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

RAILWAYS It has been stated that the applications to Par liament, this session, for Enilvvey Bills, r. ill be more numerous than they have been in any year since 1830 ; that the lines to which the contemplated Bills relate extend 600 miles in length, and that the pro jectors are so confident of carrying their Bills as to have already, in their eagerness to commence pro ceedings, entered into contracts for the formation of these railways, at an expense, including stations, of 10,0001. per mile. We have so much re'ison to con fide in the general authenticity of this statement, as to feel it our duty to direct the earliest attention of the public to the important considerations which connect themselves with the facts which it com prises. Could any argument more cogent be adduced for the necessity of that preliminary controll ing and economical legislation touching the corn luencement and construction of new railways, which the public convenience has so long and so vainly de %ended ? The public convenience—emphatically, it is —which is immediately and most deeply involved in these projects for enlarging and multiplying the lines of intercommunication between important pro vincial towns and the capital, or the capital and the coast—with whatever, as yet, undetermined, because future practical results, certainly not without an ex pense to the public at large of very grave present inconvenience—of serious prejudice to private pro- Petty under certain circumstances—and of the dis- Placement of a large amount of existing facilities and accommodation for travelling. It is hardly necessary, at this time, to guard our selves against misconstruction by reiterating the con viction we have so often expressed as to the magical effects of the extension of railroad communication, Wherever it is extensively diffused throughout a country. It removes, or rather counteracts the Physical —and overcomes the moral—obstacles, which the remoteness of given points from the general centre of intelligence and refinement would other -wise:present to the prompt spread of the knowledge, and arts, and civilization there collected. It is the great extirpator of local prejudices. It is the in orming power which animates the extremities with the same vitality and energy that throb in the heart Of a nation's social system. It brings the dwellers in the North into habitual and easy contact with those of the South; and to the long segregated po pulation of the East, introduces, as it were without effort or difficulty, their brethren of the West. It erases the frontier lines described by geographical or political divisions; and with them—by certain but irresistible degrees—the antagonistic feelings which have grown up on either side of those lines. It approximates distances by a marvellous abridg raocibueinr,te(r the time which it would h ere t o f ore h ave re to traverse them. For these, a nd other e v 'eus reasons, railroads are among the most efficient and valuable administrators, not merely to o sum or mass o f h uman i n t e lli gence an d h app i ness , ut to its distribution; and the distribution of good is as difficult a problem in the economy of ethics, as the distribution of money is 'in our monetary 3 Ystem. But even the establishment of railways is not an unmixed good. If it drives out of the field one Monopoly of travelling on the high road by coaches, it establishes another, and a stringent one, on its own l incompetable lines. It annihilates altogether the facility of moving from any one intermediate poi n t to anoth er on t h ese high roads or their vicinity, Which are not within the easy reach of rai lwa stations. It sacrifices, wherever it appears, a vast portion of property previously invested in hotels and inns, stabling, public stage-coaches, horses for their Various relays, posting houses, and the cattle em- PloYed by them, together with the business of so 'tally coach-makers, spring manufacturers, white smiths, saddlers, harness makers, forage growers and dealers ; a numerous array of shop- Iceepers, and inferior chapmen (all interested in the luvestinents of capital under the old system), the f riers of turnpike trusts and the unfortunate holders of securities upon tolls. These mischiefs, extensive a nd various as they are, it may be urged are still but partial ones ; for that, on a comparison of good and evil, of p u bli c a d vantage an d di sa d van t age , th e b alance is clearly in favour of railroads. We F may rant all thi s ; an d concede tFe corollary—that there ore the evil occasioned by the establishment of' rail roads must b e accep t e d as an inevitable consequence h f.th ed e conditions on w hi c h on l y th ey can b e estab lis. But other evils, not inevitable consequences, not necessary results of those conditions, h ave cre pt i n w ith_ the l ay i ng d own o f our existing railroads, t l lle exp er i ence o f which justifies us in assum ing,_ that, with regard t o an y li nes h erea ft er 10e constructed, they may be clearly avoided by ad opting such a previous system of legislation, for the e conomic control and direction of their original esta blishment as that to which we have alluded in the out- S et. We should be the last to advocate any unneces tary intervention, either by the Government or the Legislature, with any investments of private capital itt this country that are permissible by the law of the land. But, railroads are a species of public works 411 i generis. If they succeed, their advantages and the benefit their proprietors derive from them, cannot he, a s in almost every other undertaking, interfered with or jeopardised by the competition of other par ties in the same object, and over the same ground. The Parliament will not grant to two separate com panies power to purchase the fee simple as it were, of parallel strips of freehold throughout so many miles of country, in order to run their lines from and to neighbouring termini. Separate companies —two or more, would not be found to subscribe a million or two, each, of capital 13 2 so vast and desperate an experiment of competi tion, were Parliament even to grant them the neces 'arY Powers. But private dealers or gentlemen may start this week the finest and the best horsed public coenveyances to be found in Europe, to run through- Y e t an entire line of 100 miles ; and next week a few gan l s may combine th e i r ca pit a l, an d pro d uce an or soro:ed °PPosition of well- a pp o i n t e d coac h es, hand „ ° titeams, &c., for the very purpose of being ght off the road," as it i s t erme d, b y th e or i g i na l a u r e e_s, at a heavy suns. If their predec essors on th e do not consent to em b arrass themselves by clos ing With the exorbitant proposals of their " opposi e7l2e3" the latter run " against them ; and then the tiv it e ' s t is continued a l' outrance, till one of the parties leav In. Sometimes, i n d ee d, b o th are u tt er ly ru i ne d, g their creditors, out of the wreck of a l arge diiert t y sacrificed in this insane sort of emulation, a tip s end neith er l arger nor more va l ua bl e t h an t h e i nern o o f the t a il s o f the K i lkenny cats, of com b ative 4. 40 , 1 t he debates of the House of Commons during show...lVorpeth's Irish Secretaryship, it was well e,i . l What ought to be the supervision which the lee;„"ature should exercise over the preliminary se- IN "'land works of a few railways. Some of the P°siti Pas sed °ns then made were finally adopted and have at ei „ into law; others, at least equally important N.i'riPassed over. But it is not enough that eminent pr aer e ers, civil and military, should report upon the hett_leability of a proposed line ; there should be aehiel; previous guarantees that it is " the best" lie, c ould be adopted for the locality. Every new to i t , °light to be sanctioned only in reference khe.' present, or p oss ibl e , or u lti mate re l at i ons to a th e Lae or line of railroad communication through lencreat divisions of the length and breadth of the Qoa yee It sho u ld b e ascerta i ned t h at wherever public tee s n , l enee may demand it, it can b e j o i ne d t o ma i n ferin alr eady laid down and in work, by branches of lUter t he best facilities of level, subsoil, &c., for their e c onstruction. There should be no hazard of e ntal n g any two of these huge arteries of social Pre eau l lnication; t oo c l ose l y i n t o j ux t apos iti on . All flay he nmis should b e a d o pt e d f or avo idi ng , w h ere i t tetfere practicable to do so, needles s or vexa ti ous in tent lee with the lands and holdings of reluce Proj eo Ondowners on th e li ne o f ra il ways the an 7 g. Tunnelling should be, as much as ieet ed Nrfieial outline of the country will allow, re essential But, in order to provide for these and other Arev• ar rangements, there should be organised I ° l lsl aoe er 3, and deposited with the Legislature or the 11, etnent r tlost , some general scheme or plan, showing of eligible and most requisite lines of railway, liaa're,"t constructed, over the whole British