The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-22 00:00:00

OXltning

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1846.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at four o'clock.

On the question of the second reading of the Metropolitan
Sewage Manure Company's Bill some discussion took place,
which ended in the debate being adjourned till this day.
Mr. Strew gave notice, that as soon as Group 11 had
terminated its labours and given in its final report to the
House, he should move that Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN should.be
discharged from custody.
Sir R. PEEL in answer to a question from Mr. Mc:ismEzoN
Mir.NEs, said that upon its being stated to her Majesty's
Ministers that IBRAHIM PACHA was anxious to visit this
country, it was intimated to the proper authorities that if
his Highness came to England, every attention would be
paid by the Government to his comfort.
Mr. J. Cowcrr, in answer to a question from Mr. CRAVE):
BERKELY, said that he had forwarded to the Home Secretary
the affidavits with respect to the accusation against Sir C.
TAYLOR, and he trusted that he would cause the requisite
inquiry to be made.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that after reading the affiiavits,
he was confirmed in the opinion he first entertained, that
they could not be made the ground-work of a judicial inquiry.
If there was any ,truth in the statement, the proper course
would be a criminal proceeding against Sir C. Taylor.
.Ir. C. BULLER. postponed his motion with respect to the
state of New Zealand to a future day.
The SPEAKER. called the attention of the House to certain
letters that had passed between Mr. W. SMITH O'BRIEN and
Mr. JOHN HENRY LEY, the clerk of the House, which were
ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Viscount EBRINOTON then proceeded With the motion of
which he had given notice, with respect to the re-appoint-
ment of the Real Property Commissioners, in the course of
which an HON. MEMBER moved, that the House be counted'
and there not being forty Members present the House ad-
journed till to-morrow.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN begins to weary of the honours of
martyrdom. He has hitherto absolutely refused his consent
to any attempt being made on the part of his friends to seek
for the clemency of the House; he would be a martyr, and
he has attained the object of his desire; but, alas,
" Man never is, but always to be blest."
We are seldom so happy in the full enjoyment of our
wishes as we had supposed we should have been, when
hugging ourselves in pleasing anticipations. It is little to be
wondered at that the Hon. Gentleman should have found the
calm and seclusion of the cellar less agreeable than he had
hoped, and that he sheuld find the monotony of his position,
the forced seclusion, the abstinence from political excitement,
and the impossibility of joining in the debates, disagreeable
in the extreme to a man of his excitable and energetic dispo-
sition. Besides, there was not that unanimity of feeling on
his behalf exhibited amongst his colleagues at Conciliation
Hall, which he had probably calculated on. The Irish are a
generous people, and will not readily abandon the cause of a
friend with whom they have worked in unison, and with whom
they have entertained feelings in common ; a very general
doubt, however, appeared to prevail amongst the most
sensible and discreet Members of his own party as to the
prudence of the course be had adopted. We believe there is
little doubt that the Irish members of similar opinions to
himself, had, in the strongest manner, urged on him the
folly of the conduct he was about to pursue, and had earnestly
advised him not to permit matters to be carried to an
extremity, but, if necessary, to bow to the opinion of the
House, and to perform the duties allotted to him, and
which he must have known, when taking on himself
the position of a representative of the people, he
would have been required to discharge ; but Mr. O'Beirne was
obstinate, and resolutely refused to act according to the ad•
vice so given, but to persevere in his headlong and reckless
determination. Accordingly, when the matter was first
brought before the House, on the 28th of April, Mr. O'BRIEN
positively refused to enter into any explanation to the House,
alleging that he had already stated his views fully and
finally in the correspondence which had taken place between
himself and the Committee of Selection, and that
he did not wish to add anything to the mat-
ters contained in those letters, nor was he de-
sirous of withdrawing anything from their substance. Mr.
O'BRIEN then rested his case on those documents, and
the reasons contained therein, and we do not find that he
there sought to justify himself on any alleged informality in
the appointment of the Committee of Selection, or the want
of power en their part to choose the number who should
form the Committee of Inquiry into the merits of the
different Railway Bills. No, the ground on which he then
justified his refusal was, that so long as he continued to serve
