society, raying the House to adopt some measures for the better regulation of the slaughter-houses of the metropolis. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. WARD gave notice that on the motion of the Hon. Member for Pontefract being made, he should move an amend ment, that no provision for the secular Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland could be just, or tend to re-establish the tranquillity ithat country, unless based on a revision of the whole eccle s:astical system, so as to place all religious denominations on a rooting of perfect equality. POST-OFFICE. Mr. ELPHINSTONE gave notice of his intention to move Isr leave to bring in a Bill to amend the present Post-office ystem. DUCHY OF CORNWALL. Mr. TRELAWNEY gave notice that on the 15th of February he should move for a Committee to take into con sideration the whole state and position of the Duchy of Corn wall, TOLLS ON LIME. Col. T. WOOD gave notice that, on the 15th Feb., he should move to bring in a Bill to exempt lime from paying turnpike tolls (as we understood). STATE OF WALES. Doctor BOWRING gave notice that he should ask a question of the Government connected with the late oubreaks InWales—whether a report had been made on the subject, and Ist), whether the report would be laid before the House. SUPPLY. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice that, when a :notion was made for going into Committee of Supply, he should .novv, as an amendment, that a Committee be appointed for inquiring into the grievances of the people. IRISH REGISTRATION. Colonel RAWDON moved for a return of the electors for counties in Ireland now entitled to vote, with the name of the baronies from which each elector registers ; also fer a similar return of the electors registered after the passing of the Irish Reform Act. FOREIGN JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUB- JEC'fS. Mr. M. MILNES:moved for copies of all orders of Council, under tt►e Foreign Jurisdiction Act, and of any correspondence that has taken place between the Government and Foreign Viwers on the subject of criminal jurisdiction over British s .bjects abroad. BANKRUPT RETURNS. Mr. IN ATSON moved fer the following returns:—Return 'all sums of money received and paid to the fund called " The Secretary of Bankrupts' Account," since the passing and under the statute 5 and 6 Vic., c. 122 ; with a return of the names of all persons who have been paid by salary, compen sation, or in any other manner, and with the sums charged cn the slid fund, and all charges allowed en the same fund.— ' Return of a copy of every claim for compensation made to the Lord Chancellor by each person, as the clerk of the enrol ents, deputy of such clerk, comptroller of the hanaper, riding ~lark, six clerk, sworn clerk, waiting clerk, agent, or record keeper, under the statute 5 and 6 Vic. c. 103, a. I•2.—Return a copy of any order made by the Lord Chancellor for corn sn4ation under the statute 5 and 6 Vic. c. 103.—Return of all c impensations awarded or allowed to officers in the Courts of Jstice, under the sta tiles 11 Geo. 4, and Will. 4, c. 58 ; uting the names of tht pirions, ttie amount of compensation, and the office in respect ce which the compensation was awarded snd allowed.—Return of all sinecure offices, and offices entirely ,erforiaied by deputy in the Court of Chancery, and the Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster; stating the _lames of the holders of such offices, and the amount of salaries :eceived for the last three years.—Return of the various duties performed by the Masters of the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, at Westminster.—Agreed to. MISSION TO SHOA. Dr. BOWRING;oved for a copy of the correspondence relating to the late Mission t• Shoa. Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR moved for copies of any !orrespondenee that had taken place between the Poor- law Commissioners and the guardians of the Glastonbury Union, relative to the dismissal of Mr. George Newman from the medical superintendence of the poor in that union. CANADA—SIR C. METCALFE. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he had to put a question cfgreat importance to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the - ..7olonies. He wished to ask his Noble Friend, whether the course pursued by Sir Charles Metcalfe in Canada had the zoncurrence of her Majesty's Government? Lord STANLEY said he was not at all sorry that his Hon. Friend had put the question to him, because he believed that, in a matter of this kind, it was essential that there should be no mistaken impression upen the public mind. --le had no hesitation in saying that the policy pursued by Sir Charles 'Metcalfe in Canada had the entire approbation of her Majesty's Government. The selection of Sir Charles Metcalfe— a man of tried abilities, and known liberal views in politics—as Governor of Canada, was quite in keeping with the course which her Majesty's Government wished to pursue in that coun try. But although Sir C. Metcalfe went out to carry out the views of the Government at home, yet he was equally determined to resist any demands inconsistent with the dignity of the Crown. He should conclude by saying that Sir C. Mtcalfe, in pursuing this course, would have the entire support of the Home Govern er Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to ask whether it was the rtention of the Government to communicate to the House the zatructions sent out by the Government at home to Sir Charles bletcalfe, or the correspondence which had taken place be tween the Government and the Colonial •office? Lord STANLEY said that no communication such as the Noble Lord alluded to had been sent to Sir Charles Metcalfe, hut at the proper time, if the Noble Lord chose to put the moestion, be would explain the course pursued by Sir Charles ; wen he would hope to satisfactorily vindicate it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, when Mr. ROEBUCK called the Noble Lord to order. It was not right to allow a conversation of this kind, when no ether person could make an observation. 1111,ZILg. Mr. HAWES wished to ask the Eight Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, if he would have any objection to lay upon the table copies of the papers connected with the re cent treaty concluded with the Brazils? Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to the Hon. Gentleman's question, he felt bound to say that the treaty would expire in about a year, and during the present state of the mat ter he did not deem it consistent with his public duty to 'oder the returns to which the Hon. Gentleman alluded. CHARITABLE TRUSTS. In answer to aViestionfrom Sir GEORGE GREY, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that he did nut ask the Right 1-lon. Gentlemen to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice, but he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that d•iring the recess the subject had been under the anxious con siJeration of the Government, and at a very early period of e session a measure would be proposed upon the subject. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. Sir GEORGE GREY begged to ask the Right Hon. Ba ronet another question :—Whether it was the intention of her !Majesty's Government to propose in this session any measure for the improvement of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and if so, whether tha measure would be introduced in this or the other House of Parliament ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had announced in the other House his inten tion to bring in a Rill upon the subject at an early period. THE CASE OF MR. BONHAM. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that as he saw the Hon. Mem ber for Exeter had jest taken his place, he wished to ask him a question relating to a notice given by the Honourable Gentleman, which, it not explained, might have an injurious effect upon the reputation of ass Honourable Friend of his. He alluded to the notice which the Mon. Member for Exeter had given of a motion on the Bth of February, for an address to her Majesty to dismiss F. R. Bonham, Esq., from the office of Storekeeper of the Ordnance.—( Hear, hear.) He (Sir IL Peel) wished to inquire whether the Hon. Gentleman weld(' object to state what were the grounds of his motion ? Mr. DIVETT said that when he gave the notice he had no intention of injuring the reputation of Mr. Bonham ; but, on the contrary, he sincerely hoped that gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of his conduct on the occa sion of which he (Mr. D.) thought he had reason to complain. As a preliminary, he must state that, though undoubtedly he was influenced by public considerations in bringing the subject inrward, the complaint which he had to make referred not to Mr. Bonham's official position, but to the frinctions which he performed in the position which he held with refe rence to the Carlton Club, and the Conservative party.— ( Great laughter. 1 Gentlemen might laugh ; they pro bably knew Mr. Bonham's functions much better than he did; but undoubtedly his functions appeared to him of snob a questionable character that he thought it essential that the Government should learn what they were.—(Cries of " Oh ! oh !") He was not aware that he had said anything to cause that interruption. As he had already said, he most sin cerely hoped that Mr. Bonham would be able to give a satis factory answer to the charge which he had to make against —( Hear, hear.) That charge, he would now state, related to his conduct in reference to the last London election. The charge was, that Mr. Bonham, either through himself or guided by others, had made representations which, if not intentionally fraudulent, were certainly reprehensible. He had been very sorry to find it necessary to make any complaint of that nature.—(llear, hear.) lie had even thought of writing to the Right Hon. Baronet to know whether he justified such a mode of carrying on the business of elections, but he had ultimately thought that it would not be desirable to pursue such a course. He thought, however, that as the matter was one affecting the purity of election and the state of the Parlia mentar) representation, it was his duty to bring it under the consideration of the House. If the Hun. Gentleman wished him to state the case then, instead of making the deliberate motion which he had put on the books, he was prepared to do so. At the same time he must state that there were two or three letters on the subject, which he had not then in his possession, and the reading of which was es sential to its proper elucidation.—( Hear, hear. ) Sir R. PEEL said he had no wish to elicit from the Hon. Gentleman a general statement of the transactions to which lie referred, he had only wished to ascertain whether the motion was grounded on some official act of misconduct, independently of any electioneering question. Mr. DIVETT repeated, that it did not relate to Mr. Bon nam's conduct in his official position. It referred not to his ostensible, but to his real position in relation to the Govern anent.—(lronical cies of Ilear, hear.) RIGHT OF PETITION. Mr. WALLACE rose to bring forward, according to notice, a motion—" That the practice of the House on the presenta tion of petitions complaining of the grievances of the people be altered, so diet in future petitions may be publicly discussed at ths time of their presentation ; and that any rule or order of this, House, which contra„ or prohibits t he discussion of the peti tionaof the people at the time a their presentation, be rescinded." The sessional order on this sui)e,co. having been read by the Clerk at the table, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that it was his intention to move, in conformity witi; the terms of the motion he had just read to the House, that that Drdi.r be rescinded ; but as the question had been often discussed, he did siof feel it necessary to occupy much of the public time I Sri addressing himself to it. The people of this country, bo . wooer that House might frame their regulations, could not bring themselves to understand why, when their pe titions were sent up, they should, by a rule, in the making of which they bad no part, and the practice of which they disapproved, be merely mentioned, but not discussed. To pursue this plan would be to make petitions obso lete.