The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-03 00:00:00

read the history of his country and Ireland, and 4SIICIi he had
done so he blushed for England ; he had never seen more
atrocious acts committed by any civilised country to another
than those that had been committed towards Ireland.—
(Hear.) How, be would ask, could he remain quiet, and see
session after session pass away in that House without
any attempt to redress the grievances of Ireland, and he con-
fessed that if he was an Irishman, he did not know how far his
feelings would carry him.—( A laugh.) He had not met with
much favour in that House. He did not know why, because
ever since he bad had a seat he had conducted himself with
courtesy to every Member.—( Hear, hear.) He did not pro-
fess to be blessed with eloquence, but he had studied the ques-
tions brought before the House and endeavoured to understand
them.—( Hear, hear.) If, however, he Was not to be allowed
to express his sentiments, the House should tell him so, in
order that his constituents might be enabled to send a better
Member.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by
stating that the amendment had his cordial support.
THE IRISH ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, that as allusion had been made to
the State trials in Ireland, he would take that opportunity of
putting a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head
of her Majesty's Government. He wished to know whether
the Government bad had their attention directed to the con-
duct of the person who was the head law officer of the Go-
vernment in Ireland, and who was conducting the prosecu-
tions that were taking place there? He would not allude to
the probable result of those prosecutiensl out of respect for
the course the House seemed to have laid down, although he
held it perfectly competent for him to do so. However he
might differ from the House on that point, yet feeling re-
spect for the due administration of justice, he was prevented
from being silent or deterred from putting the question he was
about to do.—( Hear, hear.) If there was any one thing that
more than another ought to distinguish State prosecutions
it was that they should be conducted with no vindictive-
ness—if anything mere than another ought to dis-
tinguish them, it was calm, decorous, and considerate be-
haviour.—( Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the House-
-not to Ireland, but to:England—whether such calmness, de-
corum, or considerate behaviour, had been evinced by the At-
torney-General for Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) In the presence
of the assembled Judges of the law, the maintainers of the law,
and the maintainers of peace, there had been one of the most
gr iss breaches of the decencies of his situation committed by
the Attorney-General of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He was at
the present time prosecuting a man whom he called a great
criminal, for bringing in danger the peace of the country, and
the first thing he did was to commit a gross breach of the law
himself, for which he ought to have been immediately
committed by the Judges.—(Cries of " Hear, hear."
He was liable at the present moment to an indictment, and
he hoped he would be subjected to it.—( Hear, hear.) It was
his pride to speak these sentiments in the presence of the At-
torney-General for England, whose conduct, to his praise be it
spoken, was widely different to that of the'Attorney-General,for
Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General for England
had done all he could to conciliate, while the Attorney-Gene-
ral for Ireland had attempted every means to light the tech
of discord.—( Hear, hear.) The Judges of Ireland had be-
haved exceedingly remiss, they were filled with consideration
for the officer, but forgot the vindication of the law.—( Hear,
hear.) What should the Judges have done ? They should
have instantly committed him.—(Hear.) Nothing could
have been more unhappily conducted from beginning to end
than these State trials. What moral influence (said the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman) can these State trials have on the
social interests of Ireland?—( Hear, hear.) I ask my Right
Hon. Friend opposite, supposing that our positions were re-
versed—supposing that I was prosecuting for the Crown, and
that he was defending the prisoners, what, 1 say,
would he have thought of me if, because he
had made the best speech he could in defence
of his clients, I sent him a hostile message? Anti yet the
Attorney-General for Ireland had acted so. Yes, the head of
the bar.—( Hear, hear.) An effective speech for a client is
sure to draw down his wrath. Why did he not carry out the
principle and challenge the jury.—( Laughter.) I don't know
that even the Judges are safe.—( Laughter, and cries of
" Hear, hear.") Such things have happened in Ireland. It
was the wish of the Government to preserve the union. In
order to do so they did not set an example of that moderation
which distinguished the tribunals of this country, on the part
of those presiding there, where there is an absence of all emotion
—where the Judges seem impassable to irritation or excitement—
( Hear, hear)—and their demeanours command the respect of
the criminal. I told the Government last year that the At-
torney-General for Ireland was unfit for his situation, anti I now
emphatically demand the ignominous dismissal of that most
unworthy official.—( Hear, hear,) I ask it in the name of
violated justice, decency, and honour—( Hear, hear)—and I
have no tear whatever of receiving from the Learned Gentle-
man a " a three-cornered note."—( Laughter.) And if any
thing could possibly add disgrace to the act, it was the manner
in which it was done.—(Hear, hear.) The Attorney-
General having forgotten his position, and having been called
upon to explain what he meant, turned round upon his oppo-
nent, who acted like a gentleman, and in the language of a
lawyer, called upon him to make an affidavit.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) That was mixing the court of honour with the court of
justice with a vengeance. I find the mode in which the pre-
sent trials have been eonducted will be fraught with, mischief.
