The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-25 00:00:00

ought to do the same, for he would find that though he could
dispose of his speech by one fling of the arm, he could not
serve his constituents; so. He could not but admire the cool-
ness of the Right Hon. Baronet the Vice President of the
Board of Trade, who, when he addressed the House last
night, had either in his pocket, or his red box, a letter from
his constituents, requesting him to resign. The personal
honour of the Right Hon Baronet at the head of the Go-
vernment was at stake, and he ought also to go back to his
constituents at Tamworth. The electors of that place believed
in the pledge of the Right Hon. Baronet, that he would pro-
tect agriculture, and on that ground they re urned him. How
he had kept those pledges he would leave it to the House and
country to say. When the Government found they could not
carry out the measures they proposed, instead of resigning
their places, they ought to have appealed to the country, and
asked the opinions of the people with respect to their mea-
sures; that was the bold and manly course they ought to
hare pursued. He thought it was not improbable that an
address would be moved in that House, ere long, praying
her Majesty graciously to send them back to their consti-
tuents; and should such be the case, he should, after the
division was over, look carefully through the names
of all those who voted with the Ministry—he would
see what pledges they had given to their constituents,
and he would take care to show them up in that House.
The Hon. Member then, at some length, went into statements
to prove the wretched condition of the operatives of the ma-
nufacturing districts, and asked were they now to band over
the agricultural labourers to the tender mercies of the lords of
cotton and manufactures. Perhaps if he could not get the Right
Hon. Baronet's, at the head of the Home Department, atten-
tion to till statements he had been making, he would con-
descend t notice this fact, that at four o'clock that day the
protectioniStr of South Nottingham were 460 a-head.
He could azure the House, that the more machinery had
been introduced the more r •pidly had wages declined. He
was not against machinery so long as it did not displace
manual labour, but when it did displace manual labour it
was the greatest curse to the country. He contended that
wages were regulated by the price of food, and quoted seve-
ral authorities in support of his position. Would any mem-
ber of the Anti-Corn-law League venture to state that the
agriculturists of the south of England had proposed to the
manufacturers to use up their surplus population ? He
knew the proposition had come from the manufacturers,
and it was made at a time when the hand-loom weavers
were in a state of the greatest distress. The Poor:
Itw Commissioners had been playing into the hands of the
manufacturers, and the agricultural labourers who had gone
into the manufacturing districts had been worked to death.
He challenged them to deny his statement, and he trusted
the agrieultural labourer would be content to live upon
moderate comforts at home, rather than migrate into the
manufacturing districts. He had shown up the cruelty
of the manufacturers, and they were as selfish
as they were cruel. They were not for free trade in
everything, for Mr. G. WI son, the Chairman of the Anti-
Corn-law League, who was a dealer in starch, had, in 1842,
called a meeting to prevent the removal of protection to
starch, and he had succeeded, and starch and lobsters were
the only articles on which protection was retained ; and al-
though it was now proposed to have a free trade in corn,
starch was still to be protected by a prohibitory duty. He
complained of the conduct of the Honourable Member
for Stockport, who had declared that the Anti-
Corn-law League would subscribe liberally to de-
prive him (Mr. FERRAND) of his seat for Knares-
borough. The Hon. Member then went into a long state-
ment about manufacturers forcing their work-people to pur-
chase milk; the statement was a very confused one, and
certainly, as re understo d it, it failed to implicate the
Hon. Member for Stockport.
Mr. BORTHWICK moved the adjournment of the debate to
Wednesday.
Mr. W. IifILES moved that it be adjourned till Thursday,
as Wednesday was set apart for private business. He thought
the subject had been fully debated, and he believed that if
the debate were adjourned to Thursday, it would not be con-
tinued beyond Friday night, and it might perchance be over
on Thursday. If the Right Hon. Baronet thought fit to
move at once to take corn out of bond for the use of the Irish
people, he would support it; but he thought this question
should be amply debated.
Sir R. PEEL had no objection to the adjournment of the
debate to Thursday, which was agreed to; after which the
other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House
adjourned.