islands ; laie e i l applications for new Bills should be enter 2,Ues ,J r dismiss e d, i n proportion as their intended ;I b t ltile ZIA be f oun d to approach to or be incompa 'e alleh such general sc h eme of railway projections. Pert,„, kno w how much inconvenience, loss of pro tio<hit? d even o f lif e, an d i na d equa t e accommo d a - Iv ailt o f e ensued on some ex i s ti ng ra il roa d s f rom th e desi re t s uch forecast and pre-arrangement as we never o s ee established in these matters. It must co r be nsten nt for gotten that of all errors of mechanical e Pai e „ 'on the most difficult and most expensive to s ea. ere uth n .those which are framed in substantial oak 4 4 114 ern rivetted in iron, and imbedded, clamped, lied r banked in the soil, by the incessant labour of thousandse o f • artisans, and at an outlay of hundreds ef t- °n pound s s t er li ng Fel 4 t I LaY „el., he, morning, after two dais of boisterous Wy fall of snow commenced the metroolis, ve Qom' ted Inued throughout the The i ground is t co ,- - ql elne te t!a snow from four to fiv s ii n i c c o a l \ Y i s e . s deep, and the hei 'he r ver Y low. Winter ha e . come in earnest. .ttraordwinulter at Christiania in Norway, has been atn,itheer:fhthe last arri:in,°•artl dat a rY for that I , i , ern climate. Up to the 23d not a flake of snow had fallen, it e " , for ad not been ail), frost. The thermometer had - eau,, se weral day tv oi r ,f rom 38 at from 3to 5 degrees above zero of l io ii .r ut b a nd Warm as in de gees of Fahrenheit, and the sun t 'edi n understand that the pro the in this I Y lastlong litigated case were finally settled on the ies o_m,,prornise—the Messrs. Baird, the last of Nlibeicaatternexilitte,eiasn, i=ataititom an arrangement had to be made with further h a egrre s tto ot p 6 a b v o l o oo l ,0001. for the use of in name of expenses. I had the • • ' 1 1 1 N ?ad, Per t o, t „original demand of the patentees, tt oah l br eak the: acceded to, and had no attempt been sted i rt have ex patent, the whole amount to be paid e olt,„, ti th e exceeded 7,000/. The other parties inte m j4eage,n (1, e s , a t9 previously to te abe arrangement, 11 .—Edinbar g h h Pap ov er. ~ ~ p V of ite satin, t dresses breadth it froo) ma ntille i i n front carts are them i n to co ved fo r ; the i s woro aau x . sr° mt, soul ° 3 have the si de/ :11 wort!, ?s, chrr )en, p ar " velvet, la but for )lain vel ited with ru n n ers, fanteaux satin or i are not Pale- o bring mring to bition of Lfatuated mon the England circa; to disPo t under , om time roachill ng the d till tree hich nl" the n i t ?,ad to . rt Peo ht t ° • The :houg l4 ,d s en' v hether eir ow n • prejt ,n earl/ ~,,, ISO r even borotlel fight . kbatantg :c-house tockleYo sang seat to he fell I disease • , • COntr us with ent last w ill be an Bet l e bac.; draw ill 110( IMPERI AMEN''I HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 2 Their Lord,hips met this morning at half-past twelve o'clock, and proo-eeded in procession to to the Palace to present the address. Before leaving the House their Lirdsh:ps ad journed until Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 2. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. Several petitions on private Bills were presented. STATE TRIALS. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition agreed to at a public meeting in Liverpool, at which several thousand persons were present, and signed by Mr. Hathbone, the Chairman, on the subject of the State trials in Dublin. The petitioners complained of the selection of the jury, from which sixty-five names had been withdrawn, as a dangerous invasion of the right of 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 Bill.—( Hear, hear.) They moreover complained of it as an affront to the whole Roman Catholic body, and they prayed the House to institute 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, of London, stating that he had been confined in the Queen's Bench Prison for seventeen years, and pra3ing for an alteration in the law with regard to imprisonment for debt. ANIMALS' FRIEND SOCIETY. Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition from the Animals' Protection Society, praying 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 of that country, unless based on a revision of the whole eccle siastical system, so as to place all religious denominations on a footing of perfect equality. POST-OFFICE. Mr. ELPHINSTONE gave notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the present Post-office system. 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 Mil 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 in Waks—whether a report bad been made on the subject, and if so, whether the report would be laid before the House. SUPPLY. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice that, when a motion was made for going into Committee of Supply, he should move, as an amendment, that a Committee be appointed for inquiring into the grievances of the people. IRISH REGISTRA PION. 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 for a similar return of the electors registered after the passing of the Irish Reform Act. FOREIGN JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUE- JECTS. Mr. M. MILNES:moved for copies of all orders of Council, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, and of any correspondence that has taken place between the Government and Foreign Powers on the subject of criminal jurisdiction over British subjects abroad. BANKRUPT RETURNS. Mr. W I ATSON moved far the following returns:—Return of 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 on the said fund, and all charges allowed on 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 ments, deputy of such clerk, comptroller of the hanaper, riding clerk, six clerk, sworn clerk, waiting 'clerk, agent, or record keeper, under the statute 5 and 6 Vic. c. 103, s. 12.—Return of a copy of any order mace by the Lord Chancellor for corn. ,pensation under the statute 5 and 6 Viie. c. 103.—Return of all compensations awarded or allowed to officers in the Courts of Justice, under the statutes 11 Geo. 4, and Will. 4, c. ; stating the names of the persons, toe amount of compensation, and the of f ice in respect of which the compensation was awarded and allowed.—Return of all sinecure offices, and offices entirely performed by deputy in the C o u r t o f Ch ancer y, an d th e Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster; stating the names of the holders of such offices, and the amount of salaries received 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 moved for a copy of the correspondence relating to the late Mission to Shoa.. Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR moved for copies of any correspondence 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 NVORTLEY said he had to put a question of great importance to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. He wished to ask his Noble Friend, whether the course pursued by Sir Charles Metca lfe in Canada had the concurrence 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 wpon the public mind. He had no hesitation in saying that the policy pursued by Sir Charles Metcalfe in Canada had the en tire approbation of her Majesty's Government. Theselection of Sir Charles Metcalfe— & 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 wag equally determined to resist any demands inconsistent with tlw dignity of the Crown. He should conclude by saying that Sir C. Metcalfe, in pursuing this course, would have the entire supp or t of the Home Govern. ment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to commom icate to the House the instructions sent out by the Governmeiat at home to Sir Charles Aletcalfe, or the correspondence whic.h had taken place be tween the Government and the Colonial- office ? Lord STANLEY said that no coninaunication such as the Noble Lord alluded to had been sent to. Sir Charles Metcalfe, but at. the proper time, if the Noble lord chose to put the question, he would explain the course pursued by Sir Charles ; when he woul6l hope to satisfactorily vi.ridicate it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, when_ _ Mr. ROEBUCK called the lord to order. It was not right to allow a conversation of this kind, when no other person could make an observation. BRAZILS„ Mr. HAWES wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, if he would have any objection to lay upon the table copies of the paper:; 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 wou'Al expire in about a year, and during the present state of the matter he did not deem it consistent with his public duty to order the returns to which the Hon. Gentleman alluded. CHARITABLE IPRUSTS. In answer to a question from Sir GEORGE GREY. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, tht tt he did nut ask the Right Hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice, but he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that during the recess the subject had beery, under the anxious con sideration of the Government, and at a very early period of the session a measure would be provosed upon the subject. ECCLESIASTICAL tOURfS. 