But let us forget the ludicrous part of the affair. Have the
first principles of justice, honour, decency, and everything dear
to this country, been respected in attempting to vindicate the
laws ?—(Cheers.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL deeply regretted that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had felt himself called upon by a sense of
public duty to make the observations which he had made upon
the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland. —(dear,
hear, from the Ministerial benches. )—He was resolved to ad-
here to the rule which ho had laid down last night, not to
offer any observations or comments upon the matter now
pending in Ireland, lest such observations might lead
to further discussion. He was resolved to adhere implicity to
the sentiment expressed in the speech from the throne, not
even to introduce collateral topics. He must say that he con-
sidered the comments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
upon the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland much
more severe and censorious than that conduct merited.—
((dries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) It was impossible
altogether to vindicate the Attorney-General's conduct.—
(Hear, hear.) In the principles laid down by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman as to the manner in which this prosecu-
, tioe had been conducted, he entirely concurred, that there
should be an absence of all irritation and excitement, and that
, decency and order should be rigidly preserved. But a very
few hours before the scene to which allusion had been made
had taken place, the Attorney-General, in a letter to the Home
Secretary, expressed his full concurrence in those principles,
and upon the propriety of conducting the trials with as mush
coolness and temper as possible. It was a momentary occur-
rence. That there had been much irritation displayed, and im-
properly displayed, could nut be denied. He repeated, that it
was impossible for him entirely to vindicate the conduct
of the Attorney-General ; but let some allowance be made for
his position—let them remember the infirmities of their own
nature, and let them not pronounce judgment on his conduct
upon mere reports of isolated circumstances.—(Ministerial
cheers.) This was not a deliberate thing —it was
not a meditated challenge. The conduct of the Attorney-Ge-
neral had been noticed by the Chief Justice in terms which
must have been exceedingly painful to him. The highest au-
thority in the Court had, in the presence of the whole Court,
expressed dissatisfaction at his conduct. At the same time the
Lord Chief Justice expressed a hope that the proceeding would
be buried in oblivion. This, too, should be remembered—the
Attorney-General had asked permission to withdraw the letter.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had inquired whether the
government had dismissed the Attorney-General? His (Sir
R. Peel's) answer was, that they had riot dismissed the At-
torney-General, nor did they mean to dismiss hies.—(" Hear,
hear," from the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. WYSE said he could not blame the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet for entering somewhat into detail. He was willing to
make a good deal of allowance for the Attorney-General. In
the cow se of the trials he had on one occasion, to his own
knowledge, acted with forbearance. Many severe anti unjusti-
fiahle attacks had been made upon him—newspapers of all
parties had censured him-51r. Fitzgibbon had made a very
severe attack upon him ; but. making allowance ,or all these
things, he _would ask the House was the conduct of the
Attorney-General likely to Impress the conviction on the
minds of the people of Ireland that the law had been fairly
administered ? The Attorney-General had two other courses
open to him. He might have called upon Mr. Fitzgibbon to
disavow the offensive expressions, or he might have placed
himself in the heeds of the Court. Neither of these things
had he done, but he had recourse, to the Titania ratio of arms,
and acted meat indiscreetly. For the reasons already stated
he would not enter into the consideration whether or not the
agitation for the repeal of the union was legitimate, but he
would allude to a clause in the address. It was very well
known that he (Mr. Wyse) had been solicited to become a
member of the Loyal National Repeal Association ; that many
of his constituents wished him to become a repealer, but these
solicitations he declined, believing that the Imperial Parliament
would do justice to Ireland. As long as he had that hope he
would not wish to agitate for repeal. It would depend en.
tirely on this country whether such hopes were
realised. He was only one of a large class who
held back from the repeal ranks because he be-
lieved that a British Parliament would do them justice.
But if these hopes were frustrated the cause of repeal would
every day have new partisans. He hoped the clause in the
address was not confined to one or two beneficial measures
for Ireland, but that it signified that an extensive system of
policy would be pursued for the improvement of the social and
political condition of that country. If he did not think that
was the meaning of the clause, he would not support the
address.
Lord ELIOT said, that from his official position regarding
Ireland, it could not be expected he would remain silent during
the attack on the Attorney-General. He had been associated
with that Hon. and Learned Gentleman for mere than a year,
and he must say, that a more kind-hearted man he had seldom
known. When he (the Attorney-Get oral) came into office,
his first act was to receive apologies from several edmtors of
newspapers against which prosecutions for libels were about to
be instituted. After the testimony which had been borne to
his forbearance by the Hon. Member for Waterford, he
believed the Attorney-General had on many trying occasions
during the course of these trials shown great discretion,
and except upon that one occasion had not given way to any
improper excitement.
