The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-10 00:00:00

tiff for a false warranty of his goods, and as you do not
offer any terms, I shall order your committal to prison.

21.:t
ment for forty days, which will be put in force on
Tuesday, unless in the interim he arranges with the
plaintiff.

WHITECHAPEL COUNTY COURT, Dec. 9

(Before Sergeant MANNING

WHEATLEY V. LANCASTER-AN OMNIBUS DRIVER NOT
USING THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD.
_

This was an action brought by Mr. T. Wheatley,
omnibus proprietor, of Greenwich, to recover from the
defendant, a charcoal burner, of Rosemary•lane, 8/. 65.,
for damages done to his omnibus, alleged to have been
caused by the negligent driving of the defendant. This
case had been several times before the Lord Mayor, at
the Mansion-house, and the defendant was charged with
having furiously and negligently driven the shafts of his
cart against the panel of Wheatley's omnibus, and caused
damages to the amount sued for ; but in consequence of
the plaintiff not proving wilful damage, it was dis-
missed. In October last a driver in the employ of the
complainant was driving his omnibus near London-
bridge ; he stopped and put down a passenger. The
defendant, who was proceeding in a contrary direction,
came in contact with the omnibus, and the shafts of the
cart struck the panel, and a large hole was made.
The defendant denied that he was driving improperly,
and said the driver was on the wrong side of the road.
A number of omnibus drivers were in the habit of stop-
ping and loitering near the spot, and it was with great
difficulty that the various vehicles could pass each other.
The Learned JUDGE said if the driver thought proper
to cross over to the wrong side of the road, when there
was not room for him to do so, he must put up with the
sonsequenees. He could not interfere in this case, and
the plaintiff must be nonsuited.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Dee. 9.
EMr. Mackinnon and two other Honourable Mem-
bers took the usual oaths and their seats.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE could not but express his
great surprise at the difference of the tone which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connell)now
used towards the Bil, and that which he adopted when it
was first introduced.—(Hear, hear.) On that occa-
sion the Honourable Gentleman gave them to under-
stand that if be did not give it his most cordial assent,
he at all events admitted the necessity which called
for it—(Hear, hear)—but he now turned back—
" as though afraid
E'en at the sound himself had made ;"
and taking a totally different view of the measure,
denounced it as " sneaking and insidious," and de-
clared that it was introduced and forced on by " a
bloodhound cry." Comparing the state of crime that
now existed in Ireland with that of former periods of
her history, he (Mr. Cochrane) was of opinion that
if any complaints at all were made against this mea-
sure, it should be that the quality of mercy had been
too greatly strained, and that it was not sufficiently
coercive.—(Hear.) He was rather surprised at its
opposite character, and still more so to listen to such
a philippic against it as had been delivered by the
Hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell). The
panacea which the Hon. Gentleman would apply to
this horrible state of things was, that we should send
plenty of money to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) His (Mr.
Cochrane's) opinion was, that it was a just and sound
principle to lay down, that the Government of a
country was bound to do all it could as a Govern-
ment to call forth the resources of. the governed
nation; but he thought it foolish to hold out hopes
that any Government should " stand between the
living and the dead, and that the plague should be
stayed." To alleviate the distress that existed in
Ireland was less the province of the Government than
of private charity, and he would ask the Hon. Member
for Limerick (Mr. O'Connell) if that charity had not
been most nobly and generously extended to his
countrymen by the people of England ?—(Cheers.)
If there had been any ray of hope in the darkness
which overshadowed Ireland, it had been lent by
the conduct of this nation, and when the Hon. Mem-
ber stood up and said they had done nothing for Ire-
land—that Ireland owed England no gratitude, for
that she had only done what she was bound to do, he
must say it left a most grievous impression on his
heart.—(Cheers.) After hearing such sentiments,
he could not but ask the House to look to her past
history, and say how far they had ever found any-
thing but one invariable result from any concession
they had made to Ireland.—(Cheers.) Soon after
1793, when the penal laws were abrogated, they
would find the United Irishmen springing into exist-
ence, then they would find that society in 1796 cat-
rying on a treasonable correspondence with France,
and finally the rebellion broke out in 1798. After
the passing of the Relief Bill, which the Duke of
Wellington declared would give security to the
Church, strengthen every department of Govern-
ment, and restore tranquillity and peace to the
country, and after the names of Anglesey, Had-
dington, Normanby, Fortescue, De Grey, Bes-
borough, and now of Clarendon, had been
added to the long list of good and great men who