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 thar measure would be introduced in this or the other House of Parliament ? Sir JAMES GRAH AM said that his Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had announced in the other House his inten tion to bring in a Bill upon the subject at an early period. THE CASE OF MR. 13‘ONHAM. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that as his saw the Hon. Mem ber for Exeter had just 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 an Honourable Friend of his. He allud.d 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 R. Peel) wished to inquire whether the• Hon. Gentleman would object to state what werethe grounds of his motion ? Mr. DIVETT said that when he gave Coe 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 forward, the complaint which he had to make referred not to Mr. Bonham's official position, but to the functions which he performed in the position which he held with refe rence to the Carlton Club, and the Conservative party.— ( Great laughter.) Gentlemen might laugh ; they pro bably knew Mr. Bonham's functions much better than he did; but undoubtedly his functions appeared to him of such a questionable character that he thought it essential that the Government should learn what they were.—(Cries of "Oh ! oh 1") 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 him.—(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.) He 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 mentary 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 he 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 ham's conduct in his official position. It referred not to his ostensible, but to his real position in relation to the Govern ment.—(lronical cries of Hear, hear. ) t either by removal from their situations or dismissal from their . 0 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 v.sted. He was quite sure that if a Commit ee of the 'louse were :to si on these Standing Orders, a great number of them Is ould be expunged, as applicable only to times long past. They all well knew that the Peers of this realm openly subieribed large sums of votes, and otherwiie: influence the re turns mrnsoany to buy t e 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 interferenc e 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 th ese or d ers di recte d t h at no strangers should be allowed in the H ouse, an d t h at s h ou ld one b e f oun d there, he should ins'antly 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. 'I here was a portion of that House set apart, far 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 !lAA' slid 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 lion. Gentleman must confine his observations to the question before the House. Cotonel WYNDHAAI—Arn I not at liberty, Sir, to reply to the statements brought forward by the Hon. Member for Coventry ? The SPEAKER—Yes. Colonel WYNDUAM said he could not sit still after hear• ing the unjust asrersions that had been thrown upon the lauded aristocracy of the country. The Hon. Member said that they drove their terant voters to the poll like so many sheep.— Well that might have been the case 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 laughter. ) 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 th e agricultural commu n ity. 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 se, 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 coders 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 I3ills at the end of the session to be hurried through the House without discus-ion, and almost without consideration. He trusted the Government would impose upon themselves the same regulations they imposed on other Alembers 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 11/FOl - -th 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 introduce 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, be was hound to say that they hail not kept faith with the Irish peolle. 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 thuow 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 proved that all the words relating to the repeal of the union should he expunged. The question having been put, Air. FITZSIEPHEN 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 pen ding. The declaration of her Majesty at the close of the last session waso fit s su fliciently tthe explicit, and present therewas im te no exceptnecessitya s for a re h vshowing 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.) Ii there were no 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 positions 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. The Hon. Member for Montrose had 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 thought;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 hard, it might be ceetended, with an equal show of reason, that the desire expressed by her Majesty to co-operate with Parliament in the measures tending to the developement of the resources of Ireland, and to the removal of the ev il s under which that country was suffering, would influence the jury in favour of the defendants ; but there w as th e expres de claration on the part of her Majesty, that she forbore from making any observations on events in Ireland, i n 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, that declaration, on the part of her Majesty, showed that the disposition of those by whom that speech had been framed , . was to c au ti ous l y a b sta i n 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. BLEWI TT, 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 the m an oppor tunity of considering it, he should certainly have brought for ward a motion similar to that now before the House ; f or he considered that part of the speech to which the motion re ferred to be most u nconstitution al, indecorous, an d i mproper . —( A laugh.) He had last sess ion 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 be en i nserte d i n 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 a4itation would have been raised throughout the country as had not existed since England had been a nation. He felt exceedingly excited on this subject ever since he had TIEIE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 3, 1844 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 that in future petitions may be publicly discussed at the time of their presentation ; and that any rule or order of this House, which controls or prohibits the discussion of the peti tions of the people at the time of their presentation, be rescinded." The sessional order on this subject having been read by the Clerk at the table, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that it was his intention to move, in conformity with the terms of the motion he had just read to the House, that that order be rescinded ; but as the question had been often discussed, he did i n n feel it necessary to occupy much of the public time in addressing himself to it. f he people of this country, however 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 had no part, and tlse practice of which the) 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 1.5., -. 33, the petitions of the people were discussed fully, and this mo 'e of doing business gave great satisfaction to the entire coon ry. 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 /liaise, and that they were they thrown under the tables, or jammed into bags and large sacks. Now those who knew what importance the people attached to this, their ancient right of petition, should pause be.ore 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 Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) ; 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 somethingworthy ofremarkin that House, in consequence of the motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe). He (Mr. Wallace) brought forward the question in that year on the same principle that he did now—the inherent right of the people a right which that House had not constitutionally the power to wrest away. But his Hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe) 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 those 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 he 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.votes of the House, in which those things were noticed, and the Members were not allowed to send them to their constituents. Ile believed that the rescinding of that rule would be exceed ingly gratifying to the country. Having stated th e nature o f the case which he had to bring before the House, and it having been stated fully twice before during the present Parliament, he 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 do all that in them lay to prevent the people haying any knowledge o f th e manner i n which the business of that House was conducted. He should certainly divide the Fiance upon his motion. Dr. BOWRIN G 