The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-20 00:00:00

FOREIGN.

IeaRBUNZ.I4 Coligifll,2lllll.

0011111
We understand that yesterday and Sunda,' rte.
members of the Government had interviews andilig
sponder.ce with Mr. Roebuck, with the view of inuti
the hon. gentleman to abandon his purpose of proposil
the committee of inquiry into the affairs of the Cllr
of which he had given notice for Thursday. Tile TO
we hear, is a compromise between the MinistrY
member for Sheffield ; and, if we are correctly i_nf°ilro
the nature of that compromise is this,—that the .311 u;
will not oppose the appointment of the committee, !To
vided Mr. Roebuck allows them to name seven arm„
Lis eight members. The member for Sheffield 1201.4
are told, assented to the proposal. A.II, therefore,o
depend on the composition of the committee; 12'It
apd
must confess that we de not expect a full, fearless,
searching inquiry from any committee which 01 be
nominated by Ministers.—Morning Advertiser.

THE MARQUIS OF CLANRIC JBDE
MRS. HANDCOCK.

The following letter has been addressed tr the edit:
of the Daily News :-- o 0
Sir, —I have seen the article in your in'Prelicbss'
Tuesday last upon a late trial in the Irish Court of the
eery, professing to give " a plain unvarnished 0183 dap
Handcock family." The substance of it, so far as not
terns me, is almost entirely untrue ; and when
, re.
the statement you give has not been contraoie
ruside
' ought to know and to add that as I was not d bos
party in the cause, I could not, even if I wenmotel
anticipated such calumnies, or have appeared bi
to refute them. Neither was I, nor could I be, ani e- •
to the compromise by which the suit is ended. rota
The main allegation, upon which the atoll' ri fieeno
upon the authority of the Irish Attorney-aene_n"oB of
to rest is, that in the year 1841, "in nnnseqw-701sTili
suspicion of too great intimacy between Ler: pi*
cards and Mrs. Handcock, a separation tee.'"holli
and Mr. Handcock went to France." Thi°li9l:4o9oP
and notoriously false, and I cannot learn b', a par
tempt was made to sustain such a statement croon!
wel t
of be ,
title of evidence. In fact, it is perfectly
that Mrs. Handcock left her husband on Aoc°ll2forgrora
conduct with her French maid, who then WO9 bir
lived openly with him until his death. nisowape,;
pily concealed from the daughters, and Mice,.
in her diary attributes the separation tol~9 p 0
tiers of persons in her father's employmen,_thditeseri,
davit was not, as you say it was, inaccurate ialfr 01"
this matter. It states that I saw Mr. and
cock in...ne,%12;r0n of 180.
.Fid, .thavingfar,.
tiler f10p,...,/m. BLISSii7I did hot see either?. nitsi;
after their separation, which took PIO?: align vak
of 1841, while I was still abroad. All this OZ.- itrbeuct
out of the Irish Court of Chancery. MY 9'°ll,
ever, was not made to explain or defeno or opDd :
in any respect, but it was made upon theb vet;
tion of one of the litigants, that I should
ii
mony to facts within my own knowledge, lilar
statements sworn to by the opposite Parv,denee,rok
been "heard and believed." If no other 'LI eo
isted to show that Mr. Handcock entertain-001U'
suspicion as is attributed to him, his own een-nrdsr
I met him in Paris and in his last illness se"' _t
proof of it. 0110
That a man, when told that an old accilia- od
whcse hospitality he had freuent partakeef 011,cl
whom he had enjoyed field sports was dyiagtoeinf
decent attention or companios, should visit thi:"sciia;
and should advise him to remove to the beat in v.,
reach, to consult an eminent physician, to e! tbst
clergyman of the parish, and to see his ebileloyeors
man should do this without a base design, gee
the comprehension of the Irish Atter:W(s°,7,le. is
not to have occurred to the writer of your svi
I, however, do not wonder that when 1 aete-,ete:
Mr. Handcock, his daughters, who had knowa,lo7;
(heir childhood, should recur to me for aid t-erfir,A,
And whenever I was so called upon, lily .I...„%itne
was uniformly not in furtherance of, but in PPP— .00
the views of Mrs. Handcock, who deter:n:lo
secure for herself, in any way she could,
each of her daughters after their deatns. riell°44oS
the f al
knew her well are aware, that she was high
against me for aiding Miss Handcock to we's!here'of
wh-reby she left to her mother in ursuance -0014,
ai:d her deceased sister's wishes. PlO,OOO/., itlereta
her entire property. When the youngest daligbuer oleos
municated to me her intention to convey se d
to her mother, I prevented her from executing viatrA,
to that effect which should not contain the
revocation thereupon inserted, and I delayed y"
was r. M Por
tion of any such deed for some months. -forewo
ney, Mrs. Handcock's late solicitor, 'lO r..
aware of this. These seem to be the rot%
upon which I have been fals accused ~-fniine„
fled. There are other minoroeiynts, quite
which you relate upon the authority of ta;sonr
ney-General ; yet no Ore 011
than ought to be the Ir
and circulating scandals and calumnies "
mislainAettuogrin'teyt-eGebneerrnat4l4
believed," or founded upon inferemees wroagkr
from testamentary disposition of property. OAT' Of.
I have to request you to give the same PI pt'
this letter which you gave to your article.-4
honour to be, sir, your obedient servant, 00
crassio
Loughrea, Feb. 16, 1855.