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

to suggest in reference to the communication which had
been received from the other house of Parliament ?
_ The Duke of NEWCASTLE apprehended that the
only reason for the Government not having stated their
views to their lordships in reference to the subject al-
luded to by the noble earl was that they were not aware
that such a communication would be sent up from the
other house that day. He was quite prepared to state
the course which the Government proposed to take. An
alteration had been introduced into the measure on
which these commissions rested, to the effect that on
any occasion when the House of Commons should call on
their lordships' house to join with them in an address to
the Crown, a message should be sent down to request
the House of Commons to favour them with a copy of
the evidence taken before the committee of that house.
He for one had objected to the introduction of that pro-
vision, but of course, apart from any individual opinion,
as to the advisability of such a provision, it was the duty
of the Government to carry it out in the proper spirit.
• He believed therefore that the proper course would be
for their lordships to ask the House of Commons to
favour them with any evidence taken before any election
committee, and after a sufficient time bad been given for
considering the evidence, it would be proposed that that
house should agree with the House of Commons in an
address to the Crown.
The Earl of DERBY said the course proposed by the
Government appeared to he that which was required
under the circumstances of the case, for it was only pro-
per that they should have the evidence before them on
which they were invited to join in an address to the
Crown. It might be more in accordance with the usual
' courtesy between the two houses that they should not
separate without taking some step, and perhaps it would
be better that the evidence should be moved for before
the adjournment of the house.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that there might be
some irregularity in that course, but he should give
notice on the subject to-morrow.
Their lordships then adjourned at a quarter-past seven
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
THE AFFAIR AT SIX-MILE BRIDGE.
Mr. NAPIER rose to move, pursuant to notice, for
copies of paper relating to the riot at Six-mile bridge, in
July last ; and said that as great misapprehension pre-
vailed on the subject, and as his own conduct, as Attorney-
General in the matter, had been not to say unfairly but
mistakenly misrepresented on a recent occasion, in another
place, he would take this opportunity of laying all the
facts before the house ; and he did not doubt that, as the
interests and character of justice in Ireland were involved,
he should obtain the indulgence of the house while he
trespassed for some time upon their patience. The right
hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded to enter into a
close and detailed narrative of those facts with which the
public are already familar, connected with the actual fracas
between the military- and the mob, at the Six-mile bridge.
Continuing the history, he justified the advice he had
given, that the soldiers who had been committed should be
liberated on bail on the ground that it was necessary to
fix a crime upon each individual soldier, inasmuch as the
law distinguished between unlawful assemblies and lawful
bodies in te discharge of their duty, holding each member
of the unlawful assembly responsible for the collective
acts, but holding the member of the lawful body respon-
sible only for his own acts, if those acts were in excess of
the law, and in this case he had not found sufficient evi-
dence to individualise the alleged offence. Immediately
after bail had been accepted, a newspaper in Ireland pub-
lished an account, or rather a partial account, of the
transactions in question, and of the inquest : and in this
newspaper the regiment was charged with being guilty of
deliberate murder, this charge being made pending the
inquest, and befere the subsequent expected trial. This
newspaper also threw out imputations affecting the cha-
racter of the regiment—its courage and conduct. The
Duke of Wellington saw this newspaper, and being ever
alive to everything affecting the honour of the army—
(cheers)—he immediately wrote to him (Mr. Napier), in-
timating that he thought that the libel would be a fit sub-
ject for prosecution by the Crown, with a view to the pro-
tection of the soldier. In consequence, he (Mr. Napier)
applied for further information to the two officers who had
been in charge of the soldiers during the riot ; and their
depositions were submitted in a very full shape. (The
right hon. and learned gentleman read these depositions,
which were elaborate justifications of the conduct of the
soldiers, their firing on the people being represented as a
merely defensive act.) He appealed to every man of right
feeling whether after these sworn informations he could
have come to any other conclusion than he did, that these
officers and soldiers should receive constitutional protec-
tion, and that steps should be taken to bring the prime
movers of this riot to condign punishment. A great deal
had been said with reference to the exact rights and duties
of the soldiers on occasions of this kind. He apprehended
that the duty of a soldier in a case of this kind was not
different from that of any other person. A soldier was
under the order of his superior officer, but the order
of his officer was not of itself a sufficient justifica-
tion. But in this case the soldiers were deprived
of their officer, and the corporal, the next in
command, was struck down senseless. Now he
(Mr. Napier) believed upon his conscience that the
men had done no more than their duty, and that as
British soldiers they ought to have had the support of the
laws afforded to them. (Loud cheers.) Yet those men
were paraded in the dock as felons, and an impression was
created by the speech of the Attorney-General himself that
they were murderers, or at least, aggravated manslayers ;
and that they had only escaped because the law officer
could not get at the man who had fired the fatal shots.
(Hear, hear.) His late learned colleague (Mr. Whiteside)
had been asked to go down to defend the soldiers, for they
had had no means of defence provided for them by the Go-
vernment ; and he had felt some delicacy in doing so,
having himself been a law officer of the Crown, and the
Attorney-General being about to go down to prosecute.
His learned friend had consulted him (Mr. Napier) upon
the point, and his answer was " Surely, you ought to go.
You would never have appeared as prosecutor, for we never
intended to prosecute ; and the soldiers are just as much
entitled to the protection of the law as any other men."