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 House, 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 wire presented ; and if the Hon. Gentleman would compare that number with the number presented during the preceding yes r, he would not find that therewas any disposition on the part of the people to withhold petitions from the House of Commons. Did the Hon. Gentl ernan recollect the petitions that were presented with respect to education, when the Educa tion Bill was unde- 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. Ttie 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 thus 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 course 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 nLe r tts—a that f petition the e - signatures attached to it, an d if h e pleased, he might have that petition read at th e t a bl e . I f he intended to found. a motion on that petition, it was not re f erred to the Select Com tmhiat t t e e i t on w a P s e t c i o t i mp o n s e , t e b n u t t f w or the as pr ied m w b i e th e l v ro e t e h o h a tition referred to a personal grievance, then h e apprehended 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 not better for the order and sat i s f actory conduct woasf 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 he 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 i:s 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 impos.sitle to present more than three or four petitions of a night. He hoped his lion. 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 880 ; 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 consecutively, without having had an opportunity of presenting them. He had the strongest conviction that the people would not be dissatisfied with the present .plan if it were properly explained to them.— (Cheers.) Although he was tcenerally 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 amore conve nient opportunity of placing their sentiments on record, than would be afforded them ry any discussion upon petitions. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, had overlooked the fact that many Hon. Members on his (the Aiinisterial) side of the House were constantly anxious to press on a division. The Right Hon. Baronet should recollect that in debates on great com • 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 for ward 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. Alr. 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 cught to be modified. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. • THE SESSIONAL ORDER.S. Sir G. CLERK moved the usual sessional of Mr. W. WILLIAMS said some of these standi'ng orders were so much at variance with the practice of the House- that Govern ment ought to revise them. When the House had 1 aid 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 bath any right to give his vote in the election of a uy Member to serve in Parliament." Now he would not discu as the right of Peers to vote for,Members of that Hou s e ; b u t the order in question ought n o t 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 lie had done so, but be did not see what there was to prevent bim. 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 PI !er 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 exceptit in, exercised all the power which they possessed in virtue of prverty, office, or anything else, in influencing the election of mbers of the House of Commons. It was notorious that • the Peers drove their tenants and dependents to the poll, and r pule them vote at their own pleasure. If they refused they were punished, MIN read the history of his country and Ireland, and when he had thrown his mantle of protection over the Attorney-General for done so he blushed for England ; he had never seen more Ireland. if my Right Hon. Friend had interfered in any de atrocious acts committed by an y civilised country to another gree to shelter an a b sent officer from att ac k s couc h e d in no than those th a t h a d been committed towards Ireland.— , very measured terms, and founded upon facts which, undoubt (Hear. ) flow, be would ask, could he remain quiet, and see edly, are notorious, but which are put forth by newspaper re. sessi•in after session pass away in that House without ports, Ido riot think my Right Hen. Friend is a fair object of any attempt to redress the grievances of Ireland, and he con- i the censure weich is sought now to be cast upon him by the fessed that if he was an Irishman, he did not know how far his Hon. Gen; tleman who has ju t sat down. Sir, I think that a feelings would carry hits.—( A laugh.) He had not met with I much more worthy course is pursued by those who do not much favour in that House. He did not know why, because press forward exaggerated accusations against an absent ever since he had had a .rat he had conducted himself with ; man, bet who seek to impress on the House that, courtesy to every Alember.—( Hear, hear.) He did not pro- I whi.e they do not vindicate specific acts, they do, at fess to be blessed with eloquence, but he had studied the ques- ; least, i m p ress on t h e H ouse to cons id er t h ose infirmities tions brou g ht b e f ore t h e H ouse and endeavoured to understand ! to which not the Attorney-General alone is subject, them.—( Hear, hear. ) If however, he was not to be allowed ; I listened with great pain to the able, but I must say needlessly to express his sentiments, the House should tell him so, in embittered, speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. order that his constituents might be enabled to send a better I I listened with pleasure— i f pleasure can be derived from a Member.—( Hear, hear.) The lion. Memb er co n clud e d by ! discussion such as the present —to the more temperate language stating that the amendment had his cordial support. in which the Right Hon. Member for Waterford has addressed THE IRISH ATTORNEY-GieNERAL. the Houee. I will venture to say, that my Right Hon. Friend Mr. ROEBUCK said, that as allusion had been made to does not, as the Hon. Member for Wycombe has just stated, the State trials in Ireland, he would take that opportunity of concur in the abstract with the language or the sentiments of putting a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head the lion. and Learned Member for Bath ; but Ido think that of her Majesty's Government. He wished to know whether abstractedly arid practically there was little or no difference the Government had had their attention directed to the con- between the feelings of my Right Hon. Friend and the views duct of the person who was the head law °Meer of the Go- and .eelings expressed by the Right lion. Member for Water vernment in Ireland, and who was conducting the prosecu- ford. We none of us can vindicate the unfortunate circum tions that were taking piece there? He would not allude to stance which has led to this debate; but is the Hon. Gentleman the probable result of those prosecutions, out of respect for who has brought forward this discussion himself free from all the course the House seemed to have laid down, although he infirmities of temper ?—( Cheers and laughter.) The taunts— held it perfectly competent for him to do so. However he the goads—l do not say one, but a succession of purposed, might differ from the House on that point, yet feeling re- intentional, continued, bitter personal taunts—might be in spect for the due administration of justice, he was prevented capable of moving the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ; but I from being silent or deterred from putting the question he was am not ashamed to say, that long as my experience about to do.—( Hear, bear.) If there was any one thing that has been in this House, I have learnt—l speak ho more than another ought to distineuish State prosecutions nestly-1 have learnt, day by day, how difficult it was that they should be conducted with no vindictive- it is to sit patiently and hear attacks of a much ness—if anything mere than another ought to dis- more mitigated character than those to which the At tinguish them, it was cairn, decorous, and considerate be- torney-General for Ireland has been subjected. lam not Laviour.—( Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the House— ashamed to confess that I have used hasty and irritating words —not to Ireland, but to England—whether such calmness, de- in reply, which afterwards I have regretted. Feeling that corum, or considerate behaviour, had beers evinced by the At- infirmity myself, I, at least, can make allowances for the posi torney- General for Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) In the presence tion of the Attorney-General for Ireland. And what was that °Nile assembled Judges of the law, the maintainers of the law, position? It was not that which has been incorrectly attri and the mainta ners of peace, there had been one of the most buted to him by the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. gr iss breaches of the decencies of his situation committed by It was not that the Government was conscious of the infirmity the Attorney-General of Ireland.