—( Laughter.) During two of the years he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament, he referred to the years 1832 and 1833, the petitions of the people were discussed fully, and this mode of doing business gave great satisfaction to the entire country. As might be supposed, the discontinuance of so wholesome and popular a practice had an effect exactly the reverse. The people now were led to believe th t Members received their petitions, just read their object to the House, jammed into that they were then thrown under the tables , or into bags and large sacks. Now those who knew what importance the people attached to this, their ancient right of petition, should pause before they did anything that might lead to a distrust in or a discontinuance of the prac tice. He (Mr. Wallace) did not deny that the former practice was attended at times with considerable trouble; but a distinction might be made were there any in clination shown by the House to do away with the present system. In the session of 1839, a division took place on this subject, and the numbers were for the continuance of the pre sent practice 105, and against its continuance 50 only. In the session of 1842, the subject was twice before the House— once being brought forward by himself, and once by the Hen. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Dencombe) ; for the division on his own motion he had forty-three votes with him, and one hundred and eighty-three against him. In that year there was something worthy of remark in that House, in consequence of the motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe). He (Mr. Wallace) brought forward the question in that year en the same principle that he did now—the inherent right of the people—a right which that House bad not constitutionally the power to wrest away. But his Hon. Friend (Mr. Duneombe) had broached the subject as connected with the question of taxation ; viz., that at all events, when matters of taxation were petitioned about, they should have the right to discuss these petitions—that therein, at all events, the old and healthy practice should be restored. On the occasion to which he referred in 1842, the division showed 136 votes in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, whereas there were only 167 against it ; then the motion was lost, even in a Conservative Parliament, by only 31 votes. The people out of doors had no opportunity of ever seeing their petitions after they were presented. They were sent to the Committee on Petitions, who dealt with them as they pleased—sometimes reading them in whole, and some times reading mere extracts. The only way left to a representa tive of informing his constituents what had become of their petition, was by stating that he had presented such a peti tion on such a day. But the people out of doors did not understand this, and they found great fault in being dealt with in such a manner. The rule that indivi dual petitions might be printed with the Votes, was overborne by other rules. On two occasions—one last session, and the other in the preceding session—he was forced to leave two petitions undiscussed, because he could not find a day to bring them forward, though he had watched every opportunity. One of those he got printed with the Votes, but the other lie did not, because it referred to the character of a judicial person. He would therefore call on the House to depart from the stringent rule by which the petitions of the people were kept in a manner secret. The people could not purchase the voted of the House, in which those things were noticed, and the Members were not allowed to send them to their constituents. He believed that the rescinding of that rule would be exceed ingly gratifying to the country. Having stated the nature of the case which he had to bring before the House, and it having been stated fully twice before during the present Parliament, ke had merely to observe that, if this proposal should be re jected, the people would have a right to conclude that the majority of that House were determined to de all that in them lay to prevent the people having any knowledge of the manner in which the business of that House was conducted. He should certainly divide the House upon his motion. Dr. BOWRING fully agreed with the observations which had fallen from his Hon. Friend, and he should therefore feel great pleasure in seconding the motion. It could not escape • the observation of Hon. Gentlemen, that there was a growing 'indisposition on the part of the people for petitioning that ' House, and he, therefore, cordially seconded the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL felt a little surprised at the observa tion of the Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the lime, that there was a growing disposition to withhold petitions from the House of Commons. He (Sir R. Peel) thought—he was then speaking from memory—that during the last year 25,000 petitions were presented ; and if the Hon. Gentleman would compare that number with the number presented during the preceding year, he would not find that there was any disposition on the part of the people to withhold petitions from the House of Commons. Did the Hon. Gentleman recollect the petitions that were presented with respect to education, when the Educa tion Bill was under consideration last year? If he did so, he ( Sirß. Peel) did not think that in that case any proof would be dis covered of a want of disposition on the part of the people to withhold petitions when they had any objections to public measures proposed. He thought he had heard from Honour able Gentlemen that the result of these petitions was a conclusive proof of the efficacy of the right of petitioning. The question was not what would most suit the personal conve nience of Members, but as to which practice would be most conducive to the proper conducting of public business, Some years ago it was usual to enter into debate on petitions, as it was then held that it was very useful, because many Members of Parliament, who distrusted their own powers, and were un willing to enter into a general discussion, had this an opportu nity of speaking on petitions. He (Sir R. Peel) must say, that the confidence of the House had very much increased and now there was no such diffidence on the part of individual Members to address the House.—( Hear, and laughter. ) In point of fact the practice had grown up of having debates on questions of great public importance, which lasted six or seven days, and thus the opportunity of addressing the House was afforded ; and he thought that a speech made a greater impression when delivered in the cenrse of a consecutive discussion, than when delivered at an unexpected time on the occasion of presenting a petition. This subject was brought under the notice of the House when the late Govern ment was in power, and when Mr. Abercrombie filled the chair which the present Speaker now so worthily occupied ; and he begged to remind the House of the rule then laid down. The impression was se great, of the inconvenience of occupying the early part of a day fixed for an im portant public discussion by the discussion of petitions, that the general sense of the House was taken on the point, and by the general concurrence of the House, the practice was changed. But what were the regulations at present ? It was competent for any Member to present a petition ; he might state the place from whence it came, its objects, and the number of signatures attached to it, and if he pleased, he might have that petition read at the table. If he intended to found a motion on that petition, it was not referred to the Select Com mittee on Petitions, but was printed with the Votes—if the pe tition referred to a personal grievance, then he apprehended that it was competent for the Member to have that petition discussed. These were the standing regulations, and, instead of arguing the question, he thought it better to leave it to the sense of individual Members to decide whether it was not better for the order and satisfactory conduct of public business, to adhere to the present rule, rather than originate a discussion on the presenting of petitions. His own opinion was that it was for the public advantage to adhere to the Standing Orders formed by a large majority of the House, and lie hoped the House would not now depart from the rules it affirmed in 1840. Mr. BROTHERTON said he was convinced that the discussion on petitions, when presenting them, was impracti cable. He never saw one of his constituents whom he could not convince of ins impracticability. The present mode, so far from being objectionable, was the best, and petitions were now presented in the best manner in which he had ever seen them. According to the old principle it was impossitle to present more than three or four petitions of a night. He hoped his Hon. Friend would not attempt a division. He would merely direct the attention of his Hon. Friend to the number of peti tions which had been presented at different periods. In the five years ending 1799, the number of petitions presented' had been bSO ; in the five years ending 1805, it had been 1,026; in the five years ending 1815, they had been 4,498. In the five years ending 1831 they had been 24,492, and in the five years ending 1843 they had been 94,295. ( Hear, hear.) Now he would ask his Hon Friend if it were possible to have a discussion upon all these petitions.—( Cheers.) The fact was, that under the old system petitions were sent to only a few Members, who would occupy the time of the House, regardless of the feelings of all present, and who would make long speeches. He had, under the old plan, brought down petitions to the House, for nine days consecutivel, without He having had an opportunity of presenting them. e had the strongest conviction that the people would not be dissatisfied with the resent ;plan if it were properly explained to them.— ( Cheers. ) Although he was generally found voting on the popular side, and although he was not insensible to the appro. ' bation of the people, he felt, from a sense of duty, bound to vote against the motion. Mr. WARD had, some years since, brought forward a mo tion similar to that proposed by the Hon. Member for Greenock, but further experience had convinced him of the correctness of the views entertained by the Hon. Member for Salford, and of the impossibility of discussing petitions when they were pre sented. He should, therefore, be compelled to vote against the motion, although he had brought forward a similar one himself some years since. He felt that the adjourned debates to which allusion had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet, afforded the Members representing large constituencies a more conve nient opportunity of placing their sentiments on record, than would be afforded them by any discussion upon petitions. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, had overlooked the fact that many Hon. Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the House were constantly anxious to press on a division. The Right Hon. Baronet should recollect that in debates en great cern • mercial questions it was but right that every Member repre senting a large commercial - constituency ought to have an opportunity of delivering his sentiments. It was true he had brought forward a motion something similar in purport upon a former occasion, but that was in the days of his inexperience, and much as he might regret it he felt bound to vote against his Hon. Friend. Mr. FIELDEN, who from the extremely low and indistinct tone of voice in which he spoke, and the noise in the House, was nearly inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that he hoped his Hon. Friend would divide the House upon his mo tion, when he (Mr. Fielden) would certainly vote in its favour. Mr. WALLACE said that all he had heard on both sides of the House had not changed his opinion that the people out of the House would be glad to have the rule rescinded. He en tirely differed from the view taken by his Hon. Friend the Member for Salford. His Hon. Friend was a member of the Committee on Petitions, and most people were easily biassed in their opinions by the possession of mock autho rity. However, he did not wish to waste the time of the House—( Laughter, and Oh, oh)—and as he was reminded by the First Lord of the Treasury that to do away with the rule would interfere with another regulation, which he considered very useful, he would withdraw his motion for the present, but at another time he would show the House that the rule ought to be modified. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. THE SESSIONAL ORDERS. Sir G. CLERK moved the usual sessional orders. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said some of these standing orders were so much at variance with the practice of the House that Govern ment ought to revise them. When the House had laid down rules for the guidance of its proceedings, those rules should be strictly adhered to; but such was far from being the case. One of the orders was, " That no Peer of this realm hath any right to give his vote in the election of any Member to serve in Parliament." Now he would not discuss the right of Peers to vote for:Members of that House ; but the order in question ought not to be established unless they had both the disposition and the power to enforce it. No statute law or common law of this country forbade a Peer to vote for a Mem ber of that House ; and if a Peer were to claim to vote in virtue of a proper qualification, no revising barrister:could refuse to allow his claim. It had been publicly stated that a certain Peer had declared that he would act in direct opposition to the standing order on the subject; he did not know whether he had done so, but he did not see what there was to prevent him. They must bring their authority into contempt by passing rules which they had no power to enforce. Take another of the standing orders :—" That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the honours of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate to concern himself in the election of Members to serve the Commons in Parliament." How were they to enforce this? It was proved before a Committee in 1836, that the Members of the House of Peers, without one single exception exercised all the power which they possessed in virtue of property, office, er in influencing the election of Members of the Hoaupiethdiingese, lCommons. It was notorious that the Peers drove their tenants and depgnde l ts to the poll, and made them vote refused they were punished, at their own pleasure, f they either by removal from their situations or dismissal from their farms. The Chandos clause was passed to carry into effect the clause. He said then, that when they had not the power to en force these rules, they ought not to be annually voted. He was quite sure that if a Commit - ee of the House were to on these Standing Orders, a great number of them would be expunged, as applicable only to times long past. They all well knew that the Peers of this realm openly subscribed large sums of money to buy votes, and otherwise influence the re turns at elections. Yes, he would be proud to say there was not a gentleman on the Treasury benches, who could not point out Peers who were subscribers to the Election Fund at the Carlton Club, nor a gentleman on his side of the House who could not point out others, subscribers to the Reform funds. He said this was an interference of the Peers with the privileges of that House. And yet, they took no means to put a stop to such practices, except by passing a series of orders which they never enforced. Another of these orders directed that no strangers should be allowed in the House, and that should one be found there, he should instantly be taken into custody by the Ser geant-at-Arms. Why this order was violated every day, for every Member had the acknowledged privilege of giving an or der for the admission of a friend to the gallery, and that privi lege he exercised. And even their Speaker himself violated this sessional order every day. There was a portion of that House set apart, fir the Speaker alone to give or ders to—the part known as the Speaker's Gallery. Those who desired admission to this gallery could only obtain it through an application to the Speaker himself, who, with his usual courtesy, directed the applicant's name to be placed on his Secretary's list. How could the House then, with these open and avowed violations, allow such standing orders to remain at all ? He was surprised that self respect had not long since induced the House to abandon orders some of which they could not enforce, others of which they freely permitted to be laughed at and put on one side. They ought to be abrogated, and others ought to be framed, which, whilst they ensured the obedience of the House, would also command the respect of the people. Colonel WYND HAM said that as the representative of a large agricultural community he could not refrain from making a few observations, although those observations had no relation whatever to the subject before the House.—(Laughter.) The SPEAKER—The H on. Gentleman must confine his observations to the question before the House. Cotonel WYNDHAM—Ain 1 not at liberty, sir, to reply to the statements brought forward by the Hon. Member for Coventry The SPEAKER—Yes. Colonel WYNDHAM said he could not sit still after hear ing the unjust aspersions that had bee• thrown upon the landed aristocracy of the country. The Hon. Member said that they drove their tenant voters to the poll like se many sheep.— Well that might have been the ease fifty years ago, but he denied—emphatically denied•—that such was the case at pre sent. Why should not a man invest money in any mode of business he thought proper, and had not a man a right to in vest money in land if he thought proper?—( Renewed ►aughter. ) Why common sense would tell a man that he had. Those gentlemen upon the other side of the House who were the pro prietors of mills, and manufactories, were not interfered with when they invested capital in these things, although numbers of men employed in them had been turned adrift, and become a burden on the agricultural community. The Anti- Anti-Corn-law League—('Laughter)—had risen up in its own defence, and shown the Government that the agricultural in terest was nine millions strong, whereas the manufacturing in terest was only three millions strong—that League had given a confidence to the Government which they could not overlook. Mr. CHRISTIE said that it was not his intention to move the amendment of which he had given notice, respecting the exclusion of strangers and the publication of debates at present ; but as it would not prejudice him on a future occasion to post pone it, he would bring it under the consideration of the House as a substantive motion at an early period. Mr. W. WILLIAMS wished to know whether the Act that was passed the session before last embraced the whole of the sessional orders. If that were so, every proposition contained in the orders was embraced in the Act, and therefore they were not necessary. Sir GEORGE CLERK was understood to say that the orders now under consideration were brought in five or six years ago, and the Hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the Act he referred to embraced them. _ _ On the reading of the order for the precedence of orders to motions on two days of the week. Mr. W. 'WILLIAMS said that he considered the order to be attended with very great inconvenience. One effect of it was, that it caused Bills at the end of the session to be hurried through the House without discussion, and almost without consideration. He trusted the Government would impose upon themselves the same regulations they imposed on other Members of the House with respect to notices of motion and Bills brought in on the Wednesdays. Sir R. PEEL did not think the regulations for which the Honourable Member contended were necessary, or would be productive of any benefit. It was generally the disposition on the part of all Members to take the business which was most convenient. The Hon. Gentleman surely did not mean that his rule should prevent altogether the bringing on of the supplies ? He thought that the best course for the Government would be to give notice on the days devoted to Government business, what business should be brought on. But to say that they should go through twenty orders of the day, would only be to defeat public business. The Hon. Gentleman had said that he had waited six nights to bring on a motion; if he had done so, he had at least had the advantage of hearing discussions on other subjects.—( A laugh. ) Mr. WILLIAMS rose to explain. If the Right Hon. Baronet would only exercise the same ingenuity—(Cries of Order, order," amid which the Hon. Member sat down. ) The orders were then agreed to. THE ADDRESS. Lord CLIVE brought up the Report on the address, which was read at the table by the clerk. Mr. S. CRA WFORD rose to move the omission of all those words which related to the repeal of the union. They were told that it was not right to discuss what was now going on in Ireland. If so it was not right to introduee the repeal of the union with the address, giving their approval to the pro ceedings which had not yet terminated. He was not now dis posed to give a pledge to maintain the union inviolate under any circumstances. He had never advocated the repeal of the union; he had never connected himself with the repeal move ment ; but he would not pledge himself to oppose it under all circumstances. Unless the union was carried out in such a manner as to do full justice to Ireland, it ought to be repealed. If such laws as the Irish Arms' Bill were carried, if they did not legislate justly for Ireland, the people of that country might fairly demand the repeal of the union. The House had often before given pledges of their attachment to the union, but they had accompanied those pledges with declarations of their desire to improve Irish institutions; and having given those pledges, he was bound to say that they had not kept faith with the Irish people. It was said that there had been a conspiracy in Ireland against the Government. He believed there had been a con spiracy elsewhere against the people of Ireland.—( Hear, hear. ) He wished to warn that House and her Majesty's Government that the steps which had been taken in Ireland were adding both numbers and power to the repeal agitation, beyond any thing which had hitherto occurred. Even those who were best affected towards British connexion hardly knew what course to adopt.—( Hear, hear.) He was himself an ad vocate of that connexion, but if it could be maintained only at the sacrifice of the rights and liberties of Ireland, he would throw it to the winds. He never would be a party to main taining British connexion by the surrender of all those rights which every freeman was entitled to enjoy, and of which Irishmen would not consent to be deprived. The Hon. Mem ber then moved that all the words relating to the repeal of the union should he expunged. The question ha;ingbeen put, Mr. FITZSI EPHEN FFRENCH trusted that his Hon. Friend would not object to having the whole of the paragraph relating to Ireland expunged from the address, unless an as surance was given by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that some meaning was to be attached to the words. The O'CONOR DON agreed with his Hon. Friend in thinking the tendency of the paragraph in question would be most injurious, and that it was calculated to produce a most prejudicial effect, as far as regarded the trials now pending. The declaration of her Majesty at the close of the last session was sufficiently explicit, and there was no necessity for a re newal of it at the present time, except as showing the line of policy which the Government intended to adopt, and that consequently it was calculated to exert great influence on the jury. He was sure that the House must deplore such a result. The present was not the moment for discussing the policy of the repeal of the union ; that question, however, was open to discussion. The Noble Lord the Member for London had, last year, told them that the seeking of the repeal of an Act of Parliament was not a breach of the Constitution.— ( Hear, hear.) It there were nu attempts to sever the two kingdoms—if all that was wished was to place them in the position they occupied previous to the year 1800—he thought the advocates of the repeal had been hardly dealt by, for they had been represented as wishing to sever the two kingdoms, and as being deficient in their allegiance, when their only ob ject was to place the kingdoms in the same relative positiens which they had occupied previous to the union. He protested against the paragraph, as being calculated to affect the decision of the jury. Sir ROBERT PEEL appealed to the House whether the general tenor of the address did not sufficiently prove that it was not the wish of the Government, in the slightest degree to influence the decision of the jury.