Alit. ROEBUCK—Oh, several.
Lord ELIOT—Had not heard but of that one instance.—
(Cries of " Oh, oh.") He believed that on every other occa-
sion the Attorney- General had demeaned himself as became
his station. He did not mean to vindicate the indiscretion,
hut he felt sure that in the cooler moments of reflection he
would not have acted so. Base personal and selfish motives
had been attributed to the Attorney-General, and he had be-
trayed this infirmity of temper.
Mr. WYSE explained. The Noble Lord was quite mis-
taken in supposing that he meant to say that the Attorney-
General had on every occasion during the trials comported
himself with forbearance. He did not say so, nor did he mean
so, nor did he think so'; but what he said was, that upon one
occasion on which he (Mr. Wyse) was present, the Attorney-
General had conducted himself with great calmness,when it might
have been expected that his temper would have been broken.
Lord ELLIOT replied.
Captain BERNAL said the Right Hon. Baronet had at-
tempted to throw his cloak over what he must term the fall
and fame of the Irish Attorney-General. He (Captain Bernal) !
denied that at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of
these trials had that officer conducted himself in a proper
manner, and he had reason to know that there was only one
)g. e of
ff
thatthe ll
and
Learned
oAptitnuironne
y-
amGoenngetrha el Ihraidshcobnadruacstedt o
htihme g
emu a ntnherro
uignh
owuht i c
thh teh.
oe
trials, and that was that he had behaved with great impropriety.
I ea do pt
Memberinthe fuflolresßt
Bath
hn
(Mr. Roebuck).
oleabnug
and Learned Gentleman felt it necessary to caution the Go-
vernment regarding the appointment of the Attorney-General,
how much more was that caution necessary when the language
which had been used by him in 1827 was recollected ?—He de-
elated in that year his belief that Irish Roman Catholics had
no reverence for the sanctity of an oath. "I he manner
t
in which the Government now treated the Attorney_
General resembled that in which a schoolmaster would treat his
you
and 1 will forgive you." If an example of decorum were not '
to ben young
found pupil,
in "Bea
a Court
what vanity it was
to come down to that House, and, in the
good boyQ, be
ueenso,srr iy3efnocrhw )ou have done,
,hat
Queen's speech, ex-
press a hope that the social condition of Ireland would be im-
proved. He called on the House to support the Hon. Member
for Bath, and he called upon them at once to urge on the Go.
vernment the propriety of dismissing the Attorney-General for 1
Txeland.

Lord STANLEY rose, and said the Hon. Gentlemanwhohas
just Oat down complained of my Right Lion, Fliend laving

thrown his mantic s:f profceen ever the Attorney-General for
Ireland. If ivy Right hen. Friend had interfered in any de-
gree to shelter an absees officer front attacks ceuched in no
very measured terms, and founded upon facts which, undoubt-
edly, are notorious, but which are put forth by newspaper re-
ports, I do not think my Right Hon. Friend is a fair object of
the censure which is sought now to be cast upon him by the
Hon. Gentleman who has, just sat down. Sir, I think that a
much more worthy course is pursued by those who do not
press forward exaggerated accusations against an absent
man, but who reek to impress on the House that
while they do not vindicate specific acts, they do, at
least, impress on the House to consider those infirmities
to which not the Attorney-tseneral alone is subject.
I listened with great pain to the able, but I must say needlessly
embittered, speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath.
I listened with pleasure—if pleasure can be derived from a
discussion such as the present —to the snore temperate language
in which the Right lion. Member for Waterford has addressed
the House. I will venture to say, that my Right Hon. Friend
does not, as the Hon. Member for Wycombe has just stated,
concur in the abstract with the language or the sentiments of
the lion. and Learned Member for Bath ; but I do think that
abstractedly and practically there was little or no difference
between the feelings of my Right Hon. Friend and the views
and feelings expressed by the Right Hon. Member for Water-
ford. We none of us can vindicate the unfortunate circum-
stance which has led to this debate ; but is the Hon. Gentleman
who has brought forward this discussion himself free from all
infirmities of temper ?—( Cheers and laughter.) The taunts—
the goads—l do not say one, but a succession of purposed,
intentional, continued, bitter personal taunts—might be in-
capable of moving the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ; but I
am not ashamed to say, that long as my experience
has been in this House, I have learnt—l speak ho-
nestly—l have learnt, day by day, how difficult
it is to sit patiently and hear attacks of a much
more mitigated character than those to which the At-
torney-General for Ireland has been subjected. lam not
ashamed to confess that I have used hasty and irritating words
in reply, which afterwards I have regretted. Feeling that
infirmity myself, I, at least, can make allowances for the posi-
tion of the Attorney-General for Ireland. And what was that
position? It was not that which has been incorrectly attri-
buted to him by the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down.