--( Hear, hear. ) He was at anti incompetence of the officer that they thought it necessary the present time prosecuting a man whom he called a great to caution him against being led into irritation. On the con criminal, for bringing in danger the peace of the country, and hearty, it was only the day before this unfortunate occurrence the first thing he did was to commit a gross breach of the law took place that the Government had expressed to the Attorney himself, for which he ought to have been immediately General, in terms strong indeed, but not more strong than committed by the Judges.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") merited. the full satisfaction which they felt at the coolness, the He was liable at the present moment to an indictment, and temper, the moderation andjudgment, displayed by him in the he hoped he would be subjected to it.—( Hear, hear.) It was conducting of these important trials. There was no caution his pride to speak these sentiments in the presence of the At- given to the Attorney-General; but the Attorney-General torney-General for England, whose conduct, to his praise be it wrote a few hours before the intelligence was received of the spoken, was widely different to that of the,Attorney-Generalfor occurrence of that circumstance which has led to the present Ireland —( Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General for England discussion. The Attorney-General said, " There has evidently had done all he could to conciliate, while the Attorney-Gene- been an attempt made to drive true into some act of indiscre ral for Ireland had attempted every means to light the torch tion, which may be injurious to me, I say, speaker after of discord.—(Hear, hear.) The Judges of Ireland had be- speaker has attempted to fix on me a personal imputation." hayed exceedingly remiss, they were filled with consideration lam swing that which the lion. and Learned Member for for the officer, but forgot the vindication of the law.—( Hear, Bath has said led to what he calls a caution from my Right hear.) What should the Judges have done ? They should Hon. Friend near me, and I am stating the substance of a have instantly committed him.—( Hear.) Nothing could letter received from the Attorney-General himself a few hours have been more unhappily conducted from beginning to end before this unfortunate occurrence tcok place, in which he than these State trials. What moral influence (said the Hon. stated that he was determined to keep the strictest watch over and Learned Gentleman) can these State trials have on the his feelings, that he might not compromise his own character social interests of Ireland?—( Hear, hear.) I ask my Right or that of the Government. Ido not conceal my regret at Hon. Friend opposite, supposing that our positions were re- what has occurred, but I bring this forward to show that versed—supposing that I was prosecuting for the Crown, and there was no premeditated intention on the part of the Attor that he was defending the prisoners, what, 1 say, ney-General to commit any' outrage in the ordinary course of would he have thought of me if, because he the legal proceedings, or to commit any act of violence or in had made the best speech he could in defence discretion. There is a very remarkable corroboration of this of his clients, I sent him a hostile message? And yet the view of the case in the speech of the Right Hon. Member for Attorney-General for Ireland had acted so. Yes, the head of Waterford. What does he tell you? He says, in vindication the bar._( Hear, hear.) An effective speech for a client is of Mr. Fitzgibbon, " I know nothing of Mr. Fitzgibbon—l sure to draw down his wrath. Why did he not carry out the know nothing of his speeches, except from the newspapers." principle and challenge the jury.—( Laughter.) I don't know But the Right Hon. Member for Waterford tells you that that even the Judges are safe.—( Laughter, and cries of those expr ess i ons w hi c h h a d appeare d to h ave g i ven so muc h " Hear, hear.") S uc h thi ngs h ave happened in Ireland. It offence to the Attorney-General, were not expressions of the was the wish of the Government to preserve the union. In counsel, nor conveyed the feelings of Mr. Fitzgibbon. He tells order to do so they did not set an example of that moder a ti on vou that they were not the expressions of the counsel himself, which distinguished the tribunals of this country, on the part but he tells you they were the expressions of the client. That of those presiding there, where there is an absence of all emotion oas the statement of the Right Hon. Member for Waterford. —where the Judgesseem impassable to irritation or excitement— The Right Hon. Member for Waterford said, that two or three ( Hear, hear)—and their demeanours command the respect of days previous he heard the powerful speech of Mr. Shell, and the criminal. I told the Government last year that the At- the Hon. Gentleman justly and fairly stated that he felt him torney-General for Ireland for unfit for his situation, and I now self how difficult it must be for the Attorney-General to keep emphatically demand the ignominious dismissal of that most his temper, when made the subject of attacks so personal, so unworthy official.—( Hear, hear,) I ask it in the name of eloquent, so bitter, and so severe, as those which fell from Mr. violated justice, decency, and honour—( Hear, h e ar)—a n d I Shell. (Mr. Wyse intimated dissent.) I certainly so under have no fear whatever of receiving from the Learned Gentle- stood the Right Hon. Gentleman. man a"a three-cornered note."—(Laughter.) And if any Mr. WYSE—That was a preceding day. thing could possibly add disgrace to the act, it was the manner laird STANLEY—I said it was on a preceding day—that in which it was done.—( Hear, hear.) The Attorney- was the first attack. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke justly General having forgotten his position, and having bee n call e d and fairly. He says that on th e fi rs t d a y, w h en t h e Attorney upon to expl a i n what he meant, t urne d roun d upon hi s oppo- General was exposed to the bitterness of the attack of Mr. vent, who acted like a gentleman, and in the language of a Shen, he felt how difficult it would be, if it were his case, lawyer, called upon him to make an affidavit.—( Hear, hear, for himself to keep his temper. Two speeches of counsel fol hear. ) That was mixing the court of honour with the court of lowed that of Mr. Sheil before Mr. Fitzgibbon commenced the justice with a vengeance. I find the mode in which the pre- attack upon the Attorney-General. Ido not state that in sent trials have been conducted will be fraught with, mischief. vindic a t ion o f th e error i nto which the Attorney. General But let us forget th e l u di crous part of the affair. Have the afterwards fell ; but Ido state it in order to express an earnest first principles of justice, honour, decency, and ever ythi ng d ear h ope t h at upon such information as that which we now possess to this country, bee n res p ec t e d in attempting to vindicate the —derived from newspaper intelligence —not being judges of, the laws ?—( Cheers.) manner or the gesture of the party—for there are many words Sir ROBERT PEEL deeply regretted that the Hon. and which read very harmlessly, but when spoken possess a heavier Learned Gentleman had felt himself called upon by a sense of meaning-1 do hope that the House will not condemn in so public duty to make the observations which he had made upon sweeping a manner, and in such unmitigated terms as those the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland.—( Hear, proposed by the Han. and Learned Member for Bath, an ab hear, from the Ministerial benches. )—He was resolved to ad- sent officer of the Crown, who, during the performance of here to the rule which he had laid down last night, not to most arduous and laborious duties, in a moment of weakness offer any observations or comments upon the matter now was led to commit a momentary offence, for which he has pending in Ireland, lest such observations might lead already expressed his regret. And I trust that that allowance, to further discussion. Ile was resolved to adhere implicity to which in my heart and conscience I feel is due to him, and the sentiment expressed in the speech from the throne, not which I should expect for myself, the House of Commons will even to introduce collateral topics. He must say that he con- show to tt e Attorney-General. sidered the comments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman Mr. Sergeant MURPHY did not think the protection upon the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland much which had been cast over the Attorney-General by the speech more severe and censorious than that conduct merited.— of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government (Cries of " Oh, ols," from the Opposition.) It was impossible had been at all improved by what had fallen from the Noble altogether to vindicate the Attorney-General's conduct.