had been her rulers, they found Ireland as bad as
ever, and the necessity for coercion increased rather
than diminished. While on this subject he could not
but refer the House to a passage in the letters be-
tween the Duke of Rutland, who was Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland in 1783, and Mr. Pitt, of
which he had copies in his hand. The Noble Duke
said—" That Ireland had been reduced to its present
state of faction by leaving important questions in an
indefinite state, and he told Mr. Pitt that whatever
advances he might grant, to let them be understood
us conclusive. The permanent arrangement of all
doubtful questions was indispensable to peace and
order, for so long as anything remained in an indefi-
nite state, so as to excite the expectation of the
country, there would never be peace. The House
might go on granting and granting, but unless
they were determined to make their stand
somewhere, and insist that the law should be
carried out in all its vigour, any concession to Ire-
land was perfectly useless.—(Cheers.) When the
Hon. Member for Nottingham brought forward the
question of repeal, he could not help thinking it was
a significant fact that it should have been introduced
by an English Member, and he would warn that
Hon. Member, and those who acted with him, to
take care lest the cry of repeal might not at last come
from this side of the water.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") If that day came, they might remember
the words of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tamworth in 1843 :—" That if they made so
much of the Union, they would convey the impression
to Ireland that her interests were sacrificed to British
interests in order to maintain it." The tone and
temper of the speeches of Hon. Members in that
House was not quite consistent with that of their
addresses to meetings in Ireland. He could not be
accused of bad feeling towards the Roman Catholic
clergy, whom as a body he believed to be very re-
spectable, after his vote in favour of their church
last night—(Hear, hear)—but he had a right to look
to the language held by those gentlemen. At the
meeting where Archdeacon Laffan made that mon-
strous and unfeeling speech, Mr. J. O'Connell said—
and let the House remember this was at the meet-
ing where the Saxon was held up to reprobation be-
cause he had not the manliness to stand aside and
shoot the first man he met with a decent coat on his
back—" Your clergyy, our beloved clergy, ever true
to you, and to whom you have been as you ought to
be, ever true, and whose counsel, if you listen to them
as you have hitherto listened, must keep you safe, must
keep you from all peril—you have come for a good
and holy object—(Good God ! for a high and holy
object!)—you have come to look for the preservation
of the rights of all—the preservation of order and the
preservation of property—in a word, for the preserva-
tion of society—(Hear, hear) —and if we go next
week to Parliament we shall be able to tell them that
the men of Tipperary, so long oppressed, so long ca-
lumniated, and so long denounced, have assembled in
peacefulness, in good order, but with determination to
demand their rights." Who could have believed that
Mr. J. O'Connell delivered this speech at the very
same meeting where Archdeacon Laffan made his
horrible and iniquitous address to the people ?—(Hear,
hear.) Then came Mr. Maher, who spoke in a similar
manner, and congratulated the people on their assem-
blage. Every individual present, when such language
was used, as a gentleman, as a man, as a citizen of the
world, was bound to have expressed his abhorrence of
it.—(Cheers.) But did they find the higher authori-
ties of the Roman Catholic Church complain of it ?
No I What did John M`Hale, Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Tuam, write to his clergy ? He con-
gratulated them and the Catholic people of Ireland on
the unexampled patience with which they had borne
their sufferings; but he did not in any way appeal to
the proper feelings of the lower orders of the priest-
hood. Then came the Rev. Dr. Ryan, Bishop of
Limerick. He said—" The higher classes, forgetful
of Christian obligations ani the duties which religion
prescribes for their performance and guidance, tram-
ple on those who are placed under them, and recon-
cile with justice and mercy to treat them like cat-
tle. Cold and callous to the voice of humanity, dead
to the ordinary feelings of commiseration, untouched
by the cries of famine and pestilence, the wailings of
hunger, the lamentations of women and children, and
the terrible condition of the poor man himself, they
exercise over their victims a system of heartless
cruelty, calculated to bring down the vengeance of
heaven on their own heads.' It was monstrous for a
minister of God thus to denounce whole classes of
men to an exasperated and starving population, and so
far to forget what was due to society and to Chris-
tianity. He did not care for the strict letter of the
law, but he contended that the bishop or minister of
the
Church who used such language to such a people,
was an accessory before the fact, apki me ust be so in
the eyes of heaven .—(Cheers.) His guilt was aggra.
vated by his cowardice—
" What's basely done must be done safely too."
He did not mean to say that there were not many
who really believed they were doing good to their

