The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-27 00:00:00

plaint against him, it was impossible to give them a fair
consideration if they all came on together. He believed
the Noble Marquis meant well, but he could not approve
c‘f 1-- T-T,, 1-nwever,
hear las ease acid toe judgment he should give would
be influenced by no feeling but that of justice towards
the Noble Marquis and the country. They had heard
a great deal on the subject of exercising the prerogative
of mercy. It was a privilege which ought not to be
exercised except in very particular cases. There were
many strong reasons which might be urged against fill-
ing up the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The
uncertainty of communication in former times had rend-
ered it necessary that a person with a delegated autho-
rity to exercise the prerogative of mercy should reside
there, but the invention of steam, and its application to
railroads and steam-boats have brought theso countries
into perfect communication. There was at present no
more necessity for a Lord Lieutenant in that country
than in Yorkshire or Kent. Her Majesty's Ministers
had now a fair opportunity of abolishing it, for, if he
was correctly informed, the office was now going a-be;
ging.—( Hear, hear.) The present therefore was a rood
opportunity by which a great deal of unnecessary ex-
pense would be saved to the country, and the e;al of
exercising the prerogative of mercy would btt put an
end to. Instead of a Lord Lieutenant they might es-
tablish a Secretary of State for that country, who should
be in the Cabinet, and he believed it was the recent
appointment of that nature that had occasioned the dif-
ficulty in filling up the Noble Marquis's place.
Lord LISMORE said he had had satisfaction
for the outrage which had been committed on his pro-
perty by the peasantry, which was nothing more than
peeling down the side de bleak hill for manure.—(Hear')
and he could not but remark that the administration of
justice in Ireland, under the Noble Marquis, had not
been so inefficient as was represented, as a proof of
which he would refer to the convictions which had been
come to in Tipperary by Juries composed chiefly of
Roman Catholics.
Lord MELBOURNE said, without casting fulY
disrespect upon the Lord Lieutenants, it was not eta"
tomary to refer cases of this nature to their opiniea;
but the reference was appointed to be mad-'e to the as-
sistant-barrister. The Noble Earl opms-ite (Wicklow)
andha d introduced ods
stated
that
asubjectso
o the pe
f
im nt nature,
Lord
Lieutenant was not netenary
the prerogative of for the administration of
be exercised by Me". cy, and that the prerogative might
#..lue Sovereign without the intervention
of that Or
ce. He (Lord Melbourne) did not think it
could
did not think that the necessary information
offirteae of
could be obtained ; and this was one reason, among
others, why he could not accede to the proposed ar-
rangement—an arrangement rather hastily thrown out
• by the Noble Earl. " The Noble Earl (continued the
Noble Viscount very emphatically) may depend upon it
there is more in that suggestion than he at present
imagines. I will not enter into a discussion of it now:
I will distinctly say that there is no intention et
adopting it ; and if the Noble Earl will take
my advice, he will think before he gives to it
his sanction and authority. I do not believe that;
any measure could more play into the hands 01
those who desire a separation of Ireland from this coup"
try, than that thrown out by the Noble Earl."
The Earl of C HARLEVILLE said, with respect
to the Juries in Tipperary who had done their dutY,
most creditably to themselves, the Noble Marquis ba,
abandoned the usual practice of challenging Jurors, nee
they were of a higher class than ordinary, of the eloss
from which the Grand Jurors were taken.
Returns then agreed to.
ACTION FOR LIBEL IN THE COURT Of
QUEEN'S BENCH.
• Lord REDESDALE moved that the officer of the
House be allowed to attend the Court of Queen's
Bench with the minutes of evidence before the CO'
mitteee, upon the State of New Zealand, which et
dence having been communicated to the Commons be°
been published by them, and an action fo-c libel brought
upon it.
Lord HOLLAND said he thought this a very seri.
ous question, and not to be lightly decided.
Lord LYNDHURST said the affair had arisen fretn
the publication of the evidence, by the House of Corn'
mons, and there would be an absolute failure of justice
if the motion was not agreed to.
of
Lord HOLLAND thought there was a question
principle involved.
Lord MELBOURNE—When does the trial Come
on?