— L or d. H e t h oug h t t h e N o bl e L or d h a d merely confirmed the (Hear, hear.) In the p r i nc ipl es l a id down by the Hon. and charge brought against the Attorney-General. He (Mr. Learned Gentleman as to the manner in which this prosecu- sergeant Murphy) would venture to say that the conduct of tion had been conducted, he entirely concurred, that there the Attorney-General would be met throughout the country, should be an absence of all irritation and excitement, and that both by Whig and Tory, with but one feeling. When the decency and order should be rigidly preserved. But a very people of this country saw that the solemn administration of few hours before the scene to which allusion had been made the law, the beat safeguard of our rights, was violated by those had taken place, the Attorney-General, in a letter to the Home whose place it was to uphold it, lie questioned whether any Secretary, expressed his full concurrence in these principles, man could be found in England, no matter what his shade of and upon the propriety of conductin g th e trials with as much politics might be, who would not look upon the splenetic and coolness and temper as possible. It was a momentary occur- intemperate outb. eak of the Attorney-General but as a dese rence. That there had been much irritation displayed, and ins- cration of the temple of justice—a desecration of that temple, properly displayed, could not be denied. He repeated, that it not at a time when one man was being tried within it, but was impassible for him entirely to vindicate the conduct when an entire country, by a multitudinous indictasent, had of the Attorney-General ; but let some allowance be made for been dragged before the tribunal of justice. Had the Attor his position—let them remember the infi r miti es of their own ney-General fur Ireland throughout these trials acted with that nature, and let them not pronounce judgment on his conduct spit it of concession which eminently distinguished State upon mere reports of isolated circumsances —(Ministerial prosecutions in this country ?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. cheers.) This was not a deliberate thing—it was Sergeant Itiu , phy) would appeal to his Hon. arid Learned not a meditated challenge. The conduct of the Attorney-Ge- Friend the Attorney-General for England, and he would neral had been noticed by the Chief Justice in terms which appeal to the manner in which the Chartist trials were con must have been exceedingly painful to him. The highest au- ducted in Lancashire. He would appeal to what fifty-nine of thority in the Court had, in the presence of the whole Court, the persons who were arraigned, declared at the termination of expressed dissatisfaction at his conduct. At the same time the the trials, who said, " Whether we consider the Judges— Lord Chief Justice expressed a hope that the proceeding would whether we consider the Attorney-General—whether we look be buried in oblivion. This too, should be remembered—the to the whole f a i rness o f t h ese trials--to the Judge, Counsel, Attorney-Gen era l h a d asked permission to withdraw the letter. Jury, or the Attorney-General, we must feel that the law has The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had inquired w hether the been administered with temper, with moderation, and with Government had dismissed the Attorney General ? His (Sir fairness." He (Mr. Murphy) was one of the counsel on this R. Peel's) answer was, that they had not dismissed the At- occasion, sad he could bear testimony to the truth of this. torney-General, nor did they mean to dismiss him.—(" Hear, These trials were conducted with the calmness and temper hear," front the Ministerial benches.) which distinguishes the Attorney-General for England. As Air. WYSE said he could not blame the Right Hon. Ba- an Irishman, he felt in his secret soul the degradation the ronet for entering somewhat into detail. He was willing to Irish bar had suffered by the conduct of the Attorney make a good deal of allowance for the Attorney-General. In General. But he was happy that it had been redeemed by the course of the trials he had on one occasion, to his own the speech of the Right Honourable Member for Dungarvon. knowledge, acted with forbearan ce . Many severe and unjusti- The Attorney-General for Ireland had gone into court, and liable attacks had been made upon him—newspapers of all had, as it were, proclaimed that he cane there as the Crown parties had censured him—Mr. Fitzgibbon had made a very prosecutor; but he cautioned those against whom he appeared severe attack upon him; but, making allowance for all these that he should demand satisfaction for anything said in the things, he :would ask the House was the conduct of the heat of the defence. This he (Mr. Murphy) said, was a most Attorney-General likely to impress the conviction on the cogent argument in favour of the Attorney-General being minds of the people of Ireland that the law had been fairly ignominiously dismissed. The prosecution in Ireland had been administered ? The Attorney -G e ne r al had two other courses instituted to uphold the majesty of the law. They had had open to him. He might have called up o n Mr. Fitzgibbon to the whole people looking on. They had had, as it were, as disavow the offensive expressions, or he might have placed witnesses, Europe and America. Would not, then, such con himself in the hands of the Court. N e ither of these things duct as that which had been displayed by the Attorney-General had he done, but he had recourse to the ultinza ratio of arms, be, in effect, a reproach to the majesty of the law—a reproach and acted roost indiscreetly. For the reasons already stated to the impartiality of the tribunal and the Judges of the Court ? he would not enter into the consideration whether or not the It became, therefore, the duty of the Government of the coun agitation for the repeal of the union was legitimate, but he try to vindicate the majesty of the law, which alone could be would allude to a clause in the address. It was very well done by the immediate dismissal of the first law officer of the known that he (Mr. Wyse) had been solicited to become a Crown. member of the Loyal National Repeal Association ; that many Sir JAMES GRAHAM was unwilling, after what had of his constituents wished him to beco me a repeal e r, but these fallen front his Right Hon. Friend and the Noble Secretary solicitations he declined, believing that the Imperi a l Parliament far the Colonies, to prolong this discussion ; yet he thought, would do justice to Ireland. As long as he had that hope he on the present occasion, it would not be unworthy or incon would not wish to agitate for repeal It would depend en- sistent with his duty if he addressed a few words to the House. tirely on this count r y w h e th er suc h hope s were He hoped the House would remember what was the position of realised. He was only one of a large class who this case. A great trial was pending. Her Majesty from the held back from the repeal ranks because he be- Throne had announced that her love of justice being adminis lieved that a British Parliament would do them justice. tered according to law had induced her to refrain from all But if these hopes were frustrated the cause of repeal would comment upon the trials now taking place. Notwithstanding every day have new partisan s . He hoped the clause in the the various topics which had been commented upon, in the address was not cor tined to one or two beneficial measures course of the discussion last night, it was agreed he thought for Ireland, but that it signified that an extensive system of on all hands, for the sake of justice, that the topics connected policy would be pursued for the improvement of the social and with the pending trials should be avoided until a verdict should political condition of that country. If he did not think that b e pronounced by the jury now empanelled to try the case. was the meaning of the clause, he would not support the Disregarding, however, the example of last night, in the address. name of justice the House was called upon to discuss a matter Lord ELIOT said, that from his official position regarding bearing directly upon the question being tried. The Hon. Ireland, it could not be expected he would remain silent during Gentleman who had just sat down had alluded in terms of ad the attack on the Attorney-General. He had been associated miration to the speech of the counsel for the defence. This with that Hon. and Learned Gentleman for more than a year, charge had been brought against a Member of that House ; and he must say, that a more kind-hearted man he had seldom that Member was absent, and consequently could have no op known. When he (the Attorney-General) came into office, portunity then of explaining more fully the merits of the case. his first act was to receive apologies from several editors of His Right Hon. Friend and the Noble Lord the Secretary for newspapers against which prosecutions for libels were about to the Colonies had both declared that they were not prepared to be instituted. After the testimony which had been borne to vindicate the conduct of the Attorney-General in the particular his forbearance by the Hon. Member for Waterford, he instance which had led to this discussion. Her Majesty's Go believed the Attorney-General had on many trying occasions vernment could not defend, and would not defend, an act such during the course of these trials shown great discretion, as that which had been brought under the notice of the House. and except upon that one occasion had not given way to any —( Hear, hear.) But he was quite sure that the Hon. and improper excitement. Learned Gentleman who had brought forward this subject Mr. ROEBUCK—Oh, several. must see that there were mitigating circumstances. It was Lord ELIOT— Had not heard but of that one instance.