country, while they were only luring it on to guilt
and ruin. In the words of Wesley, he would call on
L LLsG
laws against those who by their lives and principles
inflamed the people to madness—to teach the people
that there was a difference between that liberty which
‘,.a3 glorious, and a licentiousness which was only its
abandoned abuse. how (said he) shall we appeal to
the feelings and touch the hearts of this infatuated
people ? Never—until the cause of that infatuation
is removed ; never—until the Government are pre-
pared to act with vigour, and shrhils from no respon-
sibility, to strike at the root of the evil, and to teach
the people that the law like death levels all distinc-
tions. Then, and not till then, shall we have such a
union as will be binding and real, and without which
it would be better to have a union of kind feeling and
of Christian virtue only.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME said he could nor but complain of the
speech of the Honourable Member for Limerick. He
had stated as facts what were nothing but fallacies,
and had asserted many things which were not borne
out by the facts themselves. No one in that House
was more ready to redress the evils of Ireland than
he (Mr. Hume) was. Throughout his life he had
consistently advocated the removal of those grounds
of complaint which pressed upon the people of that
country, and had supported such a treatment as
would make them contented and satisfied. If the
Ministers could be charged with inconsistency for
introducing this Bill, he was open to the same accu-
sation, for he intended to support it. He had always
voted against coercion, and would do so whenever it
was attempted. But was the present a "coercion"
Bill ?—(Hear hear.) There was nothing in the Bill
which :coerced the people of Ireland—nothing
which bore against any man but those who violated
the laws, and yet the Honourable Member for
Limerick spoke of coercion, asserted that this was-
an attack on the liberties of the people, and talked
of punishing the many for the crime of the
few. He denied those allegations.—(Loud cheers.)
The Bill was intended to punish those who were com-
mitting mischief and murder—who were maltreating
and molesting her Majesty's peaceable subjects; it
was intended to protect those who wanted to follow
their honest occupations without letor hinderance, and
ho had a right to demand and receive protection
from the State, and yet the Hon. Member declared it
was an attempt to coerce the people, and deprive them
of their liberties.—(Loud cheers.) The Bill was not
intended to oppress the many, but to punish the few
who violated the law. The Hon. Member said the
majority of Irish Members were against it. lie (Mr.
Hume) had looked to the division lists to see how far
this was correct, and what did he find? That out of
105 Irish Members fourteen voted for and thirteen
against it—(Cheers)—and that on the second occa-
sion only thirteen voted. Was the correct proportion
in the lion. Gentleman's mind ninety-one to thir-
teen ? It was too much to say, when the whole num-
ber of Irish Members who voted on the Bill did net
exceed thirty-four, that the whole of the Irish Mem-
bers were against it.—(Hear, hear.) It reminded
him of a speech of a relative of Hon. Member, in
which he mentioned the anecdote of " the three
tailors of Tooley-street," who began their address to
the House with " We, the people of England."----
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) So, the Hon. Member
for Limerick seemed to believe he was the repre-
sentative of all Ireland.---(A laugh.) He could
assure the Hon. Gentleman he was placing himself
in an awkward situation, and he would wish to find
out the grounds on which the Hon. Gentleman
thought himself entitled to believe he was the only
representative of the nation.—(Hear, hear.) Were
he now an Irish representative as he had been once,
he should have considered himself called upon to deny
and repudiate this assumption. Another charge
against this Bill, equally unfounded in fact, was
that
the Bill handed the people of Ireland over to the dic-
tatorship of Lord Clarendon, and that the liberties of
the country would depend on his sic volo, sic Job a°'
The Bill did no such thing—(Hear, hear)—but dis-
tinctly declared that its provisions were to be en-
forced by the Lord-Lieutenant, "by and with the
advice and consent of the Privy Council of Ireland,7
and, therefore, it was unfair to say that it conveyed
absolutely to the Lord-Lieutenant those powers which
he shared with a responsible body.—
(Cheers.) But
the inconsistency
,of the Hon. Gentleman on this
question was not to be passed over.—(Hear, hear.)
In a letter, signed J. O'Connell, and addressed to the
editor of the Freeman's Journal, in order that the
whole people of Ireland might know what were the
sentiments of him who represented Ireland, the Hon
Gentleman, speaking of the very measure against'
which he had just delivered such an unfound&
philippic, said :—" The Government propositica.
to-night is to give the Lord-Lieutenant powe)'
to increase the police force in disturbed districts, an';
prevent the carrying of arms in the same. Arm '
may, however, be retained at home by all who choose
to apply for a license—not to hostile magistratese-e
but to Government officers sent down to hold a kin.