—(Cheers.) He was surprised at this objection being taken to-night, as although the subject had been discussed last night, and many Members opposed to the Government had admitted that they had no difficulty in concurring in the address—(Hear, hear) —some Hon. Gentleman had proposed an amendment—the Hon. Gentleman himself had proposed an amendment on an other part of the address, but he had found no fault with that part of it which was at present the subject of discussion. fhe Hon. Member for Montrose bad also moved an amendment to the address, but he had made no reference to that portion of it. The Noble Lord the Member for London—the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, had signified their concur rence ; and he thonght,:therefore, under those circumstances, that those must be rather fastidious critics who thought that the reference to the union would be likely to prejudice the trial. On the other hand, it might be contended, with an equal show of reason, that the desire expressed by her Majesty to co-operate with Parliament in the measures tending to the development of the resources of Ireland, and to the removal of the evils under which that country was suffering, would influence the jury in favour of the defendants ; but there was the expres de claration on the part of her Majesty, that she forbore from making any observations on events in Ireland, in respect of which proceedings were pending before the courts of justice. Even if there had been anything equivocal in those portions of the speech to which he had referred, teat declaration, on the part of her Majesty, showed that the disposition of those by whom that speech had been framed, was to cautiously abstain from the use of any expressions which would be supposed likely to influence the jury. It was out of his power to agree to the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, and he considered the fears that had been expressed to be totally without founda tion.—( Hear.) Mr. BLEWITT, in allusion to the complaint of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that this subject had not been mentioned last night, would remind the House of the complaint of the Hon. Member for Montrose, that they were called upon to vote the address without having had any time allowed them to consider the speech.—(Hear, hear.) Had a copy of the speech been furnished to them beforehand, so as to give them an qppor tunity of considering it, he should certainly have brought for ward a motion similar to that now before the House ; for he considered that part of the speech to which the motion re ferred to be most unconstitutional, indecorous, and improper. —(A laugh.) He had last session complained that the Right Hon. Baronet had used her Majesty's name in a most uncon stitutional manner, and he renewed the complaint now. The Crown had no power to tell the people that they should not agitate to procure the repeal of a law. It was the privilege of the people of this country to agitate against any law from which they dissented, or with which they were dissatisfied; and not only because he believed that paragraph of the speech calcu lated to affect the trials, but also for the reasons he had already stated, he should support the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. He would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman what would have been thought if a declaration had been inserted in a speech that in her Majesty's opinion the corn-law ought to be continued for ever?—( Hear, hear.) This would be only the same thing as saying that the union should never be re pealed, and yet he felt assured that if in her Majesty's speech it had been declared that the corn-law should not be repealed, such an agitation would have been raised throughout the country as had not existed since England had been a nation. He felt exceedingly excited on this subject over since he had THE RUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, PEER tTARY 3, 1844. read the history of his country and Ireland, and 4SIICIi he had done so he blushed for England ; he had never seen more atrocious acts committed by any civilised country to another than those that had been committed towards Ireland.— (Hear.) How, be would ask, could he remain quiet, and see session after session pass away in that House without any attempt to redress the grievances of Ireland, and he con fessed that if he was an Irishman, he did not know how far his feelings would carry him.—( A laugh.) He had not met with much favour in that House. He did not know why, because ever since he bad had a seat he had conducted himself with courtesy to every Member.—( Hear, hear.) He did not pro fess to be blessed with eloquence, but he had studied the ques tions brought before the House and endeavoured to understand them.—( Hear, hear.) If, however, he Was not to be allowed to express his sentiments, the House should tell him so, in order that his constituents might be enabled to send a better Member.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by stating that the amendment had his cordial support. THE IRISH ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Mr. ROEBUCK said, that as allusion had been made to the State trials in Ireland, he would take that opportunity of putting a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. He wished to know whether the Government bad had their attention directed to the con duct of the person who was the head law officer of the Go vernment in Ireland, and who was conducting the prosecu tions that were taking place there? He would not allude to the probable result of those prosecutiens l out of respect for the course the House seemed to have laid down, although he held it perfectly competent for him to do so. However he might differ from the House on that point, yet feeling re spect for the due administration of justice, he was prevented from being silent or deterred from putting the question he was about to do.—( Hear, hear.) If there was any one thing that more than another ought to distinguish State prosecutions it was that they should be conducted with no vindictive ness—if anything mere than another ought to dis tinguish them, it was calm, decorous, and considerate be haviour.—( Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the House -not to Ireland, but to:England—whether such calmness, de corum, or considerate behaviour, had been evinced by the At torney-General for Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) In the presence of the assembled Judges of the law, the maintainers of the law, and the maintainers of peace, there had been one of the most gr iss breaches of the decencies of his situation committed by the Attorney-General of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He was at the present time prosecuting a man whom he called a great criminal, for bringing in danger the peace of the country, and the first thing he did was to commit a gross breach of the law himself, for which he ought to have been immediately committed by the Judges.—(Cries of " Hear, hear." He was liable at the present moment to an indictment, and he hoped he would be subjected to it.—( Hear, hear.) It was his pride to speak these sentiments in the presence of the At torney-General for England, whose conduct, to his praise be it spoken, was widely different to that of the'Attorney-General,for Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General for England had done all he could to conciliate, while the Attorney-Gene ral for Ireland had attempted every means to light the tech of discord.—( Hear, hear.) The Judges of Ireland had be haved exceedingly remiss, they were filled with consideration for the officer, but forgot the vindication of the law.—( Hear, hear.) What should the Judges have done ? They should have instantly committed him.—(Hear.) Nothing could have been more unhappily conducted from beginning to end than these State trials. What moral influence (said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman) can these State trials have on the social interests of Ireland?—( Hear, hear.) I ask my Right Hon. Friend opposite, supposing that our positions were re versed—supposing that I was prosecuting for the Crown, and that he was defending the prisoners, what, 1 say, would he have thought of me if, because he had made the best speech he could in defence of his clients, I sent him a hostile message? Anti yet the Attorney-General for Ireland had acted so. Yes, the head of the bar.—( Hear, hear.) An effective speech for a client is sure to draw down his wrath. Why did he not carry out the principle and challenge the jury.—( Laughter.) I don't know that even the Judges are safe.—( Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") Such things have happened in Ireland. It was the wish of the Government to preserve the union. In order to do so they did not set an example of that moderation which distinguished the tribunals of this country, on the part of those presiding there, where there is an absence of all emotion —where the Judges seem impassable to irritation or excitement— ( Hear, hear)—and their demeanours command the respect of the criminal. I told the Government last year that the At torney-General for Ireland was unfit for his situation, anti I now emphatically demand the ignominous dismissal of that most unworthy official.—( Hear, hear,) I ask it in the name of violated justice, decency, and honour—( Hear, hear)—and I have no tear whatever of receiving from the Learned Gentle man a " a three-cornered note."—( Laughter.) And if any thing could possibly add disgrace to the act, it was the manner in which it was done.—(Hear, hear.) The Attorney- General having forgotten his position, and having been called upon to explain what he meant, turned round upon his oppo nent, who acted like a gentleman, and in the language of a lawyer, called upon him to make an affidavit.—( Hear, hear, hear.) That was mixing the court of honour with the court of justice with a vengeance. I find the mode in which the pre sent trials have been eonducted will be fraught with, mischief. But let us forget the ludicrous part of the affair. Have the first principles of justice, honour, decency, and everything dear to this country, been respected in attempting to vindicate the laws ?—(Cheers.) Sir ROBERT PEEL deeply regretted that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had felt himself called upon by a sense of public duty to make the observations which he had made upon the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland. —(dear, hear, from the Ministerial benches. )—He was resolved to ad here to the rule which ho had laid down last night, not to offer any observations or comments upon the matter now pending in Ireland, lest such observations might lead to further discussion. He was resolved to adhere implicity to the sentiment expressed in the speech from the throne, not even to introduce collateral topics. He must say that he con sidered the comments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman upon the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland much more severe and censorious than that conduct merited.— ((dries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) It was impossible altogether to vindicate the Attorney-General's conduct.— (Hear, hear.) In the principles laid down by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as to the manner in which this prosecu , tioe had been conducted, he entirely concurred, that there should be an absence of all irritation and excitement, and that , decency and order should be rigidly preserved. But a very few hours before the scene to which allusion had been made had taken place, the Attorney-General, in a letter to the Home Secretary, expressed his full concurrence in those principles, and upon the propriety of conducting the trials with as mush coolness and temper as possible. It was a momentary occur rence. That there had been much irritation displayed, and im properly displayed, could nut be denied. He repeated, that it was impossible for him entirely to vindicate the conduct of the Attorney-General ; but let some allowance be made for his position—let them remember the infirmities of their own nature, and let them not pronounce judgment on his conduct upon mere reports of isolated circumstances. —(Ministerial cheers.) This was not a deliberate thing —it was not a meditated challenge. The conduct of the Attorney-Ge neral had been noticed by the Chief Justice in terms which must have been exceedingly painful to him. The highest au thority in the Court had, in the presence of the whole Court, expressed dissatisfaction at his conduct. At the same time the Lord Chief Justice expressed a hope that the proceeding would be buried in oblivion. This, too, should be remembered—the Attorney-General had asked permissio n to withdraw the letter. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had inquired whether the government had dismissed the Attorney -General? His (Sir R. Peel's) answer was, that they had riot dismissed the At torney-General, nor did they mean to dismiss hies.—(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) Mr. WYSE said he could not blame the Right Hon. Ba ronet for entering somewhat into detail. He was willing to make a good deal of allowance for the Attorney-General. In the cow se of the trials he had on one occasion, to his own knowledge, acted with forbearance. Many severe anti unjusti fiahle attacks had been made upon him —newspapers of all parties had censured him-51r. Fitzgibbon had made a very severe attack upon him ; but. making allowance ,or all these things, he _would ask the House was the conduct of the Attorney-General likely to Impress the conviction on the minds of the people of Ireland that the law had been fairly administered ? The Attorney-General had two other courses open to him. He might have called upon Mr. Fitzgibbon to disavow the offensive expressions, or he might have placed himself in the heeds of the Court. Neither of these things had he done, but he had recourse, to the Titania ratio of arms, and acted meat indiscreetly. For the reasons already stated he would not enter into the consideration whether or not the agitation for the repeal of the union was legitimate, but he would allude to a clause in the address. It was very well known that he (Mr. Wyse) had been solicited to become a member of the Loyal National Repeal Association ; that many of his constituents wished him to become a repealer, but these solicitations he declined, believing that the Imperial Parliament would do justice to Ireland. As long as he had that hope he would not wish to agitate for repeal. It would depend en. tirely on this country whether such hopes were realised. He was only one of a large class who held back from the repeal ranks because he be lieved that a British Parliament would do them justice. But if these hopes were frustrated the cause of repeal would every day have new partisans. He hoped the clause in the address was not confined to one or two beneficial measures for Ireland, but that it signified that an extensive system of policy would be pursued for the improvement of the social and political condition of that country. If he did not think that was the meaning of the clause, he would not support the address. Lord ELIOT said, that from his official position regarding Ireland, it could not be expected he would remain silent during the attack on the Attorney-General. He had been associated with that Hon. and Learned Gentleman for mere than a year, and he must say, that a more kind-hearted man he had seldom known. When he (the Attorney-Get oral) came into office, his first act was to receive apologies from several edmtors of newspapers against which prosecutions for libels were about to be instituted. After the testimony which had been borne to his forbearance by the Hon. Member for Waterford, he believed the Attorney-General had on many trying occasions during the course of these trials shown great discretion, and except upon that one occasion had not given way to any improper excitement. Alit. ROEBUCK—Oh, several. Lord ELIOT—Had not heard but of that one instance.— (Cries of " Oh, oh.") He believed that on every other occa sion the Attorney- General had demeaned himself as became his station. He did not mean to vindicate the indiscretion, hut he felt sure that in the cooler moments of reflection he would not have acted so. Base personal and selfish motives had been attributed to the Attorney-General, and he had be trayed this infirmity of temper. Mr. WYSE explained. The Noble Lord was quite mis taken in supposing that he meant to say that the Attorney- General had on every occasion during the trials comported himself with forbearance. He did not say so, nor did he mean so, nor did he think so'; but what he said was, that upon one occasion on which he (Mr. Wyse) was present, the Attorney- General had conducted himself with great calmness,when it might have been expected that his temper would have been broken. Lord ELLIOT replied. Captain BERNAL said the Right Hon. Baronet had at tempted to throw his cloak over what he must term the fall and fame of the Irish Attorney-General. He ( Ca p tain Bernal) ! denied that at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of these trials had that officer conducted himself in a proper manner, and he had reason to know that there was only one ) g . e of f f that the ll and Learned o A p t i t n u i r o n n e y amGoenngetrha e l I h r a i d sh co b n a d r u a c s ted t o h t i h m e g e m u a n t n h e r r o u i g n h o w u h t i c t h h t e h . o e trials, and that was that he had behaved wit h g reat im p ro p riet y. I ea do pt Member inthe fuflolresßt Bath hn (Mr. Roebuck). o l e a b n u g and Learned Gentleman felt it necessary to caution the Go vernment regarding the appointment of the Attorney-General, how much more was that caution necessary when the language which had been used by him in 1827 was recollected ?—He de elated in that year his belief that Irish Roman Catholics had no reverence for the sanctity of an oath. "I he manner t in which the G o v ernment now treated the Attorney_ General resembled th a t i n w hi c h a sc h o olmaster would treat his you and 1 will forgive y ou ." If an examp l e of decorum were not ' to ben young found pupil, in "Bea a Court what vanity it was to come down to th a t H ouse, an d , i n t he good boy Q , be ueen so ,s rr iy3efnocrhw )ou have done, , hat Queen's speech, ex press a hope that the social condition of Ireland would be im proved. He called on the House to support the Hon. Member for Bath, and he called upon them at once to urge on the Go. vernment the propriety of dismissing the Attorney-General for 1 Txeland. Lord STANLEY rose, and said the Hon. Gentlemanwhohas just Oat down complained of my Right Lion, Fliend laving thrown his mantic s:f profceen ever the Attorney-General for Ireland. If ivy Right hen. Friend had interfered in any de gree to shelter an absees officer front attacks ceuched in no very measured terms, and founded upon facts which, undoubt edly, are notorious, but which are put forth by newspaper re ports, I do not think my Right Hon. Friend is a fair object of the censure which is sought now to be cast upon him by the Hon. Gentleman who has, just sat down. Sir, I think that a much more worthy course is pursued by those who do not press forward exaggerated accusations against an absent man, but who reek to impress on the House that while they do not vindicate specific acts, they do, at least, impress on the House to consider those infirmities to which not the Attorney-tseneral alone is subject. I listened with great pain to the able, but I must say needlessly embittered, speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. I listened with pleasure—if pleasure can be derived from a discussion such as the present —to the snore temperate language in which the Right lion. Member for Waterford has addressed the House. I will venture to say, that my Right Hon. Friend does not, as the Hon. Member for Wycombe has just stated, concur in the abstract with the language or the sentiments of the lion. and Learned Member for Bath ; but I do think that abstractedly and practically there was little or no difference between the feelings of my Right Hon. Friend and the views and feelings expressed by the Right Hon. Member for Water ford. We none of us can vindicate the unfortunate circum stance which has led to this debate ; but is the Hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this discussion himself free from all infirmities of temper ?—( Cheers and laughter.) The taunts — the goads—l do not say one, but a succession of purposed, intentional, continued, bitter personal taunts—might be in capable of moving the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ; but I am not ashamed to say, that long as my experience has been in this House, I have learnt—l speak ho nestly—l have learnt, day by day, how difficult it is to sit patiently and hear attacks of a much more mitigated character than those to which the At torney-General for Ireland has been subjected. lam not ashamed to confess that I have used hasty and irritating words in reply, which afterwards I have regretted. Feeling that infirmity myself, I, at least, can make allowances for the posi tion of the Attorney-General for Ireland. And what was that position? It was not that which has been incorrectly attri buted to him by the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It was not that the Government was conscious of the infirmity and incompetence of the officer that they thought it necessary to caution him against being led into irritation. On the con trary, it was only the day before this unfortunate occurrence took place that the Government had expressed to the Attorney • General, in terms strong indeed, but not more strong than merited, the full satisfaction which they felt at the coolness, the temper, the moderation and judgment, display Sid by him in the condueting of these important trials. There was no caution given to the Attorney-General ; but the Attorney-Gesseral wrote a few hours before the intelligence was received of the occurrence of that circumstance which has led to the present discussion. The Attorney-General said, "There has evidently been an attempt made to drive me into some act of indiscre tion, which may be injurious to me, I say, speaker after speaker has attempted to fix on me a personal imputation." lam stating that which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath has said led to what he calls a caution from my Right Hon. Friend near me, and I am stating the substance of a letter received from the Attorney-General himself a few hours before this unfortunate occurrence took place, in which lee stated that he was determined to keep the strictest watch over his feelings, that he might not compromise his own character or that of the Government. Ido not conceal my regret at what has occurred, but I bring this forward to show that there was no premeditated intention on the part of the Attor ney-General to commit any outrage in the ordinary course of the legal proceedings,,).iii.Herws.nohhtwnelee.n)m, Member ealmeenaamiriid:ubt o esiet r :thri to commit any act of violence or in discretion. There is a very remarkable corroboration of this view of the case in the speech of the Right Hon. Member for Waterford. What does he tell you ? He says, in vindication of Mr. Fitzgibbon, " I know nothing of Mr. Fitzgibbon—l know nothing of his speeches, except from the newspapers." But the Right Hon. Member for Waterford tells you that those expressions which had appeared to have given so much offence to the Attorney-General, were not expressions of the counsel, nor conveyed the feelings of Mr. Fitzgibbon. He tells you that they were not the expressions of the counsel himself, dbitTs,authhseyteesthiHeipße.moritnegpe,.(ehl previous you they were the expressions of the client. That vas the statement of the Right Hon. Member for Waterford. d r. hyea f e o tape r nsodudl fairlyr:t powerful nl f o o t )tf aaspeechtt et said, lad e coktefs t hr h tasAa a oti t i , w yeesr o sfhseo o oel r turii l three enrs do him self how difficult it must be for the Attorney-General to keep eloquent, so bitter, and so severe, as those which fell from Mr. stood the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. WYSE—That was a preceding day. Lord STANLEY—I said it was on a preceding day—that was the first attack. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke justly and fairly. He says that on the first day, when the Attorneys General was exposed to the bitterness of the attack of Mr. Sheil, he felt how difficult it would be, if it were his case, for himself to keep his temper. Two speeches of counsel fol lowed that of Mr. Shell before Mr. Fitzgibbon commenced the attack upon the Attorney-General. 