Lord LYNDHURST—Thursday.
Lord HOLLAND—I am not prepared to oppose
the motion, but I think it involves very seri°o
questions.
Lord LYNDHURST—Those questions are open
for discussion hereafter. No privilege can be stlrreo,
r,
dered in granting an application under particular ei
cumstances.
Lord HOLLAND—It is all very well to say 01°1
the question can be discussed hereafter ; but if the 911;
plication is granted in this case, it will be demandedei,
a matter of justice in others. The point may be rais
_no
whether any of your Lordships may not be called upu_.,
to give evidence in a Court of Justice as to words spolce:
in this House. Are Committees less under protectl:
than the House itself? It is a fundamental prinei;
that nothing said in Parliament can be questioned I
Courts of Law ? that is one of the privileges of
House of Commons. I don't know what effect this ar
plication, if granted, may not have tIPMI that question'
It is not to be granted as a matter IA course.
Lord REDESDALE said lie would have give:
longer notice if it bad been possible. There was „
analogy, in his opinion between proceedings in tinf
House and proceedings 'before Committees, because 0t
debates in that House there was no authorized report'
as there was in the case of Committees. The reP°t
ers might publish the debates, but it was not by tuo,
authority of that Houie, and this point was jealous'Y
watched in order to secure perfect freedom of debate'
He wished to be bound by the decision of the House
The LORD CHANCELOR thought the Party
ought to have made the application earlier.
The Earl of MINTO opposed the motion.
Lord LYNDHURST said his Noble Friend near
him had drawn a very proper distinction. There wag
no publication of the debates in that H°l2°e,
•
but the evidence in the Committees was taken do%
by the proper officer, and that was communicated to
other House of Parliament, who published it to tne.
o
world, and when it was published every one )333
right to make comments on it. It was a case of es•
treme hardship.
Lord MELBOURNE—You had better
Wept° it
to-morrow.
Lord LYNDHURST—But the House will not sit
to-morrow.
Earl MINTO said the same thing might have hap;
pened if the evidence had not been communicated ir
the House of Commons—any one might have ri
lisped part of the evidence taken before a Como' a,
Hof their Lordships' House—but had it ever been r.
t-C.
tended that the party could come to their Lordships '0
a justification ; although it was true that it might serve
him if he could obtain it. Their proceedings bad a'
ways been considered as entirely closed.
reit Lord HOLLAND said this was a question of
,g—
-constitutional importance. He remembered that
the
famous case between Mr. Fox and Mr. Hoe 7°,°e
a question arose as to what had passed in a Comol,, -e0
ka
of the House of Commons, and Mr. Home ,
wished to make it evidence, but it was decided the
could be no inquiry into what had
pass,ed in that_,
CO',•
mittee.

Lord REDESDALE said that if,: any privilege We
likely to be given up by acceding to hisa-lication, '
would be the last one to make it, The ground ,-
which he rested his application yras this, that the tr
deuce had been published by t'ue authority of the (4'4
House—their Lordships having' communicated tr.
to that House. The evidence had been Pmilte
licly sold, and would their Lordships re7st
the individual the legal evidence of
proving to
what had been published had taken place bew
the Committee. He did not think that if this I;
plication was acceded to, it could be drawn into an
jurious precedent.
IA be
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there couthe
no doubt that in this particular case it would be fort he
benefit of the party to have what he asked, hut.eie
thought it was of the greatest importance that t“ s,
Lordships should consider the extent to which app
cations of this sort might be carried.
Lord LYNDHURST said that if the H°ll he
not disposed to grant .the application, probably t
Court of Queen's Bench would postpone the trhieP
when these circumstances were stated to it, and t
for
the matter could be brought before their LordshiPebeg
reconsideration on Thursday next. He vvould, the
leave therefore on Thursday next again to sub°3l
case to their Lordships' consideration.
Adjourned at Five minutes to Eight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Fit. 26. at
There being only Thirty-five Members Prui/ell this
Four o'clock the House adjourned till To-morrow
day.)
PATENT LEVER WA TClI'l 4/
With silver double-bottom cases ..
With silver hunting cases
This celebrated construction (the most accurate on ;or
a watch can be made) is offered, with the latest inn:Pil/Au
meets i. e. the detached escapement, jewelled four m 00'
capped, hand to mark the seconds, hard jenamel dial, anal
taming power to continue going while winding up,
price, by at the a v-

TAVORY
Watchmaker, Silver. and COX
GoldSsmith, 47,,Cornhill, Lo 4(1•1i'
(Seven doors from Gracechurch-street).
N. B.—Second-hand Watches purchased in exci Jange.

BIR THS. •On the 26th inst , Mrs. F. C. Westley, of Caild's-place' of
a daughter

_ ..
On the 25th inst., at Brixton-place, Mo. Thomas Broom lop
of twins. rill'
On tile 22d inst., at Acton, Suffolk,, the lady of the
Lawrence ()Way, of a daughter.