of session for the purpose. The Bill is to be only m.
o
partial application, and the moment the Lord -
Lieu tenant withdraws his proclamation, the
This, it must be .tight
acknow o'
-
carrying arms revives.
ledged, is very different from what we expected fron'
the threats of the hostile press ; and if fairly adminis
teted, may not inconvenience any but the authors 0
disturbance and outrage. I have not opposed (bu.•
neither have I voted for) the introduction of this Bill.
as some temporary measure relative to arms may, be
the disturbed districts, be useful, and as the increase
of police cannot be had without it." How, ther ,
could the Hon. Member now assert that its objes
was to hand over the whole people of Ireland t s
oppression ?—(Cheers.) For the very reasons, give
by the Hon. Gentleman in that letter Ise (MIS
Hume) supported the. Bill, and because b.e wishe
to strengthen the hands of Government agains.
criminals and disturbers of the peace. The Honour
able Gentleman had talked much of what had hap':
pened long ago, but could any act of our past polies'
call upon us now to permit assassins and murderer
to go through the country with impunity.—(Hear:
hear.) He had heard with the greatest
pain a speec
of the Honourable Member on a former occasion:.
wherein he vindicated in a sort of way the deeds
those men which the law pronounced to be worthy C'
death, and had read letters and made statements re'
specting their victims which were, as he (Mr. 5013%::
was informed, utterly unfounded. He had mad
charges against the late Major Mahon, but he ve.E'
tured to say that the character he had given of tnL:,,
unfortunate gentleman was as different from ti.''
truth as was darkness from light. —(Cheers.)
had spoken of Mr. Roe in the same way ; and oe!!"
he came to Mr. Carden, whom, judging from h
observations, he held up as an individual who ougl:
to be punished. Did the House know that
Carden had been seven times shot at P—(Cheers
This was the man who was again to be held up
the Hon. Member to the eyes of the people.—(Lot :e,
cheers.) The Hon. Member forgot his position. e
he were indeed a lover of peace and anxious to sts:r
bloodshed, that was not the way to do it.--(Hea ,
hear.) " Blood," said the Hon. Member, " will le,
shed. Why blood had been shed already, and thsse
was not the way to lessen it.—(Hear.) He w
afraid the Hon. Member was Rot aware that 0.1
people of England were estranging themselves fro se
Ireland, and losing their loves for her. Up to a ve:',.
late period of his public life he never had been at e'
meeting of the people, 'or of the working class's'
wherein the state of Ireland, her wrongs, and the i
justice done to her was mentioned without the?'
being an universal cry of " Shame." He son
challenge any one to say that when the que',.
tiou of justice to Ireland—that sentiment so oft',
quoted by a relative of the Hon. Membere-w
brought forward before the people of England, a
they would not administer it. He was please"
find that Government wanted no law that was •::
perfectly constitutional. Powers
were to be grant,
under the constitution for the protection of life 8117
property ; this measure granted no more; and ;
should like to know what man, calling himself
Irishman or an Englishmen, wished for less ? unle
a man would defend 'onfiscation of property,
could he deny that such powers were necessary
any constitutional Government ?—(Hear, hear.) ci4.,
vernment was beiund to protect property. and 2:,
and to give the country a chance of returning 130.4 c
,_
and of that industry which alone would confer 1a5t.111......
Ibenefits. How could any man expect that cap 04
would embark their money there, when they saw,
men of liberal feelings, whowished to improvetheirpro
perty, and give their tenants fair play, were in danger
•
losing their lives and having their property destroyed
a
roperty destroyed
With regard to the question of tenant-right, if
pro
position
were to be submitted to that House
J.oint preby sew('
the landlord and tenant were to become
prief
tors, he should think it a most mischievous on
e
and striking at the root of all industry. Ha had se
of rent for three, t-
foul:.
a list of parties owing arrears
hei
g
or five years ; they refused either togive up
on several ho
land or pay their rent, and although ode..
properties the land remained perfectly barren,
persisted
'until the sheriff was called upon to eject, so
upon their ejectment all arrears were passed bye
a sum of money paid them. If this was the sort
tenant-right proposed, where would the properaltYll:
Ireland be? If people were to hold just
_se,
euete
land as they could vegetate upon, where would Osocl7
means of giving them employment? Such
.a
the industre
arrangement would be inconsistent with
which it ought to be their aim to encourage, and the
prosperity which might be expected to result from_ I_l'.
Mr. CALLAGHAN regretted that the 11
Member for Montrose should have expressed such
t°
sentiments ; he was quite at a loss to know how_
on.
give utterance to what he thought o li
f that
Member's fallen state.—(Laughter.) The Li.
might nu
Member was a sad example of what a man
i 1
come in his old age.—(Laughter.), He muswt.:
that he disbelieved many of the statements
Order'
were put forward regarding these instances of
risen
a
A friend of his, a Noble Lord, had lately _
tau..
stated that Mr. Roe's death was discussed and •