1 do not state that is vindication of the error into which the Attorney-General afterwards fell ; but I do state it in order to express an earnest hope that upon such information as that which we now possess —derived from newspaper intelligence — not being judges of the manner or the gesture of the party—for there are many words which read very harmlessly, but when spoken possess a heavier sweeping a manner, and in such unmitigated t erms as those meaning—l do hope that the House will not condemn in so proposed by the Hen. and Learned Member for Bath, an ab sent officer of the Crown, who, during the performance of most arduous arid laborious duties, in a moment of weakness was led to commit a momentary offence, for which he has already expressed his regret. And I trust that that allowance, which in my heart and conscience I feel is due to him, and which I should expect for myself, the House of Commons will show to the Attorney-General. Mr. Sergeant MURP HY did not think the protection which had been cast over the Attorney-General by the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had been at all improved by what leid fallen from the Noble Lord. He thought the Noble Lord had merely confirmed the charge brought against the Attorney-General. He (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) would venture to say that the conduct of the Attorney-General would be met throughout the country, both by Whig arid Tory, with but one feeling. When the people of this country saw that the solemn administration of the law, the best safeguard of our rights, was violated by those whose place it was to uphold it, he questioned whether any man could be found in England, no matter what his shade of politics might be, who would not look upon the splenetic and intemperate outbreak of the Attorney-General but as a dese cration of the temple of justice—a desecration of that temple, not at a time when one man was being tried within it, but when an entire country, by a multitudinous indictment, had been dragged before the tribunal of justice. Had the Attor ney-General for Ireland throughout these trials acted with that spirit of concession which emit: ntly distinguished State prosecutions in this country?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) would appeal to his Hon and Learned Friend the Attorney-General for England, and he would appeal to the mariner in which the Chartist trials were con ducted in Lancashire. He would appeal to what fifty-nine of the persons who were arraigned, declared at the termination of the trials, who said, " Whether. we consider the Judges-- whether we consider the Attorney-General—whether we look to the whole fairness of these trials—to the Judge, Counsel, Jury, or the Attorney-General, we must feel that the law has been administered with temper, with moderation, and w.th fairness." He (Mr. Murphy) was one of the counsel on this occasion, and he could bear testimony to the truth of this. These trials were conducted with the calmness and temper which distinguishes the Attorney-General for England. As an Irishman, he felt in his secret s ell the degradation the Irish bar had suffered by the conduct of the Attorney- General. But he was happy that it had been redeemed by the speech of the Right Honourable Member for Dungarvon. The Attorney-General for Ireland had gone into court, and had, as it were. proclaimed that he cane there as the Crown prosecutor; but he cautioned those against whom he appeared that he should demand satistaction fur a n y thin g said in the in Ireland h h a a d d b h e a e d n the whole heat of the defence. This he (Mr. Mur p h y) said, was a mo s t co g ent argument ,in favour of the Attorney-General : being ig America The ri sa. p t prosecution t o of sheecy theth i Wouldaod had, as it were, as n law.n t then, such con- s st institutedno m e s i s n e o people looking on. t s o l y uphold Europe d dismissed. wi duct as that which had been displayed by the Attorney - General be, in effect, a reproach to the majesty of the law—a reproach to the impartiality of the tribunal and the Judges of the Court ? th e A majesty It became, therefore, the duty of the Government of the coun try to vindicate the majesty of the law, which alone could be done by the immediate dismissal of the first law officer of the Crown. Sir JAMES GRAHAM was unwilling, after what had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend and the Noble Secretary for the Colonies, to prolong this discussion ; yet he thought, on the present occasion, it would not be unworthy or incon sistent with his duty if he addressed a few words to the House. He hoped the House would remember what was the position of this case. A great trial was pending. Her Majesty from the Throne had announced that her love of justice being adminis tered according to law had induced her to refrain from all comment upon the trials now taking place. Notwithstanding the various topics which had been commented upon, in the course of the discussion last night, it was agreed he thought on all hands, for the sake of justice, that the topics connected with the pending trials should be avoided until a verdict should be pronounced by the jury now empanelled to try the case. Disregarding, however, the example of last night, in the name of justiee the House was called upon to discuss a matter bearing directly upon the question being tried. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had alluded in terms of ad miration to the speech of the counsel for the defence. This charge had been brought against a Member of that House ; that Member was absent, and consequently could have no op portunity then of explaining more fully the merits of the case. His Right Hon. Friend and the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had both declared that they were not prepared to vindicate the conduct of the Attorney-General in the particular iastance which had led to this discussion. Her Majesty's Go vernment could not defend, and would not defend, an act such as that which had been brought under the notice of the House. —( Hear, hear.) But he was quite sure that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought forward this subject must see that there were mitigating circumstances. It was evident from the speech of the Right Honourable Member for Waterford that the Attorney-General had been subjected to very eloquent and personal attacks. He thought the more appropriate course to have adopted would have been to have suspended their judgment until that officer was present to defend himself; but, to say the least of it, he thought it ungeeerous, as well as unjust, to pronounce a censure when the Attorney-General had withdrawn the terms which were found fault with, and also, after the matter had been brought before the Court, in which it occurred, and when that Court had expressed its hope that no further notice would be taken of the matter. Another circumstance, he thought, also fully bore him out in the opinion which he had expressed with respect to the course now pursued, which was that the . Learned Counsel with whom thi s un f or t una t e quarre l occurred, in a manner the most generous and becoming to him, a mem ber of the same profession as the Attorney-General, came down to the Court, and said that, upon reflection, he felt bound to express his sorrow that any thing had occurred to woand the feelings of the Attorney-General, and acknowledged at the same time that he had given many provocations to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, which led to this unfortunate transac tion, and that to the last moment of his life, he should regret everything which fell from him tending lead to this occurrence. He ( Sir J. Graham) felt bound to express his deep regret at such an event occurring during the administration of justice, for all legal proceedings should be held sacred for the sake of the interests of society. He hoped what had occurred this eight would satisfy the House that he was quite willing to take his share of the responsibility of the course now so generally recommended by those who knew the Attorney-General for Ireland. Mr.' WARD said he thought that so far as the high legal qualities, the good intention, and the good heart of the Attor ney-General were concerned, they had nothing whatever to do with the fact, as to whether a high legal officer of the Crown had discharged a great and important duty in a manner likely to reflect dignity upon the administration of justice, Th 6 Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, had stated that the Attorney-General was drawn out under circumstances calculated to exc.te the most and dispas,ionate individual. He (11.1 r. Ward) denied that there had been any such occasions for exciting irascibility, and he thought this assertion was borne nut by the last expressions used by the Right Hm3. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Deparonit, who said that the Learped Coupscl had WO in 4 geptlemanly itnd generwas rparerier, Where wa there eat earregoieß is Ow t address of the Hon. Mem".:er for Dungarven, (Mr. Sheil), to the Court, which could tend to have roused the feelings of the Attorney-General for Ireland. Iron. Gentlemen in this House were all willing to make ample allowances .for such ebullitions of feelings, but this House was not like 3 Court of Justice. If ever there was a time when everything like personal feeling should be avoided it was in this case. He agreed with the Hon. Member for Cork that from the very beginning of those trials there was a moat unfortunate irrita bility shown by the Attorney-General, which he was sure the Government would be the first to admit. If he ex pressed his regret, no gentleman would wish to carry the matter further ; still t hat would prove that a high legal func. tionary was deficient in that temper which was necessary to the dignified discharge of his duties. The only vindication which had been offered on his behalf was that many expressions had been used which were likely to excite a man of an irritable temper, but he denied that there was anything in the speeches of the Right Hon. Member for Dungarvon, or Mr. Fitzgibbon, be yond what the interests of their clients called for. Mr. IVYSE explained. Mr. SHAW, as an old and intimate friend of the Attorney- I General for Ireland, wished to bear testimony to his high standing in his profession, and his many estimable private qua- lities. At ale same time, he did not at, all mean to vindicate the conduct of the Attorney-General. Still he would say that he thought it an unjust, ungenerous, and unjustifiable attack which had been made by the Hon. Member for Bath upon a man of his own profession. He (Mr. Shaw) thought Mr. Roebuck was not exactly the man best suited for bring ing such an accusation as this—(Hear, hear)—for lie thought him one of the most unfit persons to stand up and deliver a lecture upon this subject. But what he complained of most was, that this attack had been made on account of the parti cular act of having sent a challenge, but that the Hon. 'Mem ber had made a general and indiscriminate attack upon the Attorney-General. He (Mr. Shaw) knew the Attorney- General well, and he could fearlessly appeal to every Member in the profession as to whether the insinuation of the Hon. Mem ber tor Bath, that he was unfit for the place he holds, was worth anything. He asked the Hon. and Learned Member for Cashel whether all pat ties did not agree that the Attorney- General was an honour to 4i *profession, and that he had al ways conducted himself in 'way most creditable to himself? He was placed in peculia t icumstances. He (Mr. Shaw) was sorry to refer to the trial new pending in Ireland, but allusion had been made to th e Attorney-General's requiring Mr. J. O'Connell's attendance . n Court when he only went into the library. Now, what wa *tee fact ? Why, that Mr. O'Connell gad gone to that very association which the indictment, under which he was being tried, had declared to be illegal, and h:s in. tention to do so had been publicly advertised in the newspapers. (Cheers from the Tor) benches.) His attendance was not required as a criminal, but ho was allowed to wear his ow n dress, and sit amongst tie Counsel. Therefore this was a gross mis representation. He (Mr. Shaw) heard men ef all political parties in Ireland agree that under the circumstances of this trial, the Attorney-General's conduct had reflected the greatest credit on him.