The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-18 00:00:00

for which he had been rebuked by a resolution of that
house, and compelled to attend the house on his knees to
hear the admonition of the Speaker. (Hear, hear.) In the
recent calamity, the first unfortunate step was the autho-
rity given to the soldiers to load, when in Limerick. While
there, Captain Eager, the military commandment, knocked
at a door, which was the wrong one, and on its not being
opened, offered to Mr. Delmege, the magistrate, to blow it
in. He afterwards knocked at the right door, and it was
opened by an old woman. The lion. and learned gentle-
man then read copious extracts from the evidence as to
what passed on the way from Limerick to Six-mile Bridge,
one of the witnesses deposed to hearing Mr. Delmege say
to a Limerick man, " You have had your election, and we
will have ours, or we will have blood for it." (Hear,
hear.) This witness was wholly uncontradicted. Tierney,
the driver of the omnibus which conveyed the soldiers,
heard one of them say he hoped they would have some pro-
vocation, so that they might discharge their muskets, and
not have to draw their charge. (Hear, hear.) Up to the
arrival of the military at Six-mile Bridge, everything had
been most peaceable. Mr. Wilson himself, an old military
officer, had prevailed on the people to go and deposit their
sticks at the police-office. It was said that there was a
premeditated design on their part to attack the military.
The contrary was as clear as light. In addition to the
comparatively large military force sent from Limerick,
there were in this little village of Six-mile Bridge a most
formidable body of the constabulary, who were more
effective than any troops in preserving the peace. He
did not deny that after the troops arrived there was rioting
and stone-throwing, but he contended there was not that
amount of provocation which justified the soldiers in taking
life. (Hear, hear.) He contended that nothing but abso-
lute peril could justify any persons in taking the life of
others. Seven persons there met an untimely death, and
that was not a circumstance to be slightly treated. The
right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Napier) might gain
a party triumph by his motion, but he had neglected his
duty in not giving every facility to a full inquiry. He
relied only on the evidence of the two officers who were
most interested, and of Captain Eager it might be observed
that he was in this position—either his men fired unne-
cessarily, or, the necessity having arisen, he neglected to
give the order. (Hear, hear.) The learned gentleman
had spoken of the office of coroner as a public nuisance,
but he surely forgot that the coroner was an officer of
the highest antiquity, and existed long before an attor-
ney-general was heard of. (Hear, hear.) It was admited
that a soldier was a citizen, and had the same right
to defend himself • from attack, but the moment
that attack ceased to be dangerous, he ought
to desist from the use of deadly weapons. Such had not
been the case here, as was clear from the evidence of Mr.
Wilson, who stated that he saw one soldier fire, charge,
and fire again, and that three soldiers charged and stabbed
an unarmed young man, who was running away. (Hear,
hear.) He deposed that the conduct of the military was
" unsoldierlike and inhuman." In the main street, where
there was no rioting whatever, the soldiers had rushed in,
and fired upon unoffending people. In front of the Court-
house, four persons were killed, in a narrower space than
the width of that house, and within ten yards of an over-
whelming force of the constabulary, amply sufficient to
preserve the peace, besides a detachment of the 14th Regi-
ment. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the Rev. Mr.
