The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

Mr. BRIGHT asked whether it was intended that the

committee should meet to-morrow, or not until Thursday
next, when the house assembled after the holidays. It
might be that some members of the committee could not
remain in town.
Lord PALMERSTON said it would be for the conve-
nience of those members who were to servo on the commit-
tee that the usual course should be followed, and therefore
that the committee should not meet until after the recess.
(Hear, hear.) He had no objection to enlarge the com-
mittee. (Loud cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.")
Tire noble lord, after consultation with some of his col-
leagues, said he found that in point of order ho could not
propose any new names at that time, but that notice must
first be given of them. When the house met again the
question could be brought forward. (Hear.)
Lord FERMOY said he happened to be one of those who
out of consideration to the request made by the noble lord,
that remarks should not be made upon this question, had
abstained from doing so. He wished the noble lord as
leader of the house to declare his policy upon this subject.
Still he thought that some deference ought to be shown
to those below the gangway in the selection of the names
of the committee. He was quite unwilling to adopt the
mode suggested by the noble lord upon this question, but
as the house had decided upon following it, it would be
manifestly unfair that the largo section of opinion below
the gangway should not be represented upon the commit-
tee. The two large sections on the committee could not re-
present all parties, nor the strong opinions entertained be-
low the gangway. The noble lord should state that he
would rather give notice to add to the committee, and that
he would not restrict the new names to one side of the
house.

The question having again been put,
Mr. WYLD moved an amendment that the committee
do consist of 23 members, instead of 19.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT believed that the suggestion of the
hon. member could not be accomplished at that moment,
but notice must first be given of the names, and then a mo-
tion should be made that the list of the committee should
be extended to 23. He thought the noble lord's course
would be the best solution of the difficulty.
Mr. ROEBUCK did not agree with the right hon. gen-
tleman. According to the rules of the house when a ques-
tion was put from the chair any amendment might be pro-
posed, and consequently the hon. member for Bodmin was
in order.
Mr. SHERIDAN (Dudley) said that as the noble lord
had not responded to his question in the way he expected,
he should move that the debate be adjourned. The question
was one of great importance ; it was whether any hon.
members except those belonging to the two gre It parties,
should be represented on the committee.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR seconded the motion for ad-
journment.
Lord PALMERSTON said he begged now to give notice
that on Thursday next he would move to add to the number
of the committee.
Sir J: PAKINGTON heard with regret the announce-
ment just made by the noble lord. On the ground of con-
venience he felt sorry that the number of 19 should be
departed from. It was also inconvenient in practice, and it
made the transaction of business more difficult. If the
number should be increased it would be desirable that the
constitution of the committee should be fairly balanced.
At present it was so fair that no man could take exception
to it. There were 10 from one side and 9 from the other,
and that was a very near approach to equality. If two mem-
bers more were added, one should be taken from each side
of the house.
Sir G. GREY said nothing had been mentioned as to se-
lecting two members from one side of the house. The sug-
gestion was that there should be two additional members
from each side, but his noble friend thought that he should
be acting in fairness if he adopted the suggestion of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire, and fixed
the committee at 21. It would not be competent to make
any motion as to the names without notice. The names
would have to be placed on the notice paper, and submitted
to the house, but the house could now determine that the
committee should consist of 21 members.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to the composition of
the committee. It had not been selected upon the right
basis, therebeing too many official gentlemen upon it. There
were no less than 12 gentlemen who were and had been
Cabinet Ministers.
Mr. SHERIDAN (Dudley) said that upon the under-
standing that one additional member from each side of the
house would be placed on the committee he would with-
draw his amendment.
The motion for adjournment was then negatived.
Mr. WYLD having withdrawn his amendment,
The motion that the committee consist of 21 members
was agreed to.
The following names were then put seriatim and agreed
to :—Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Mr. Walpole, Lord J. Russell, Mr. S. Estcourt,
Sir G. Grey, Sir J. Pakington, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Hen-
ley, Mr. E. P. Bouverie, Col. W. Patten, Mr. Massey, Mr
Bentinck, Mr. Bright, the Attorney-General, Sir H. Cairns,
Mr. M. O'Ferrell, and Sir W. Heathcote.
THE 'WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.

Lord PALMERSTON having moved that the house at
its rising do adjourn till Thursday next,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked what the Government in-
tended to propose in reference to the boroughs of Wakefield
and Gloucester, and if they had nothing to propose why
they delayed the issue of the writs ?
A debate followed, in which many appeals were made
from legal members urging that the Government should not
persist in pressing prosecutioni against witnesses who had
made full disclosures, and who ought to be indemnified.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, however he
might respect the humanity and forbearance contained in
their appeals, they did not relieve him from the obligations
of his duty as a public functionary. He would most gladly
acquiesce in any direct resslution which should so relieve
him. But the house hid already taken steps which it was
bound to pursue if it wished to avoid the imputation of hav-
ing acted with solemn mockery and the charge of organised
hypocrisy. He had no choice except to prosecute those
who, according to the decision of the commissioners, were
greatest culprits.
After some further debate,
Sir G. C. LEWIS complained of the embarrassment
caused to the Government by these discussions, and de-
manded that some definite motion should be brought for-
ward on the subject. He made a similar complaint as to
the various opinions with regard to the suspension of the
writ. If the writ was to be suspended beyond this present
Parliament, it could only be done by a direct bill, which
the Government, with the Reform Bill in prospect, did not
propose to do.
In reply to Mr. DILWYN,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the Government would not
insist on the clauses in the Census Bill imposing a penalty
on those who refused to state their religious profession.
THE POPE'S IRISH BRIGADE.

The O'DONOGIIUE said he rose with reluctance to call
the attention of that house, of the country, and of Europe,
to the course which within the last few days the Irish Go-
vernment had thought fit to take. At any time that course
would have been extraordinary, but now, contrasted
with what the Government had done in England, it was also
unjustifiable. A proclamation had been issued, signed by
the Chief Commissioner of Police, purporting to be a caution
against foreign enlistment. It seemed to have been put
forward to preventa few Irishmen from taking service in the
army of the Pope. Let the house now remember that Eng-
land was not at war with the Pope, nor was she likely to be
at war with him. He was not at war with any one with whom
England was in alliance. Why then should Government
arbitrarily interpose to prevent those Irishmen who sympa-
thised with him from taking service in his army ? Let the
house observe that, at the time when the Government were
issuing this proclamation in Ireland, the Government in
England wore countenancing, and he believed actually en-
couraging the collection of subscriptions in aid of Garibald
and others. These acts had been pronounced by lawyers on
both sides of the house to be illegal, and they were known
to be contrary to the laws of nations. It was aiding men to
make war upon sovereigns with whom ostensibly we were
on terms of amity; and such conduct between indivi-
duals in private life would be , considered treacherous
and hypocritical. The case steed thus :—The overwhelm-
ing majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics. They
sympathised with the Pope, and as the natural result they
were anxious to aid him in his distress. But the Govern-
ment had no sympathy whatever with the Pope. Thispro- ,
clanAtion was oppressive and tyrannical, as an attempt tt