The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-01 00:00:00

DROPPED NOTICES.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said, that as only ten Irish
Members had voted for the Coercion Bill, and thirty-four
against it on Monday, he hoped the Right Hon. Baronet
would not press the Bill at present, after much an un-
equivocal expression of opinion on the part of the Irish
Members.
Sir R. PEEL said he was very unwilling to revive the
discussion of Monday upon this subject. The Hon. Gentle•
man did not appear to recollect what the discussion of Mon-
day was upon. They had not yet come to a discussion on
the merits of this Bill. The Hoe. Baronet who made the
motion on Monday distinctly stated that he meant only to
call fur a discussion as to whether the Irish Bill ought to have
precedence or not. The main question had not been dis-
cussed at all. The Hon. Gentleman seemed desirous of
having a decision on this. Why could they not take it on
Friday next ?
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that the Irish Members had un-
equivocally given their opinion that the Irish Bill ought not
to have precedence of the Corn Bill.
Sir R. PEEL said there were two Bills of the utmost im-
portance to Ireland ; one was the Corn Bill, and the other
the Bill for the Suppression of Assassination in Ireland. The
first and second readings of the Corn Bill had been taken, and
the Government felt it their duty to take the first reading of
the other Bill at once. Why could they not take th first
reading. and reserve their opposition for the future a ages
of the Bill, ample and frequent as those opportunities would
be ? After the Corn Bill was disposed of, the Government
would go into the fullest discussion of the Irish Bill in all
its stages.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in moving that the order of the day for
the first reading of the Irish bill be postponed till to-morrow,
wished to explain an inaccuraey into which he had fallen in
making his statement on Monday. He referred to the case
of Mr. Wilson. He had stated that Mr. Wilson was com-
pelled to leave his home and the improvement of his estate in
consequence of threatening notices which he had received.
He (Sir J. Graham) had stated that an address on this sub-
ject was made from the altar of the parish chapel before the
first threatening letter was sent. He should have said
after. He had also stated that Mr. Wilson knew the
parties who had sent the threatening letters. This
was an error—he did not know, for if he had it would have
been his duty as a magistrate to cause them to be appre-
hended. In every other particular the statement which he
had made was correct.
Mr. 11. GRATTAN objected to this Bill, because it would
not give protection to life. The Bill was a libel upon Ireland
generally. He could assure the Government that they had
been much misinformed upon the subject of this Bill. State-
ments had been made only to frighten old women and old
Ministers All that was required was to make the gentry of
Ireland do their duty.
After a few words from Mr. D. BROWNE,
Sir R. PEEL said he felt the deepest anxiety with respect
' to the distress into which the people of Ireland had been
thrown. He had given ample proof as a public man of the
sincerity of his feelings. He had done all in his power to al-
leviate the distress which must inevitably attend anything
like scarcity. Having given that proof, he thought he might
ask Hon. Members to read the Bill a first time, and reserve
their opposition for the future stages of the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL would not like to be ungrateful to the
Right Hon. Baronet for the steps he had taken to avert
famine in Ireland. He acknowledged most readily, and, he
might add, most gratefully, the plan the Government had
adopted for the relief of the people of Ireland. He was,
however, compelled—reluctantly, he would admit—to op-
pose this Bill in every stage, simply because he
believed that it would deprive his countrymen of the rights of
the constitution. He would ask why not postpone the Bill
to Friday and not till to-morrow, as to-morrow the notices
of motion must occupy the whole night. He would also rsh
the Right Hon. Baronet whether he had any objection to
lay before the House the documents which he had used in
his speech on Monday evening.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it would be impossible to
go into the Bill to-morrow it was true, but he
thought it would be as well to place the notice
on the book, in order that if the notices should be disposed
of in a reasonable time, they might ge into the adjourned de-
bate on the Irish Bill. As the documents to which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had referred were all official docu-
ments, he could have no objection to lay them before the
Nouse. _ _

I'dr:O'CONNELL said that the
motion he contemplated
would not in the slightest degree affect the vote of thanks to
the Indian army.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord DUNCAN inquired for what period the Hon.
Baronet intended to move the adjournment of the House for
the Easter recess

Sir ROBERT PEEL observed that, under any circum-
stances whatever, he would not move the adjournment of the
House before Thursday week; and the longest period he ss as
prepared to allow would be the shortest that was ever given,
which would be about eleven days. Lord INGESTRE rose to bring
under the notice of the
House the case of Mr. Wood, the proprietor of the Wolver-
hampton Chronicle, against whom an action for libel had been
brought by certain private individual., for the publication of
a Government report upon the subject of the Lichfield
schools. He wished that some security should be given to per-
sons pablishingauthenticdocurnents'd
aid the damages of 403.
The Government had pro-
tected the publisher of the report an
which the jury found against the, publisher, while Mr. Wood,
against whom the action had been brought for the same
publication in his newspaper, had been subjected to a fine of
50/. for costs, which the Government refused to liquidate.
p Mr. CARDWELL said that the two cases were quite dis-
tinct; the publisher of the Treasury was antitled; o protec-
tion, while Mr. Wood had no claiM upon the Government,
lie having made the publication in pursuance of his ordinary
avocation ; besides, it would be establishing
a very bad prin-
ciple, that the Government should pay the damages found
again t every person who was made answerable for the publi-
cation of Government reports, which often necessarily con-
tained some unintentional libels.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he felt it due both to
the situation in which he was placed and his duty to his
clients to act in the manner he had done.
Mr. CHRISTIE thought that the Noble Lord had acted
perfectly right in bringing the subject before the House.
He begged to differ from the opini9llB of the Learned

Attorney-General upon the subkct, and considers:id that the •
proprietor of a newspaper should not be held responsible for
publishing in his paper copies of any official reports.
Lord SANDON thought it not surprising that the editor
of a newspaper in the neighbourhood of a school where such
a state of management existed, and seeing that state, should
notice it in his paper. He felt very deeply for the
poor man, who, no doubt, thought that he was acting in a
perfectly proper manner in publishing a part of whit he
thought was an authentic document.
Mr. MUNTZ would be the last man to interfere with the
liberty of the public press. Mr. Wood had, in a manner most
unfoundedly and untruly, made comments upon the report.
Had he only published the report he thought he would have
had a strong case.
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought the question was simply
whether the proprietors of a newspaper could publish reports
of this House, whether contained in their blue books or other
documents. He hoped, in the present case that some in-
dulgence would be shown to a person who had only acted in a
manner generally acted upon by the press at large.
Mr. EWART thought the House should not involve itself
in any collision with the courts of law.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not think the present was a case of
publishing reports of the House, but rather one in which unfair
comments had been made upon the reports of the editor of
the paper. The case had been submitted to two juries and
two verdicts, and he thought it highly improper that the
House should interfere.
Lord INGESTRE then withdrew his motion.
RAILWAY DEPOSITS BILL._

Mr. MOFFATT then moved the second reading of the
Railway Deposits Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not
object to the second reading, as some amendments which he
would wish to introduce might be introduced in Committee.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL made some remarks, which were
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. MOFFATT would object to amendments being made
i❑ Committee.

Mr. W. COLLETT thought that the great inconvenience
and loss attending railway deposits should be prevented by
some alteration in the law. _ .

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to-morrow.

(LIFT SITTINIII.)

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Committee sat at eleven o'clock, and resumed the hearing of
evidence in the case of the