Burke, the parish priest, was the cause of the rioting. He
had the pleasure of knowing that rev. gentleman, and the
late Secretary for the Admiralty (Mr. Stafford) knew him
also, and were the hon. gentleman present he might safely
appeal to him whether Mr. Burke's conduct was not always
characterised by peace, absence from political interference,
and obedience to the laws ? He admitted that rev. gentle-
man forgot himself on the occasion referred to, and that he
made use of language unbefitting his sacred calling. (Cheers
from the opposition.) But no one regretted that circum-
stance more than did Mr. Burke himself. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned gentleman then read an account
of the rioting at Oldham, where the troops were called
out and dispersed the crowd, but where "the military used
only the flats of their swords. (Hear, hear.) That was
moderation and discipline, and the cavalry who acted in
that manner deserved commendation. At the West Glou-
cestershire election there were also great tumults, and the
Riot Act was read three times. At Sixmile-bridge the
Riot Act was never read at all. The hon. and learned
gentleman then proceeded to discuss the law of the matter,
and contended that although soldiers did not lose their
rights as citizens, yet they acquired no greater rights and
were subject to the same liabilities. It was not necessary
in discussing this question to consider whether the soldiers
acted under the orders of their officers, for no order was
given ; but he was of opinion that a soldier was not justi-
fied in acting on the orders of an officer unless those orders
were legal. Soldiers might, as any other citizens might,
use weapons in their defence, and take life in their defence,
but only by the*same right as was enjoyed by any ordinary
individual. Though a soldier, like any other person, might
aid in suppressing a riot, yet he could not legally take 'hu-
man life in suppressing a riot, unless his own life was in
peril. The hon. and learned gentleman then quoted the
opinion of Lord Mansfield, as expressed on the occasion of
the Gordon riots, to the effect " that persons assisting in
the suppression of a riot (meaning the military) could only
be considered as private individuals, acting according to
law ; and if they exceeded the law, they were liable to be
punished." Judge Perrin had adopted that reasoning in
stating the case of the soldiers at Sixmile-bridge to the
grand jury of Clare, and went further, saying that if they
fired in the defence of their lives, the homicide would be
justifiable, but it must be shown by evidence that their
lives could have been saved only by their firing, and there
must be evidence that such was their danger. In that
opinion ho (Mr. Fitzgerald) agreed, but the question to be
investigated was, whether their lives were in danger ; and
if they were not, they were at least guilty of manslaughter.
By the Queen's regulations it was laid down that officers
were to tell the people that if the troops were called on to
fire, '
their fire would be effectual • that the troops were not
to fire except by the order of their officer, and he was
not to give that order until directed by the magistrate ;
that the firing was to cease the instant that it was
no longer necessary, whether the magistrates ordered
it to cease or not, and that the soldiers were not to fire
on persons separate and apart from the crowd. There
was not one of those regulations that the soldiers at
Six-mile-bridge did not violate; This was the case which
the right hon. gentleman had thought proper to bring be-
fore the house with some object of his own. It was no
doubt a case for investigation, but he (Mr. Fitzgerald)
would never consent to an investigation unless it was ex-
tended to all concerned. But the right hon. gentleman
had taken a very singular course, for he had moved for
documents which were open to any, and might be got for
the asking. When those documents were in the hands of
members, the right hon. gentleman should proceed to make
some direct motion. But, doubtless, his object was, by
means of this motion, to make an assault on the Govern-
ment, and endeavour to set his own conduct in a favourable
contrast with that of the present Attorney-General for Ire-
land. This was one of those calamitous cases, which the
sooner it was begun to be forgotten the better. In his
(Mr. Fitzgerald's) judgment, the course taken by the pre-
sent Attorney-General for Ireland was wise and judicious,
while he did not entertain the same opinion with regard to
the course which had previously been adopted. The right
hon. gentleman, in bringing this motion before the house,
had made a singular selection of a subject which was to
occupy the attention of the house on the evening of the
day dedicated to the patron saint of Ireland ; and instead
of permitting members to meet around the social board in
honour of an institution which was intended to promote
the benefit of Ireland, had done his best to inflict on the
house an Irish row. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) knew, however,
that if any asperity was imported into the debate, the col-
league of the right hon. gentleman, the hon. and learned
member for Enniskillen, would pour the oil of his kindli-
ness on the waters of discord. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAIRNS warmly defended the conduct of the sol-
diery, and contended, on the authority of the Duke of
Wellington, and in opposition to Judge Perrin, that a sol-
dier was bound to use his weapons when in danger of being
disabled from the execution of his trust. He denounced
the course of the present Irish Attorney-General, especially
in regard to his abstaining from putting the priests into
the felon's dock. Every peasant in the county of Clare be-
lieved that such a course had been dictated by fear.