—( Loud laughter and ironical cheers.) He believed that it was the object of many newspapers, and of al most all his opponents, to make a set against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in order that he might be unfitted for the performance of his duties. He expressed those opinions not as a partisan ; he had never spoken to the Attorney-General on the subject, nor had he ever expressed an opinion on the mat ter until the present ; but now he felt bound to bear testi mony to the general endeavour of the Attorney-General to discharge his arduous duties not only with propriety but in good temper.—(Loud laughter.) The matter alluded to by the Hon. Member for Bath, occurred during a temporary ab sence of the Judges, and the moment the Court was informed of the matter, it pronounced the strongest condemnation. The matter there terminated, and ought not to have been revived. Dr. STOCK said, as his Right Honourable and Learned Friend had put a question to him in such a direct manner, he should say that he thought the Attorney-General had displayed more temper than either his friends or enemies expected. No public officer was ever called on to discharge duties of such importance, and which required the most decided exercise of judgment and temper—( Hear, hear)—and he stated his per fect belief that there were not wanting inducements on the other side to bring to a teat the infirmity of his temper.— (Ministerial cheers.) He repeated that the Attorney-General, taking all the circumstances of his position into consideration, had acted with touch more temper than could he expected from him.--( Laughter. ) He was in habits of personal intimacy with the Attorney-General for Ireland ; he knew him well, and a better or more honourable man, or one who better dis charged all the relations of private life, never lived.—( Hear. ) He was an honour to his profession—he possessed great legal acuteness—and he was entitled to and enjoyed the deference and respect of his pro.ession and of the country.—(Cheers. ) He knew him to be of the must unexceptionable character ; but his appointment to the situation he held was most unfortu nate, because there were persons at the bar who were more fit to carry out the objects of the present Government than Mr. Smith. He had, as all men had, his deftets, but a more excellent lawyer did not exist.—(Cheers. ) Lord INGESTRIE said it would be most ungenerous in hint if he did nut get up and state that, during the time he was present in the Court of Queen's Bench, in Ireland, no person could have conducted himself with greater propriety than the Attorney-General did there. He would, further, call the attention of the Howe to the fact that attacks were made upon him. Even Mr. O'Connell himself, in the Association, attributed personal motives to him, for he said—" No verdict, no Chief Justiceship." As far as he sae., the Attorney- General conducted himself with great mildness, and a quiet demeanour, and no person in a similar situation could behave wth greater moderation than the Attorney-General did for the few days be (Lord Ingestrie) had been in Dublin. Mr. WALLACE said that the Attorney-General for Ireland bad great cause to say " save me from my friends." Front the Right Hoe. Baronet downwards, one and all concurred in giving him the character of one most unfit to fill his, present situation. The House recollected the mode in which he con ducted himself with regard to the Arms Bill. The Attorney- General for England had to do the work of the Attorney -Ge neral for Ireland. The expressions used by his Hon. and Learned Friend below him were but the truth, and he de served great praise for dealing with the Attorney-General for Ireland as he did, especially as be knew that the members of the profession were not fond of attacking each other.— ( Laughter.) The Attorney-General was guilty of an open breach ef the law, and when the Government said they ought not to interfere and dismiss him, ho begged to remind them of the conduct pursued towards the Liberal magistrates of Ireland who attended repeal meetings, and they dismissed those magistrates without any sort of ceremony; but they had nothing to do with three-cornered notes. It was undeniable that the Attorney-General pos bested an irritability of temper which unfitted him for his situation. His character as a lawyer, or as a gentleman, was equally indifferent to him, but he maintained that a worse selection could not be made than that of the Attorney-General fur Ireland to fill h.s situation. With regard to what aas said on the impropriety of alluding to what was going on in Ire land, he could not understand why those three paragraphs re lating to that country were inserted, if it was not intended to muzzle them.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) It muzzled the Noble Lord, but it would net muzzle others, and he was glad they had an opportunity of discussing the subject. He would support the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale. Mr. BROTHERTON had listened with attention to the present discussion, and he regretted that no person denounced the practice of duelling generally. He was not disposed to reflect on the conduct of the Attorney-General, and perhaps it were better to wait till he was present himself.—(Hear. ) He thought the practice of duelling ought to be denounced by that House. How could they expect the people could be reli gious when a practice so repugnant to the ordix.ances of religion, and so opposed to the law, was countenanced by some of the highest in the land? It was nothing but murder.—(Hear, hear.) The conduct of the Attorney-General was denounced; but let those who were without stain themselves cast the first stone. --( Hear, hear.) lie hoped the present debate would nut he without its use in putting an end to this practice. Mr. CURTEIS said he did not think the Govt timent had any right to complain of the subject of Ireland being introduced into debate pending the present trials. He had heard it stated by two Hon. Members for Ireland (one of whom was remark able for his moderation), that it was their firm conviction the address, as it now stood, would influence the verdict of the jury. He wished to see a fair and i m p ar ti a l verd i ct, and he would . therefore wish to see all that related to Ireland expunged from it. This was the ground on which he would give his vote in favour of the amendment. He regretted that the leader of the Opposition had not moved an amendment to the address which would unite their strength, instead of having it frit tered away in two divisions last night, in which he was obliged to vote against these with whom he usually acted. The At torney-General for Ireland had received a severe castigation from the House, but he did riot think he ought to be dismissed from his office. Sir W. BARRON said he could not avoid alluding to an expression which had fallen from the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. He said that the Attorney-General for Ireland had condected himself with temper and moderation during this unfortunate prosecution, for such it was. He knew the Noble Lord would not state anything which he slid not believe to be the fact, but he had been grossly misinformed on the subject. Having attentively observed the progress of the trial, he must say he never in the course of his experience read or heard of such a gross instance of want of temper, such insulting lan guage, and such uncalled-for observations, as were made by the Attorney-General during the trials, from their commencement to their present stage, and he wished a Committee of the House were appointed to inquire into the fact. He was certain there never was such a gross want of temper, discretion, and judgment displayed as during the whole of these transactions. Let him call to mind what occurred at an early stage of the prosecutions. Three of the solicitors employed by the traversers made a solemn affidavit that it was necesiary for the defence to have certain papers, and to collect certain evidence, without which the defence could not be conducted with fairness or justice to their clients. The Attorney-General, on his own mere ipse dixit, comes down, and tells the Court that tke affidavits of these three re spectable gentlemen were made solely for the purposes of delay. Such a course of conduct as this, so unjust, so unbecoming, and so insulting, was never before known in that or in any other Court ; and he was at last obliged, :n the presence of the Court, to retract this language, and make an apology for it. Mr. SHAW—Are you not speaking of some other person ? Sir W. BARRON—Mr. Brewster.—( Cheers and laughter.) They might have their cheer. He *as talking of the entire conduct of this case—( Oh, oh. )—this was a part of the whole. And in opening the case to the Court the Learned Gentleman used language which had never before been heard in a court of justice, witi regard to the traversers. He asserted to the Court that, ofihis own knowledge, he could prove a for midable conspiracy, thus aggravating the case in every position that he took, and that, too, in language which would not be tolerated in the Courts of this country, and which would never be used by the Learned Attorney-General opposite, as well from a sense of propriety and decorum, as from the knowledge that, by such conduct, he was only injuring his own case. But not only in this had the Attorney-General for Ireland greatly committed himself, but he had removed every Roman Catholic who was left on the jury list.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Th a t Learned Gentleman conduct was before the House, and he had a right to remark upon every part of it. He insulted every Roman Catholic in that country, by removing eleven Roman Catholics as unfit to be on the jury, the only eleven Roman Catholics that were upon the panel, and he left no one upon it but gentlemen notoriously opposed to the traversers in politics. Was that justice? was that fairness? They tried men upon a charge, a political charge, and they took care to have upon the jury only those whip were known to be adverse to them on the very identical _point upon which they were charged. Why, if a Frenchman or a Bel gian, a Spaniard, a German, or a Tark, were put upon their trial in this country they were allowed to have six of their own countrymen upon the jury. He be lieved that was the number—he was no lawyer—but he knew every foreigner was entitled, at least, to have a portioa of foreigners on the jury, But here were their own countryneea - , to be tried, and none were to be on the jury save those known to be opposed to them—men filled with prejudices %ping them, and eM, and whose opinions and sen ti men t s were 7 ina wn and recorded. Vas this fair play? H e appea l e d t o t h e E n glish people if it was right or fair to try a man by his enemies, and this did in country where politie s ran so hi g h a s unhappily they what might, Bat would the verdict have any effect—r . oSsid any weight ? He said that let the verdict be • ht thank moral effect of it would be destroyed, aqd. they ha might more their Attorney-General for it, Ilks cysts hire t c t r l r t y e alienation between the that had occurred gendered more anOoeity, t ananything had en his mass of evil they had within 'l4 la 4 fifty year F q . ..L a" They might continue him to thatdc their Att.:lOlPS Pe2llt of the two countries, they perpetuated an insult to that owl, Roman in his office, list he torPtehaeeruhirecornumnetrnytmatisna,t f9 in y u d , oin ti t k ag e from knowledge of hie own ; whsO g 4 Catholic in Ireland considered himself insulted by the course which that Honourable and Learned Gentleman had pursued with reference to tin se trials. With regard to the particular ques; len b. fore the House, he thought it would Is, better to leave out every ty uul which alluded to a repeal of the union. An allusion to it was not ralkd for—it was totally unnecessary, and could only have the affect of ha rassing the jury in Ireland. There were men in Ireland who would take the reference in the speech in a wrong sense, look ng upon it not as an expression of the House, but as that of her Majesty herself. He thought it most unfortunate and un fair for the Government, under the present circumstanced of the trials, to have made any allusion at all to Ireland in the speech, especially with the professions of the Right Hon. Bart. that his only desire was to held the scales of justice even handed. He should certainly vote for the amen! merit. Mr. HUME said the chief question for the House to con sider was whether the words of the speech would have the effect of giving any bias to the proceedings which were now going on in the