(Cheers.) His learned friend did go, but owing to the
course matters took, the accused were deprived of the ad-
vantage of his learned friend's statement, and the evidence
he could have adduced. They were thus put in a much
worse position than if the bills had been found against
them ' • and they had now to labour under the imputations
which had been cast upon them, and which they had had
no opportunity afforded them of removing. All this time
the two Roman Catholic priests and the other parties had
been discharged from their recognizances, and they had
actually been brought—one of them from the very gaol—
as witnesses against these British soldiers. (Cheers.) The
results of the case had been most disastrous to the magis-
trate who had been concerned in the affair. He was
obliged to have policemen living in his house ; his family
were kept in a state of perpetual alarm • and he was him-
self unable to attend any fair or market, or to discharge
the duties of a country gentleman. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Justice Patteson had well observed, that if this case had
occurred in England, the Crown would have defended the
soldiers, and would have left the proceedings against them
to be taken by private parties. (Cheers.) But the lesson
held up to the people of Ireland was, that while the mili-
tary were amenable to the laws, there were certain persons
who were amenable to no law whatever. (Cheers.) They
were creating difficulties in Ireland, with which they had
not the courage to grapple. They were not straightfor-
ward enough. While they held out equality in civil pri-
vileges, they ought to enforce equality of liability. (Cheers.)
It was said that the names of M`Grath and the priests had
been put in the indictment, and that there ought not to be
a cross-indictment against them. But he would again re-
peat the question—Why was M'Grath's name put there ?
(Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Napier) appeared in this case
with great regret ; and he should be sorry to have it
thought that he had been incited by anything like personal
motives. If he had stated it somewhat warmly, it was
because he felt warmly respecting it • but he thought he
had submitted it to the house fairly and impartially.
(Cheers.) It was one that demanded strict inquiry. If
they expected soldiers to discharge their duties, they must
see them supported by the laws, of which it was an old
and sound maxim, that where parties had special duties to
perform, they had a claim upon those laws for special pro-
tection and support. (Hear, hear.) As these men had not
had an opportunity of vindicating themselves before a jury,
he hoped that they would set themselves right before the
house and the country. (Cheers.) What was wanted for
Ireland was, that elections should be free, that the soldiers
should be supported in their duties, and that every man,
be he priest or who he might, that should presume to offend
against the law, should be brought before the bar of public
justice, and made amenable to the laws he had set at
nought. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. FITZGERALD had listened for nearly two hours
to the right honourable and learned gentleman, but he had
utterly failed to discover the object of his statement, un-
less it was to glorify himself, to make a charge against her
Majesty's Government, or to impugn the conduct of the
right hon. gentleman who had succeeded him in office.
He gave the right hon. gentleman credit for great nisi
pries dexterity in his statement of the case, for great art,
hut for little candour. Ho perfectly agreed with him that
the laws ought to be administered with perfect impar-
tiality, and without respect of persons ; but ho had no
idea of an Attorney-General showing himself from the
very first in the light of a partisan. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon gentleman had described the force which had
been used at the late election ; but there was one kind to
which he had not alluded—the influence and coercion
wlrhelleahnd.We(reeheuenrshappily made use of by the landlords of
tended to vote in the He denied that the voters had in-
representedeo.useißead manner the right hon. gentleman had
their own they been free to follow the dictates of
just the reverse.nel they would have voted in a manner
errr, hear.) There was a large class
of possessors of pro
in such a manner teat ?i,tro exercised their legal rights
ir tenants did not vote as they pleased, it would cost theme
their homes, and render desti-
tute their families. (Hear,
"dace in the counthyeoaf.krThese sad occurrences
had taken
with that county the name of sinde
Clare and in connection
Godolphin Osborne
would speak volumes. (Cheers.) NY:ev,9l.
had a case been
more misrepresented. The voters
the
eed on an estate,
agent. On the
over which a person named King Was
had driven them, ke
Sunday night before the election he
Limerick. This a flock of sheep, to W4B made known to
the liberals, and Dr. O'Brien,i when examined before the
objection
coroner's inquest, had stated that he went to them at thee
Temperance-hall, and asked there if they had any
to the liberal candidates ? Their answer WAS that they had
not, but that they were at the mercy of their landl dB.
(Hear, hear.) Again, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) denied that -,
the
requisition to the magistrates was founded upon any in-
formation. When the force was brought to the Tempo.
rance-hall, the voters had been released, and the object
was to imprison them again. One of the witnesses said
toat Mr. Delmege gave him directions to get the voters in
and keep them in.
(Hear, hear.) Was that freedom of
election? (Cheers.) This was the gentloman whom Mr.
Napier thought entitled to the highest praise for his. con-
duct ; he directed his agent to imprison the voters in an
omnibus or van, and to keen them there. (Hear, hear.)
There had been such things as partisan law-officers in Ire-
land. The law was differently administered there, in
many respects, to what it was in England. One difference
was that the Attorney-General was the public prosecutor
in all cases of importance. He noticed this, because it
had been represented that the present Atttorney-General
going down to conduct this prosecution was something out
the ordinary course. (Hear, hear.) This was by no
means the case. Another great difference between Ire-
land and this country was the employment of the military
at elections. (Hear, hear.) In this country their in-
torte frence was m_ ost jealously excluded, with a wise regard
freedom, and by an act of the S George 11., their pre-
sence at elections
was • election in W• forbidden. On the occasion of one
estreanster about a century ago, where there.
was much rioting,
the high leathff • had -
called in the military