The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-18 00:00:00

TION BILLS.

Mr. HUME said the Noble Lord had postponed se-
veral Bills. Would he not do well to withdraw these
Bills, which were much objected to in Scotland?
Lord J. RUSSELL could not reply to the question
during the absence of the Lord Advocate.
THE CASE OF SMITH O'BRIEN, MEAGHER
M'MANUS, AND DONOHUE.

Mr. NAPIER then rose to present a petition from

Mr. Smith O'Brien and Messrs. Meagher, O'Donohue,
and M'Manus. The Hon. Gentleman was about to state
the nature of the petition, when he was interrupted by

Lord J. RUSSELL, who said he wished to submit to

the Right Hon. Gentleman the Speaker—the Hon.
Gentleman having read the names of the petitioners—
whether these persons being attainted of high treason,
the House will admit the petition of such persons.

After a pause,
The Speaker said the House had already received one
petition from these persons, and he oould not call to
mind an instance in which a petition of a similar nature
had been refused.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER was proceeding to read the petition,
when

Mr. DISRAELI said he should like to have the
opinion of her Majesty's Attorney-General on the point.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL rose, and was met
with loud cries of "Order, oder."
Sir E. B. ROCHE submitted to the House whether

the Speaker having decided the question it ought not to
be considered by the House as final; particularly when
they considered the situation of these unfortunate men.
—(Hear, hear.)

The SPEAKER observed that he had only informed
the House what his impression was, and that he had no
recollection of an instance in which such a petition
had been refused to be received. There could be no
doubt that it was perfectly competent for the House to
decide for itself which course it would pursue.—(Hear.)
Mr. D'ISRAELI observed that if he had thought that
the Speaker had given a final decision on the subject, he
should not have said one word with respect to it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he had ap-
plied to the Speaker on the subject of the petition,
and after hearing his opinion that he knew of no instance
in which such npetition had been refued, he had done the
best he could in the emergency to ascertan if such
a petition had been entertained by the House, and he
could find no precedent for doing so.
Mr. NAPIER said that he had only received the pe-
titiontnGh o that
tnbie
been
aee
innt
tfewidwoaanasehad thoughttut
ahr
es ash
subject
bt
them,
j,
be,yac
thatnt
todhfethteh their
irpetitioners consideringc acase
e its thath Oohf u
justiceimportancel
Abe
fully
had
aoanasimd earl da
danadftethrawthtahteythmatigLhetarbneedheGaredntaktrathaenhbaard.saHide
he thought it his duty to present the petition
pettiotiotme ttorney-
opblreesenteat
. Sir F. TIIESIG thought
r it would be far better
sthhaotulhdispHosotpuo.
naendthNe the Member for Dublin
trooefspttr petition, as the
respect to Mr. Sruith
resolutions that
case was a peculiar one.
, O'Brien the House had cWomitehn
as he had been attainted of high treason,
vacant, and a new writ was moved for. Under thaetsewcir-
cumstances, the House being aware that Mr. S. O'Brien
had been attainted a traitor, thought it desirable that
they should not receive a petition from him until they
had been informed that there was nothing informal in
admitting him to petition the House. He thought
if his Honourable and Learned Friend would postpone
the presentation of the petition till tomorrow, it would
be the best course for him to pursue.
Mr. C. ANSTEY trusted his Hon. and Learned
Friend would persevere in the presentation of the peti-
tion. He thought the case of the petitioners ought to be
fully considered.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was a specialty in
this case which would warrant the House in receiving
the petition, even it there were doubts as to its admission
under ordinary circumstances; because the House was
about to consider an Act that evening which stated in
its preamble that doubts had arisen as to the prerogative
of the Crown in the cases of convicted traitors. tinder
the circumstances of the MSC, he (Sir R. Peel) thought
the petitioners were entitled to approach the House.
Mr. J. STEUART said that the petition was cer-
tainly prevented under extraordinary circumstances, and
it was impossible to consider the rights of the peti-
tioners, without at the same time considering the Chtt"