in the House, as one of the Irish representatives, he would
not, until Ireland was placed on a footing of
political equality with England, think of devoting
his time to the business of this country, and that he had
no wish to interfere with the affairs of England or Scotland,
unless those affairs were in some way connected with his
own country. The Committ, es having, of course, considered
the reasons so advanced as quite i -sufficient to justify his
exemption from an onerous and fatiguing duty, informed him
thereof, but, in the spirit of kindliness and good feeling,
added, that they would be happy to delay his attendance to
a later period, if it would be any accommodation to him to do
so. But this offer he declined, stating that his objection to serv-
ing on those Committees was founded on the relation which then
existed between Great Britain and Ireland, and was ill no way
connected with personal convenience. No course then remained
fur the Committee, thus bearded and set at defiance, but to
bring the matter before the House, and to demand of them
by what sanction their authority was to be enforced. If Mr.
O'Bnize's defence was to be considered a sufficient one, the
entire business of the country would be brought to a stand ;
few gentlemen would be found willing to undertake such
arduous and thankless duties, if they might escape it by a
mere refusal. On the occasion of the first debate, two grounds
were put forward as a justification; the first, that under the
Act of Union the House had no power to enforce the at-
tendance, in fact, had not the authority claimed
over the Irish Members ; and secondly, that the vio-
lation of a power delegated to the Committee
was not punishable as a contempt. It was urged that there
was a special statute for compelling the attendance of
English Members which had not been extended to Irish
Members. The House very fully discussed the question, and
by a large majority decided that the reasons urged were not
sufficient excuse for his refusal, and that a cAtempt had
been committed. The House, however, tempering mercy
with justice, afforded a " locus penitentice," an opportunity to
the Honourable Member of re-considering his decision, and
obeying the strongly-expressed feeling of the House by ad- 1
journing the debate for two nights, although Mr. 1
O'BRIEN, through kis friend, Mr. ROCHE, stated
convintedelayof
ttutti.
that he thought it quite unnecessary that any fur-
theruxibe .
oi of ttehr.p od,
course thathree soh a:: t l'. e
was
adopted, and s o
so impressed with its propriety, that his
unchanged. On the following Thursday the HoinonGreenrnlain remained
was committed, the House having refused to hear ii:imemaln
being unprepared to purge his contempt by obeying ;heir
order. Since then Mr. O'BRIEN has on different occasions
peremptorily requested the withdrawal of notices of motion
which had been given for his discharge, being determined to
owe nothing to the mercy or pity of the House. We hail
his present appeal as exhibiting the first glimmering of return-
ing sense, although we think it would have been still wiser if
the Hon. Gentleman had apologised for his folly, and
promised future submission, in which case we doubt not the
House would have been delighted to have remitted a punish-
ment wi.ich they always inflict with regret, more especially
when the person punished is one of themselves. Mr.
t ground of defence is that there is no evi-
O'ButEses present ground
of the House that Mr. Fsr
evi-
dence in the authentic
n who had acted as the C-O
-
COURT and the other gentleme
due authority from trail:
mittee of Selection had received .
the preseut session, and
House to act in that capacity during .
dings which have led to
that, therefore, all the procee
his imprisonment have been void and informal, ab initio,
immediate discharge.
and he, therefore, claims his .
Mr O'BRIEN'S
We cannot think that there is much force in i .
isdic
objection; we have no recollection of a plea to the jur -F d
.
tion of any tribunal having been entertained, unless it .a
been brought forward in the first instance, and we do con-
sider that Mr. O'BatEx has let slip. the time within which
he could have questioned the authority of the Committee.
On the contrary, he tacitly admitted it, by resting his de-
fence on totally different grounds; he treated them as re-
gularly appointed, and his correspondence with them was
ehend be now
on that footing; he would, therefore, we app
estopped from setting up any argument founded on their
absence of qualification ; but were it even otherwise, we
do not think that there would be any validity in the objec-
tion. By the resolutions of the 12th February last, the
House resolved that the Committee of Selection should form
Committees of Inquiry on Railway Bills, and directed a cer-
tain notice to be given to the Members whom they might
choose to select. Their existence and power was thereby
fully recognised and adopted by the House, and it is futile
after that to urge the want of authority on their part, that
they had not been duly selected. Besides, the contempt
fbr which Ur. 013hazi was committed was one to the