The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-22 00:00:00

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. MORRIN the Attorney-General for Ireland, took the
oaths and hia seat on hia re-election for Galway.

SUNDAY TRADING.

Mr. HUGHES presented a petition from 10,450 inhabi-
tants of London against Sunday trading.
CONDUCT OF THE TROOPS AT WATERFORD.
The O'DONOOHUE asked the Secretary of State for
War, taking into consideration the alleged conduct of
sixteen men of the 12th Lancers who, on the polling day of
the election for Waterford, according to the sworn testi-
mony of the °Meer in command broke away from his con-
trol, and without orders charged along the quay of Dun-
garvan, the result being that two persons were killed, one
of whom, while standing near the door of his house,
was stabbed by one of the soldiers with a lance, as ap-
pears by the reported evidence of the coroner's jury—taking
this into consideration, whether he coincides in the
opinion expressed by Colonel Sawyer, in his report to the
Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, that the conduct of the
troops at the late Waterford election was admirable, and
that if casualties amongst the people, however much to be
regretted, did occur, they were unavoidable ; and whether
he considers it necessary there should he a searching inves-
tigation into the breach of military discipline, resulting in
so lamentable a catastrophe.

General PEEL had no hesitation in saying, in reply to
this question, that if 16 men of the 12th Lancers, on the
polling day of the late election for Waterford, broke away
from the control of the officer in command, and without
orders charged along the quay of Dunprran, he should
not coincide in the opinion expressed by Colonel Sawyer,
but he should think a searching inquiry necessary. lint
he thought he had stated on a formeroccasion that Colonel
Sawyer in his official report was borne out by the official
reports of all the officers in command of detachments, and
he would read the report of the officer commanding the
12th Lancers on the Genesi°n 'eferred to.
The O'DONOGIHUE —Name.

General PEEL—As the hon. gentleman hashed the good
taste to leave the name of the officer out of his question.
he should do the same in his answer. (Hear, heir.) That
officer in his report said :—"On crossing the bridge, just
before reaching the Court-house, the magistrate requested
me to bring some men, and clear the corner of the bridge
and a portion of the quay. I was in the act of doing so
when a mob inside some iron railings hurled some tremen-
dous big stones at the men, and the people on the quay did
the name. At this period the conduct of some of the
rioters, a great body of whom had rushed into the shipping,
was so violent that my men were, in some cases, obliged,
in self-defence, to offer resistance, and if any casualties
have occurred among the mob they were (while much to be
regretted) entirely unavoidable, considering the circum-
stances of the case and the active attack made directly upon
the troops. I must add that • cross fire of stones and
other miseiles was hurled at the troops as they advanced
along the quays. It is the firm opinion of myself and
the officers under my command that the proceedings of the
rioters were the result of a preconcerted organisation."
This officer was asked how he could reconcile the state-
ments in his official report with those be made before the
coroner, when he gave the following reply :—" Permit me
to observe that I adhere to the official report. I regret
extremely that at the inquest, owing to the cross-examina-
tion being so entirely different trim what I had expected,
the exceedingly puzzling way in which questions were put,
and my being always stopped when I was about to explain.
I became confused, my presence of mind failed me, and I
gave irrelevant answers. For instance, when asked Did
not your troops break away from your control r I said
' They did, on that occasion.' whereas 'on that occasion'
I was not with them, having left them on the quay to per-
form the duty the magis:rates had ordered through me."