In the House of Lords, last evening, the execution of
BRYAN SEERY, at Muflinger, was adverted to; and in con- e-
quence of the allusions made to it, possibly some explana-
tien may be given by Earl ST. GERMANS. We believe the
case will be also brought before the Commons ; and under
the peculiar circumstances attending the trial, conviction,
and execution of the unfortunate man, such a step cannot be
adopted too soon. It is well known that. the great body of
the people in the district of Mullingar believe that he was
unjustly condemned, and that he is regarded as a martyr by
many person., among whom are several of the Irish clergy.
At the first glance the proceedings appear of an extraordinary
character. The principal, or rather the only witness
against him, was the prosecutor. He was arraigned,
the evidence was produced, the Judge summed up,
and the jury retired to consider their verdict ; but
not being able to come to any agreement, they were dis-
charged. The prisoner was again arraigned Lefore a new
jury, who found him guilty. Such a mode of conducting a
trial is hardly known in this country, though similar in-
stances have occurred, and, in our opinion, the less it is prac-
tised the better: but the main point is the innocence or
guilt of the victim; and in order to clear that up, and allay
the commotion created by this unfortunate affair, the Go-
vernment should furnish every possible information. We
believe most persons capable of comparing the different facts
adduced in the evidence, and forming a judgment, are fully
convinced that SEERY was guilty, but that does not appear
to be the impression of the multitude, for the im-
portant statements made by Sir FRANCIS Horaixs have not
any effect whatever: This is unfortunate in many respects,
but, most of all, because the lower Irish seem only to be the
more confirmed in their belief that they cannot obtain jus-
tice in a criminal court, and must trust entirely for protec-
tion to, private revenge. As regards the evidence of Sir
FRANCIS Homrsts, we are bound to say it is in every
respect satisfactory. He had known the man for many
years ; Seery had been his tenant, and we believe, also, his
steward ; he had been induced to give up his farm for a con-
siderable sum of money, taken another in a different district,
and having been unsuccessful, chiefly through his own in-
dolence, he came back to his old quarters, and urged to be
reins'ated in the farm belonging to the prosecutor. This
demand, of course, was rejected, and thence he vowed
to retaliate either upon the occupying tenant or the
landlord for what he considered an act of injustice.
When the attempt at assassination was made the moon was
shining bright. Sir FnAncts, who fortunately escaped the
shot, seized his assailant, held his face up between him and
the light, and distinctly recognised the features of the man
whom he had known for many years. The man made his
escape, as some accomplices came to his rescue,
but be left parts of his dress, which were recog-
nised as belonging to SEERY. We believe these facts
are admitted by all unprejudiced parties, and the evidence
altogether was considered so strong and conclusive the that
Irish Government allowedthe law to take its course. But, be-
sides, what object could Sir FRANCIS HOPKINS have in
obtaining the conviction of an innocent man, and what motive
could he have in giving such evidence, unless he were fully
convinced of his identity ? The words of Sir FRANCIS
HOPKINs on this point are explicit and decisive :
" It has been stated that I solicited a commutation of the extreme
pnwshnient of death, and an inference was drawn therefrom that I had
changed toy mind respecting the identity of my assailant. It is true
that I did solicit the clemency of the Crown for the unhappy prisoner,
who on this occasion I believe to have been the tool of othgrS, but I
most solemnly deny that the sha ,ow of a doubt ever crossed my
mind as to the identity of my assailant, and notwithstanding the re-
ported dying declaration of innocenco by Seery on the scaffold, I
again affirm that he was the person who fired at, and subsequently
assaulted me, on the night of the 18th of November last, and such is
my positive and unalterable conviction."

Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL told the protectionists last
night that they would forget all their abuse and threatening
as soon as this pending question was settled, and, as after
Catholic Emancipation, be again the humble servants of Sir
ROBERT PEEL. The protectionists cried " No." What is
their " No" worth ? They are now again petting and
patronising Mr. FERnAND, whom, with hardly a single ex-
ception, they all united to put clown when he attacked Sir
JAMES GRAHAM about the Nottingham Election Com-
mittee, and Sir JAsiss GRAHAM procured a vote of
censure on him from the House of Commons. Mr.
FERRARD, after having been for a long time all but proscribed
by all but the whole of his party, spoke again last night
amid the most enthusiastic plaudits, such as cheered him on
in his first Parliamentary efforts. "Adversity makes us ac-
quainted with strange bedfellows," and the great protec-
tionist party, deserted by the Government, have not thought
it beneath them to take up Mr. FERRAND again, and avail
themselves of those powers of abuse, which were first used to
their gratification against Mr. COBDEN and the League,
which were afterwards turned upon Sir ROBERT PEEL and Sir
JAMES GRAHAM', greatly to the disgust of the protection
gentlemen, who were then Sir ROBERT PEEL'S and Sir JAMES
GRAHAM'S humble servants, and which mow (all that was
passed being forgotten) are again hounded on by the " gen.
tlemen of England," by the " proud aristocracy" of England,
against the Members of the Government, as they were,
before Mr. FERRAND was found out by his friends, against
the manufacturers. If there were any foreigner in the gallery
for the first time last night, he would have carried away a
strange opinion of the oratory of the English Senate, if
after witnessing Mr. FERRAND'S violent extravagance of
gesture and hearing the vociferous cheers which greeted all
his personal attacks, he had concluded that his was the
favourite style of speaking with the gentlemen of the English
House of Commons.
And such a speech as Mr. FERRAND'S was ! Why, what
does it all conic to ? That Mr. Escorr was a vehement pro-
tectionist, and is now a free-trader, and ought to ge down
to Winchester for re-election; that Mr. BRocErr, of Leeds,
has changed also, and should go to Lads for re-election, else,
says this gentlemanly orator, lie will be known' ever after
as " dishonest WILLIAM BECKETT," and this gentlemanly sally
was cheered, too, by the gentlemen of England ; and that Sir
JAMES GRAHAM and Sir ROBERT PEEL, should give Dor-
chester and Tamworth an opportunity of expressing their
opinions on the conversion of their representatives to free
trade. The extracts from Mr. ESCOTT 's and Sir JAME
GRAHAM'S former speeches were, it must be allowed, suffi-
ciently amusing. But how does thiS affect the merits of the
Ministerial measure ? We are disposed to allow Mr. FER-
RAND all that he contends for. We think that Lord AsHrzy
right voting
course. for the
Ministerial
Members
of
Parliament measure,
have
are
and the others, who, after being returned to Par-
!lenient as protectionists, have resigned their
seats btefeore
taken h
elected by their constituents on account of their entertain-
ing certain opinions on political questions; there is an end of
the influence of electors in our representative system if thus
much is not conceded. And there can be no doubt that
every Member on the Conservative side was returned in
1841 as a protectionist. This being so, we have no hesita.
tion in saying that every protectionist who has become a
free-trader owes it to himself and to his constituents to do
as Lord ASHLEY, Lord HENNIKER, Mr. STURT, and Mr.
CHARTERIS have done. 13ut, Mier all,. this is A matter