Courts of Ireland. Two or three gentlemen from Ireland declared such bias would be produced by the words, whilst the Right Hen. Bart. and others on the N'inisterial side denied this. If the words would have such effect, it was for the Right Honourable Baronet to say whether he would not leave them out — ( A laugh )—in order to prevent any injury that might arise from their use. He was sorry gto see that so much personal feeling had been mixed up with the discussion, and thought that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) was hardly justi fied in making the attack which he had done on his Hon. and Learned Friend beneath him ( Mr. Roebuck), who had only done his duty in bringing forward the matter, as he had done so to deter others from doing that which certainly appeared to be a direct interference with the due course of justice. Every one had been speaking of the Attorney-General and his amiable disposition and excellent character, but few said anything of the facts of the case, or whether any injury would accrue to the interests of justice, and the fair-play doe to the traversers, which he (Mr. Hume) was afraid would be the case. In this state of things, and fearing that, if the words were allowed to remain, they would have this effect, he felt himself bound to recerd his vote in favour of the amendment. Dr. RO\VRING said he came with distress of mind to something like a conviction that, if the union was to be sepa rated, it was to be by such executive meaittres as had been brought lately to bear upon Ireland. He would impress upon the House to consider whether the nniun was represented by what was now going on in Ireland. Did they think, that in a country where seven-eighths of the people professed a certain religion—that on a trial of vast importanee to strike every man of that religion off the jury was the way t o main tain peace, or consolidate union ? If that was to be the law, no wonder the union was beginning to be intolerable. He quite agreed with the remarks that had fallen from his Hoz. Friend (Mr. Brotherton) on the subject of duelling. But when they saw it countenanced in the most high and exalted places, in the very seat and sanctuary of justice— ( Hear, hear)—hew could they hope to see it properly rebuked, or its abezniaable practice be put down? Referring again to the union, he recellected Mr. Ricardo many years ago stating that if that question was not allowed to be quietly mooted, and freely di s cussed; it would force itself into a di scuss i on w i th a violence that all would regret. Fir his own part, he (Dr. Bowring) could rot see the crime that any person committed in discussing it. Seeing that the address declared the integrity of the anion—that the question was foreclosed by it—that it bound Members to opinions which hereafter they might see reasons to change—he could not, conscientiously, vote for this particular portion of it, arid must, therefore, give his support to the amendment of his Hon. Friend. The House then divided, when there were— For the address For the amendment Majority —lo7 On the re-admission of strangers to the gallery we found, Mr. F. FFRENCH complaining of the manner in which the Commission of Inquiry respecting land-tenure had been con• stituted. It was an additional insult to Ireland, that in the appointment of that Commission Irishmen had been excluded. Sir ROBERT PEEL assured the House, and the Hon. Gentleman that in the constitution of the Commission no in sult was intended to Ireland. The Noble Lord who was ap pointed to preside over the Commission had been selected be cause he was not only a large proprietor of land in Ireland, but he was intimately acquainted with the laws relating to the tenure of land in England. He had been a Master in Chancery, and also had filled the office of Clerk to the House of Lords, in which situation he had great opportunities of becoming ac quainted with the laws and usages relating to the tenure of land in England. The four gentlemen associated with him were also Irish proprietors, and they were gentlemen so well known as to render it unnecessary for him (Sir R. Peel) tosay one word in refutation of the assertion that their appointment was an insult to Ireland.—( Cheers. ) Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that he had attended two days before the Commission, and he was quite satisfied that they had entered upon their inquiry witk a sincere intention of doing justice. It was his duty to rise for the purpose of thanking the Right Hon. Baronet for the appointment of the Commission. --: Ir ." IJ.IEL requested the House to impend its judgment trn the question of the Commission. He desired no kigiier ree futation of the charge that the appointments were an insult to Ireland than that which had been given by the Hon. Gentle.' man who had just sat down.—( Loud eheers.) Mr. F. FFRENCH denied that he had made any ttaek 00 the Earl of Devon. Sir R. PEEL had not accused the Hon. Gentlemen of at attack on the Earl of Devon, but of an attack upon himself (Sir R. P ee l) an d th e G overnment, which the Hon. Member accused of inflicting an additional insult upon Ireland. Mr. T. DUNCONIBE said that, for the convenienee of the House, he had postponed to this day his motion of an amend ment upon the address, which had for its object the extension of the franchise in Irish boroughs as well as in the counties. He had intended to move an amendment to the effect that the last paragraph but one should be altered with a view 'to the extension of the franchise in Ireland, in boroughs, as well is 131 counties. In the paragraph upon which he propesed th" amendment it was admitted by the Government that the e ff ect of the Registration Aet was to re strict the fra nc h ise. T he same effect had been acknowle d ge d in the b oroug h s. Mr. Smith O'Brien had shown in 1841 that from th e y ear 1 8 27 , down to that year, that is to asYr in four from years, th e const i tuency of Ireland had been reduce d 109,000 to 80,000 . H e could not well understand er . ÷ t. the object w as o f g i v i ng, at this particular period, an extensio n the ° a to the county c ons tit uency, whilst the cons tituency o boroughs wt.s left untou c h e d . He would, therefore, perse vere in his motion. Sir R. PEEL protest e d aga i nst any discussion of the repre sentation of Ireland, upon th e cons id eration of the paragrap h in the Queen's speech, t o w hi c h t h e Hem. Gentleman's amendment applied. The effect of the Registration Bill had been to limit the constituency of the counties, and it was the intention of the Government to submit to Parliament a mea sure for remedying that inconvenience. It teas not, however, to be supposed that they excluded from their consideration any ether amelioration of the present law of franchise. Mr. BAR RON thought it was unnecessary to press the motion to a division, after hearing the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government that it wail not his in tention to limit the proposed amelioration to the eotituty rotor' alone. After a few words from Mr. F. FFRENCH, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that he did not think it wag now necessary to press his amendment. After what he had heard from the Right Hon. Bari.net, he thought it would be most advisable to withdraw that amendment.—(Hear, hear. ) Sir R. PEEL said that if the report upon the address were now carried, he should move that the House meet to-morrow, st two o'clock, for the purpose of going up with the address. The address was then brought up and agr ee d t o . JOINT-STOCK BANKS. Mr. BLEWITT said, there was a paragraph in the address referring to the Bank Charter and Joint-Stock Banks ; " wished to have more information of the course the Government intended to pursue in regard to those sulsjects. Sir R. PEEL said, th a t h er Majesty's Government would not institute any inq u i r y i nto t h ese matters, bat they w ould themselves undertake the responsibility of all questions cop. . nected with the ren e w a l o f th e B an k C h arter and the s t a te Joint Stock, and other banking establishments. He could not then say at what period of the session any such motion.wou' be made, but it wou ld b e ma d e at suc h a period as wou ld insul` the fullest consideration of it. The most ample notice would be given when any measure would be brought forward. 0 _ Mr. BLEWIT I' expressed his th an k s f or th e informatt given to him by the Right Hon. Baronet. THE IRISH CHURCH. Mr. WARD seeing the Noblo Lord the Secretary for Ire' land in his place, wished to put a question to him as to sore: returns which were ordered last session, and which Were n 0 then made out. There was then a difference between biV e e , and the Noble Lord as to the amount of the revenue ot t e _ Irish Church. Might he ask the N o bl e L ord now, if dil l e r t he tarns were made (int. and when th ey wou ld b e p l a ced i bands of Hon. Members ? Lord ELIOT said all the i n f ormat i on w hi c h was . 0 the b " a power of the Ecclesiastial C omm i ss i oners to g i ve bad o , prepared, and should be f urn i s h e d . But a great port ion h i "' the revenue of the Church in Ireland did not pass hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ; therefore 1 ^ • d that He admitted there in their power to give any return of it. m e mber there was a difference last session between the Hon. - ckne ws , and himself on this subject, and he was quite ready to : 0 Hott , ledge the accurateness of the calculation made by t Gentleman. througt METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT S ' i n and The Metropolitan Imp rovements Bill waswas b..crougandt t neol read a first time, and or d ere d to b e read a Monday next. The House then adjourned. _ : ...._ . . ormq A serious accident happened on Sunday 111 Ili at the Paris station of the Orleans Railroad. merchandise, having attached to it a waggOn for pai3 . Selt e oo t, which left Orleans on Saturday night, on arriving at a i. , nine o'clock at the terminus, got ott the rails as it WO e , I O teeing the station. The waggon, which contained aev'L L passengers, was overturned, and two of them were. ai r "`" instantaneously killed by the shock. _.......s The train roc BIRTHS. _Manners' On the 29th ult., at D over , t h e. lady of Capta i n R.N., of a 8011. On the 29th ult., at Addington Rectory, near Ma idstone, ' the Rev. George P au l son, o f a daughter. Jar MARIED. On filo 2d inst., 111. Ferdinan ß d Hannit, of theMini6trY of ofrhtetbllaieteWlL)rks atltirsels, to Catherine, Second da u g htor Gilbert, ,sq. • Dln the 3d of Nr, 13, a the Cape of Good IfoPe , Cha O rles, third son ovem of the Rev. B4 Ch a rles H. Hallett, of il i g ha' ' Kent. On the 13th ult., a t. Venice, Lewes Garland , Esq., eldest son of the lat e p. Ga r land, Esq., of Sandridge Lodge, Wilts MONTHLY MILITARY OBITUARY. Lieutenant-Generals—Sir H. Lowe, K.C.13. G.C.M.G, of 50 F. ; Sir W. Johnston, K.C.8., Col. of 68 F . ; CuninghaCor, E. I. Comp. Sere. J Major-Generals—George Wahab , E. I. C o. Sem; Johnston,• C.B. do. Colonel—G. Miller, C. B. nnatt. Lieutenant-Colonels—Drinker Bethune. h. p. Comnui sariat Depart.; R. White, unatt.; C. Bridge, late of R. Ar t ' Majors—Sir Rob. A. Douglas, Bt., 12 1.; Parker, 28 F.; Bernard, late 5 R. Vet. Bn. Captains—De Havilland, 55 F.; Rattray, 81 F. ; Lardner , 2 W. I. Reg.; Fernyhough, h. p. 40 F. (Gov. of th e Knights of-Windsor) - Mayne, h. p. 19 Dr. ; Von Stein vrehr, h, B ru nsw. Inf. ; Ileydenrich, h. p. 4 Lin* Bn. Ger. Leg. Lieutenants—Venour, 18 F.; MacLachlan _,_2B F.; by, late of R. Art.; Butcher, 3 W. I. Reg.; M‘Lelland, lat 4 e 1 Vet. Bn. ; IL Mackay, h. p. 22 F.; W. &Mood, h. p. F.; Tapp, h. p. 1 Lt. Dr. Ger. Leg.; Schroder, h. p. 1 Line Bli ; Ger. I,eg. ; Wolff, do. do. Ensigns—Woodward, 40 F.; man, h. p. 60 F, QuartermasteN—Houghton, h. p. 14 Dr. Sw'ift, h 12 ' r. , • • Smith,l W. I. Reg.; Katz- F. I Clttav, h. p. 60 F.; Kett, late of R. Art.; Milk 88 1.. Commissariat Department—Dep. Comm. Gen. Foote. Surfs. —Gross, — rs l v ' st o , : hi r Medical Department—Surgeon Beck, h. p. IL Art. Assist. Surgeons—Tongue, Tralee. Young, Staff, Jamaica. Vet, tendon : Printed and Yul,lirli.4 by 1111.71Z100 YOUNP,..I!E No. 112, Strand. at The Aiu n OrlicX), N 0.1 1 2, Stran d, in tpo Utility of bliddlii4ex, Saturday, Feirruary 3, 1844.. r l .the ( been Igo* rift( J tivi 11 1 Jol At Fehr, the f( Wg4 tbe p kft, tra nc billa fo; • 1 14 u, AO, P t i d.t •A j~flt du o 1't% 41 ' Itait A t t c ry . tteo N ead t ill :)1. 1 o t , fe t • 'III toe ' .