— evident from the speech of the Right Honourable (Cries of " Oh, oh.") He believed that on every other occa- Member for Waterford that the Attorney-General had sion the Attorney- General had demeaned himself as became been subjected to very eloquent and personal attacks. his station. He did not mean to vindicate the indiscretion, Ile thought the more appropriate course to have adopted would but he felt sure that in the cooler moments of reflection he have been to have suspended their judgment until that officer would not have acted so. Base personal and selfish motives was present to defend himself; but, to say the least of had been attributed to the Attorney-General, and he had be- it, he thought it ungenerous, as well as unjust, to pronounce a trayed this infirmity of temper. censure when the Attorney -General had withdrawn the terms Ms. WYSE explained. The Noble Lord was quite mis- which were found fault with, and also, after the matter had taken in supposing that he meant to say that the Attorney- been brought before the Court, in which it occurred, and when General had on every occasion during the trials comported that Court had expressed its hope that no further notice would himself with forbearance. He did not say so, nor did he mean be taken of the matter. Another circumstance, he thought, so, nor did he think so: . ' hut what he said was, that upon one a l so f u ll y b ore him out in the opinion which he had expressed occasion on which he (Mr. Wyse) was present, the Attorney- with respect to the course now pursued, which was that the General had conducted himself with great calmness, when it might Learned Counsel with whom this unfortunate quarrel occurred, have been expected that his temper would have been broken. in a manner the most generous and becoming to him, a mem- Lord ELLIOT replied. ber of the same profession as the Attorney-General, came Captain BERNAL said the Right Hon. Baronet had at- down to the Court, and said that, upon reflection, he felt bound tempted to throw his cloak over what he must term the fall to express his sorrow that any thing had occurred to wound and fame of the Irish Attorney-General. He (Captain Bernal) the feelings of the Attorney-General, and acknowledged at denied that at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the same time that he had given many provocations to the Hon. these trials had that ,officer conducted himself in a proper and Learned Gentleman, which led to this unfortunate transac manner, and he had reason to know that there was only one tion, and that to the last moment of his life, he should regret opinion among the Irish bar as to time manner in which the everything which fell from him tending lead to this occurrence. Attorney-General had conducted himself throughout these He ( Sir J. Graham) felt bound to express his deep regret at trials, and that was that he had behaved with great impropriety. suc h an event occurring during the administration of justice, He adopted, in the fullest sense, the language of the Hon. for all legal proceedings should be held sacred for the sake of and Learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck). If that Hon. the interests. of society. He hoped what had occurred this and Learned Gentleman felt it necessary to caution the Gil- night would satisfy the House that he was quite willing to take vernment regarding the appointment of the Attorney-General, his share of the responsibility of the course now so generally how much more was that caution necessary when the language rev ommended by those who knew the Attorne -General for which had been used by hi m i n 189.7 was recollected?—H e de- Ireland. y dared in that year his belief that Irish Roman Catholics had Mr. WARD said he thought that so far as the high legal no reverence for the sanctity of an oath. The manner qualities, the good intention, and the good heart of the Attor in which the Government now treated the Attorney- ney-General were concerned, they had nothing whatever to do General resembled that in which a schoolmaster would treat his with the fact, as to whether a high legal officer of the Crown young pupil, " Be a good boy, be sorry for what you have done, ' had discharged a great and important duty in a manner likely and I will forgive you." If an example of decorum were not Ito reflect dignity upon the administration of justice. The to be found ins the Court of Queen's Bench, what vanity it was I Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, had stated that the to come down to that House, and, in the Queen's speech, ex- I Attorney-General was drawn out under circumstances calculated press a hope that the social condition of Ireland would be im- to excite the most cool and dispassionate individual. He proved. lle called on th e H ouse t o support the lion. Member (Mr. W ar d) d en i e d th a t t h ere h a d b een any this assertion in was occasions o for Bath, and he call e d u p on th em at once t o urge on t h e Go- for exciting irascibility, anti he thought ert •vernment the prop r i e ty o f di sm i ss i ng th e A ttorney- G eneral fur borne out by the last expressions used by the Hon. Ireland. c Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, who said Lord STANLEY rose, and said the Hon. Gentleman whohas that the Learned Counsel hail acted its a gentlemanly and just sat down complained of my Right Hon. Friend baying uentroas manner. Wlrerq wea there Ono expression hi the (S 1 1 14 -i - c - -: h e . ; .1•75,-- f b tt(4 . 3. 19 _,,,.t5, 1 '-‘.• ( `,-? k -- 4.4.7,-,.--4 - ''. ?.46 1 5 • _ address of the Hon. Member for Dungarvon, \gr.' the Co ur t, w hi c h cou l d tend to have rouse .the.fietiricsik the Attorney -General for Ireland. Hon. GentleiMia in. Ms' House were all willing to make ample allowances for such ebullitions of feelings, but this House was not like a Court of Justice. If ever th ere was a t i me when everything like personal feeling should be avoided it was in this case. He agreed with , the Hon. M em b er for Cork that from the very beginning of those trials there was a most 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 that would prove that a high legal func. tionary was deficient in that temper which was necessary to the dignified discharge of hisduties. 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. WYSE explaire'd. Mr. SHAW, as an old and intimate friend of the Attorney- General for Ireland, wished to bear testimony to his high standing in his profession, and his many estimable private qua lities. At the 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 ut his own profession. lie (Mr. Shaw) thought Mr. Roebuck was not exactly the man best suited for bring ing such an accusation as this-(Hear, hear)-for he thought him one of the most unfit persons to stand up and deliver a lecture upon this subjecn But what he complained of most was, that this attack had been made on account of the parti cular act cf having sent a challenge, but that the Hon. Mem ber had made a general and indiscriminate attack upon the Attorney-General. Ile (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 for Bath, that he was unfit for the place he holds, was worth anything. He asked the Hon. and Learned Member fur 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 t way most creditable to himself? He was placed in pee; lia t scurnstances. He (Mr. Shaw) was sorry to refer to the trial trim pending in Ireland, but allusion had been made to th t Attorney-General's requiring Mr. J. O'Connell's attendance n Court when he only went into the library. Now, what 'we 'tee fact ? Why, that Mr. O'Connell cad gone to that very association which the indictment, under which he was being tried, had declared tube illegal, and his in tention to do so 'etc' been publicly advertised in the newspapers. -(Cheers from the Tory benches.) this attendance was not required as a criminal, but lie was allowed to wear his own dress, and sit amongst the Counsel. Therefore this was a gross mis representation. lie (Mr. Shaw) heard men of 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, ante of al most all his opponents, to make a set against the lion. 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 lion. 