Sir JOHN YOUNG contended that the law had been
fairly, honestly, and impartially administered. It was a
matter of regret, first, that so few soldiers should have
been called in, for when the military were summoned, it
should be in numbers to render resistance hopeless ; and
secondly, that they should have been posted in an unfor-
tunate position. He vindicated the course of the Irish
Attorney-General, who, he said, had shown no enmity
against the soldiery, but had pursued a wiser and higher
course than that of Mr. Napier. As regarded the priest
Bourke, he asserted the absolute necessity for calling him
as a witness, and the impropriety of subsequently placing
him on his trial at the same assizes, and before the jury
who had heard his evidence. And as regarded future pro-
ceedings their success would be very doubtful, while there
would be the certain mischief of keeping alive ill blood.
He indignantly scouted the idea that any member of the
Government could have sought for popular support or
favour in taking the course which had been adopted in this
case, and expressed his belief that the best manner of ob-
taining the confidence of the Irish people was by the strict-
est and justest administration of the law. But if Mr.
Napier thought he had any case, Government was ready
to meet him on a definite issue. The present moment was
one which, if made at all, should have been made in
silence.

Mr. WHITESIDE argued, from the ferocity which had
been displayed by the peasantry in another case which he
cited, and from his personal knowledge of the scene of the
affray in question, that if the military had not been
prompt, their lives would have been sacrificed. Ho went
into evidence to show the rioting, and the complicity of
the priests, energetically defended the magistrates and the
soldiery, and animadverted severely upon the conduct of
the Irish Attorney-General, whom he accused of falsifying
the promise of Lord Aberdeen. He denied that this motion
had any factious origin.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked upon the in-
tense bitterness with which Mr. Whiteside had sought to
blacken the character of a professional brother, and ob-
served that the House of Commons ought not to be made
a court of appeal in such cases. In reference to the case of
the soldiers, he vindicated Mr. Brewster from the charge
of not assisting them, by stating that the Secretary-at-War
himself had given express orders that they should be de-
fended. He reiterated the previous arguments which had
been urged in favour of the non-prosecution of the priests,
and demanded of Messrs. Napier and Whiteside whether,
if they themselves should return to office to-morrow, they
would revive the memory of the melancholy affair by send-
ing Bourke for trial. Energetically condemning the tone
in which the absent Attorney-General for Ireland had been
assailed, he repudiated the charges against him with the
disgust they deserved.
Lord ADOLPHUS VANE gave notice that on the next
occasion of going into Supply, he would bring on a motion
upon this subject.
The motion was then agreed to, the debate having occu-
pied seven hours and a half.
The house then adjourned.

lUPERIAL TASTE .—A Frankfort journal states that
it isa
bleto communicate the interesting fact that Gene-
ral O'Donnell
has received from the Archduchess Sophia,
in memorial of the
the 18th ult , a service he rendered the Emperor on
_dswoliltfoh a large turquoise. Under
the stone are. severalo
[AnvEnTfsEmaE NlTv
01
gold
. ring
hnaiiri 0 twhaey,s Emperor,oitiOintment
clottednt an d with
e
the imperial blood.
_Exterrful Cure of Lameness of Five
have effected
adct of a letter from Mrs. Dran-
Year s' Duration.
rkosfeslssolarn Roll Bahamas, dated August 3,
IdBasnlril:l—,
,o,fToTupr
mo
meness, occasioned by a
Holloway.—Sir,--I Y.—Sir,—l have
room for two years
I triredl various remedies,
suf-
fered during five years from
Was then recom-
mended i severea half,cold ,i,v
duringhieh cwohnifinhn epdemri
period
but derived no benefit from them.
They have
mended to try your excellent medicines, from their
use I have experienced the greatest relief.
proved most efficacious in my case, as I am
now enabled
to walk without assistance, and am entirely free from
pain."—Sold by all Druggists, and at Mesm , Hollo-
way's estahlishment, 244, Strand, London.