The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-09 00:00:00

Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL rose to put a question to the
Secretary at War. The Hon. Gentleman had used an ex•
pression towards an absent friend of his, which would denote
him as a person wishing the dismemberment of the empire.
If that expression applied to the Honourable Member
fur Limerick, it also applied to all those who shared
his opinion on the subject of the Legislative union,
and it was one which they must meet with the shortest
andfattest denial. It might appear ridiculousthar they should
be sensitive on the point, but he could not allow any one to
impugn his loyalty, an-1, therefore, he for one could not suffer
the expression to pass without demanding an explanation.
They did not wish the dismemberment of the empire, but on the
contrary, they wished to see Ireland placed in a closer con-
nexion with England, upon a fair and legisla'K attment.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN rose to ask ;ti explanation,
which the Hon. Gentleman should e-.nsider not an un-
reasonable demand atter what had yas ed. The Hon. Gen-
tleman had said, that there had been a proposition made
by Gentlemen below the gang-way, to the Noble Loed who
conducted the Opposition, which proposition had been treat: d
by him with something which it would be considered unpadia.
mentary to term contempt.— (Hear. hear.) If the Hon. Gen.
tleman had trade the assertion in the heat of debate, he
O'Brien) felt perfectly sure that he would be very glad to get
up and offer an explanation ; but if, on ,he coetrary, he had
expressed it firmly and advisedly, he a!so felt certain that he
would have no hesitation in reaming the party. He did
rot wish to add one word of bitterness, but he certainly
did feel it incumbent on him to demand an explanation.
With the permrision of the House he would read part of
that correspondence, and if his Noble Fri nd had written it
in a spirit of prophecy, he could net have mace it more ap-
plicable to the present circumstances. ( The Hon. Member
here read an extract from a letter of the 21st of March, in
which the Noble Lord stated that the measure was a curfew
and unconetitutional measure, and that no grounds whatever
existed for its adoption ) From that letter it would be seen
that the cams fcedeeis did not rest with the Noble Lord, and
he put it to the Noble Lord himself to state whether anything
had really occurred.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that what he had alluded
to wen rumours which had come to his knowledge through the
ordinary channels, but he did not refer to persons. He did not
assert of his own knowledge any of the facts. He made the
statement from rumour that certain communications had taken
place between Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House and
the Noble Lord the Member for London. If there had been
any blame to the party in taking such a course, it was not for
proposing to take it, but for actually taking it.—( Oh.)
Mr. E. YORKE trusted that the House would not think
him out of order in making the resent application. A
statement had been made that a certain application or overture
was made to the Noble Lord (Russell). Now, he felt that if any
such application had been made, it must have been made by some
person.—(Laughter.) It was necessary, then, that' the name
of the person who had made such a statement to the Right
Hon. Gentleman should be given. •
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in answering the Hon. Gen-
tleman sitting on that ben h (Mr. Stafford O'Brien) and the
other Hon. Member who had just sat down, he could state
that no such application was made to him by the Noble. Lord
the Member for Lynne, nor by any other Hon. Member. The
Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland might have remembered
that on the first reading of this Bill he (Lord John Rus-
sell) had stated that he had an objection to that
portion of the Bill which confined parties to their
houses after certain hours in the evening. He stated
then, that though he would vote for the first reading of
the Bill he would reserve his opposition to anosher stage, and
that he would oppo e the question on the second reading. In-
timate friends of his own asked him ( Lord John Russell) what
his intent:one were in respect to this Bill, and they also wished
him to state whether he had any (Net:tine to their stating to
those with whom they acted what his intentems were with re-
spect to the measure. Certainly he did not treat those friends with
any conte•nptuous silence, and ne told them that he had stated
his intentions in the House en the first reading of the Bill.—
( Hear, hear.) But he would not say that he had not stated
anything which he had not stated on a former occasion, and he
again repo ated that no application was made to him for a coali-
tion from Hon. Members on the other side of the House.—
( Hear, hear.) He opposed it on public grounds, for it was a
Bill, in his opinion, which would be of great injury to life and
property, thus having the opposite effect to that e. hich it was
intended.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that after what bad fallen
from the Noble Lord, he had but to state to the House that
the rumour which he had heard was without foundation, and be
therehre begged to withdraw the statement he had made
founded on such grounds.
The debate was then adjourned.
Sir ROBERT PEEL then gave notice that he would move
that on Thursday, the 18th day of June, and on the subse-
quent Thursdays of each week, orders of the day shall have
precedence over notices of motions.
The other orders of the day were then dirposed of and the
House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.