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. Ili> 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 test the infirmity of his temper.- (Ministerial cheers.) lie repeated that the Attorney-General, taking all the circumstances of his position into consideration, had acted with much more temper than could be expected from him -( Laughter.) lie 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 art honour to his profession-he possessed great legal acuteness-and he was entitled to and enjoyed the deference and respect of his profession and of the country.--(Cheers.) He knew him to be of the most unexceptionable character ; but his appointment to the situation he held was most unfortu nate, because there were persons at the bar who were more tit to carry out the objects of the present Government than Mr. Smith. He had, as all men had, Isis defects, but a more excellent lawyer did not exist.-(Cheers. ) Lord INGESTRIE said it would be most ungenerous in him if he did not get up and state that, during the time he was present in the Court of Queen's riench, in Ireland, no person could have conducted himself with greater propriety than the Attorney-General did there. Il e wou ld , further, calf the attention of the liou=e 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 saw, the Attorney.. General conducted himself with great mildness, and a quiet demeanour, and no person in a similar situation could behave with greater moderation titan the Attorney-General did for the few days he (Lord Ingestrie) had been in Dublin. Mr. WALLACE said that the Attorney-General for Ireland_ had great cause to say " save me from my frieeds." From the Right lion. Baronet downwards, one and all concurred in giving him the character of one most unfit to till his present. situation. The House recollected the mode in which he ewe,- 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 he knew that the members ()it' the profession were not fond of attacking each other.- (Laughter.) The Attorney-General was guilty of an opera breach of the law, and when the Government said they- ought not to interfere and dismiss him, he tiegged to remind them of the conduct pursued towards she. 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 sessed an irritability of temper which unfitted him for hiss situation. His character as a lawyer, or as a gentleman, webs equally indifferent to him, but he maintained that a woreis selection could not be made than that of the Attorney-Gene t al for Ireland to fill hts situation. 'With regard to what was saidi on the impropriety of alluding to what was going cn in Ire-4 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 0..4 Noble Lord, but it would nut muzzle others, and he was glad( they had an opportunity of discussing the subject. lie would: support the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale. NVA I4 BROTHERTON had listened with attention, to this, present discussion, and he regretted that no person denouncLO 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. )1 He thought the practice of duelling ought to be denounced bye that House. How could they expect the people could be :vb.-, gious when a practice so repugnant to the ordinances of religion asul so opposed to the law, was countenanced by some of then highest in the land? It was nothing b u t murder.—(Hear,. hear.) The conduct of the Attorney-General was denounced: 3 but let those who were without stain themselves cast the first: stone. —(Hear, hear.) He hoped the present debate wool& not be without its use in putting an end to this practice. Mr. CUItTEIS said he did not think the Government bad any right to complain of the subject of Ireland being inttorfueedl into debate pending the present trials. He had heard it state& by two Hon. Members for Ireland (one of whom was remark— able for his moderation), that it was their firm conviction flats address, as it now stood, would influence the verdict of the jury_ He wished to see a fair and impartial verdict, and he woul t therefore wish to see all that related to Ireland expunge 4 from it. This was the ground on which he would give his vote in favour of the amendment. He regretted that the leaden* 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 those with whom he usually acted. The At— torney-General for Ireland had received a severe castigatioa from the House, but he did not think he ought to be dismissed. from his office. Sir W. BARRON said he could not avoid alluding to am expression which had fallen from the Noble Lord the Secret / 1.. : s for Ireland. He said that the Attorney-General for IrrAuni had conducted himself with temper and moderation duriewttile unfortunate prosecution, for such it was. He knew the NobLe Lord would not state anything which he did not believe to bet the fact, but he had been grossly misinformed on the subject. Having attentively observed the progress of the trial, he musC say he never in the course of his experience read or heard such a gross instance of want of temper, such insulting lar. guage, and such uncalled-for observations, as were made t A y tee Attorney-General during the trials, from their comrne•aeement to their present stage, and he wished a Committ,,,e of tt , House were appointed to inquire into the fact. B.: was certain there never was such a gross want • f temper, discretion, and judgment displayed as during the whole of these transactions. Let him call to mind - wh: t occurred at an early stage of the prosecutions. Three of the solicitors employed by the traversers mad% a solemn idifidaYit that it was necessary fur the defence to have certain. paper', and to collect certain evidence, withor,t which the. defence could not be conducted with fairness or justice to their The Attorney-General, on his own mere ipse comes down, and tells the Court that tlitl affidavits of these three re• spectable gentlemen were mad'', 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 oth t Court; and he was at last obliged, in the presence of ass Court, to retract this language, and make an apukegy for it. Air. SHAW—Are you not speaking of some other person ? Sir W. BARRON—Mr. Brewster.—( Cheers :arid laughter They might have their cheer. He was talking of the enti ti conduct of this case—( Oh, oh. )-.-this was a part. of the whol, And in opening the case to the Court the Learned Gentlem used language which had never before been heard in to court of justice, wits regard to the traversers- He assert. d to the Court that, ofihis own knowledge, he could prove a fo midablc conspiracy, thus aggravating the case in every positi. that he took, and that, too, in language which would not De tolerated in the Courts of this country, and. which would ne, er be used by the Learned Attorney-General opposite, as w 41 from a sense of propriety and decorum, as from the knowled,:e that, by such conduct, he was only injuring his own case. Bat not only in this had the Attorney-General for Ireland grew too committed himself, but lie had removed every Roman Catho ic who was left on the jury list.—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") TI A Learned Gentleman's conduct was before the House, aKt he had a right to re mar k upon every part of it. He insult' every Roman Catholic in that country, by removing elev,a Roman Catholics as unfit to be on the jury, the only eleluak Roman Catholics that were upon the panel, and he left no ono upon it but gentlemen notoriously opposed to the traversers in politics. Was that justice? was that fairness? They tr , etl men upon a charge, a political charge, and they took care to have upon the jury only those who were known. to be salver ass 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 Tells, were rue upon their trial in this country they were allowed to have six of their own countrymen upon the jury. Ile_ 1 7; lieved that was th e num b er— h e was no Yawyer—but LW. k: every foreigner was en titl e d , at l east, to have a poi -Poes foreigners on the ju r y. B ut h ere weretheir own count tY mm to be tried, and no ne were t o b e on tie j ur y s ave those k uo.ra to be opposed to them—men filled wit' a prejudices against tl e I an d w h ose op i n i ons an d sentimentsxer known an d recor. v Was this fair play? He appealed to the Eng lis h people it it was right or fair to try a man by his enemies , , and this it 111 country where politics ran sn high as unhappily they di, k Ireland. But would the ver , ' A fct have any effect—would it es ey any weight ? He said the, t let the ver di c t b e w h at i t might, lie mo ral e ff ect of it wolo4 be destroyed, and they might tin ,uk their Attorney-Gene,tal for it. His conduct had caused in ,r• alienation between the people of the two countries, had sit. gendered more animosity, than anything that had occui red within the 15'4 fifty years. For all this mass of evil they 1 tali to thank ti..eir Attorney-General. They migi in his office, overnineut ce, but he t o ld t h e G " 1 ii t continue that in doing so they perp e t uate d an insult to his eountr h from knowledge of hi s own , w h en he si that for every e Ito. Iva ! sr $," 0 $ 10 yr. ,t' 9 20