It was not that the Government was conscious of the infirmity
and incompetence of the officer that they thought it necessary
to caution him against being led into irritation. On the con-
trary, it was only the day before this unfortunate occurrence
took place that the Government had expressed to the Attorney •
General, in terms strong indeed, but not more strong than
merited, the full satisfaction which they felt at the coolness, the
temper, the moderation and judgment, display Sid by him in the
condueting of these important trials. There was no caution
given to the Attorney-General ; but the Attorney-Gesseral
wrote a few hours before the intelligence was received of the
occurrence of that circumstance which has led to the present
discussion. The Attorney-General said, "There has evidently
been an attempt made to drive me into some act of indiscre-
tion, which may be injurious to me, I say, speaker after
speaker has attempted to fix on me a personal imputation."
lam stating that which the Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath has said led to what he calls a caution from my Right
Hon. Friend near me, and I am stating the substance of a
letter received from the Attorney-General himself a few hours
before this unfortunate occurrence took place, in which lee
stated that he was determined to keep the strictest watch over
his feelings, that he might not compromise his own character
or that of the Government. Ido not conceal my regret at
what has occurred, but I bring this forward to show that
there was no premeditated intention on the part of the Attor-
ney-General to commit any outrage in the ordinary course of
the legal proceedings,,).iii.Herws.nohhtwnelee.n)m,
Member
ealmeenaamiriid:ubtoesietr:thri to commit any act of violence or in-
discretion. There is a very remarkable corroboration of this
view of the case in the speech of the Right Hon. Member for
Waterford. What does he tell you ? He says, in vindication
of Mr. Fitzgibbon, " I know nothing of Mr. Fitzgibbon—l
know nothing of his speeches, except from the newspapers."
But the Right Hon. Member for Waterford tells you that
those expressions which had appeared to have given so much
offence to the Attorney-General, were not expressions of the
counsel, nor conveyed the feelings of Mr. Fitzgibbon. He tells
you that they were not the expressions of the counsel himself,
dbitTs,authhseyteesthiHeipße.moritnegpe,.(ehl
previous
you they were the expressions of the client. That
vas the statement of the Right Hon. Member for Waterford.
d
r.
hyeaf
eotaper
nsodudl
fairlyr:t
powerful
nlf
oot )tf aaspeechtt
etsaid,lad e
coktefsthrhtasAaaotiti
,wyeesrosfhseoooel rturii l threeenrs
do
him-
self how difficult it must be for the Attorney-General to keep
eloquent, so bitter, and so severe, as those which fell from Mr.
stood the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. WYSE—That was a preceding day.
Lord STANLEY—I said it was on a preceding day—that
was the first attack. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke justly
and fairly. He says that on the first day, when the Attorneys
General was exposed to the bitterness of the attack of Mr.
Sheil, he felt how difficult it would be, if it were his case,
for himself to keep his temper. Two speeches of counsel fol-
lowed that of Mr. Shell before Mr. Fitzgibbon commenced the
attack upon the Attorney-General. 1 do not state that is
vindication of the error into which the Attorney-General
afterwards fell ; but I do state it in order to express an earnest
hope that upon such information as that which we now possess
—derived from newspaper intelligence—not being judges of the
manner or the gesture of the party—for there are many words
which read very harmlessly, but when spoken possess a heavier
sweeping a manner, and in such unmitigated terms as those
meaning—l do hope that the House will not condemn in so
proposed by the Hen. and Learned Member for Bath, an ab-
sent officer of the Crown, who, during the performance of
most arduous arid laborious duties, in a moment of weakness
was led to commit a momentary offence, for which he has
already expressed his regret. And I trust that that allowance,
which in my heart and conscience I feel is due to him, and
which I should expect for myself, the House of Commons will
show to the Attorney-General.
Mr. Sergeant MURP HY did not think the protection
which had been cast over the Attorney-General by the speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government
had been at all improved by what leid fallen from the Noble
Lord. He thought the Noble Lord had merely confirmed the
charge brought against the Attorney-General. He (Mr.
Sergeant Murphy) would venture to say that the conduct of
the Attorney-General would be met throughout the country,
both by Whig arid Tory, with but one feeling. When the
people of this country saw that the solemn administration of
the law, the best safeguard of our rights, was violated by those
whose place it was to uphold it, he questioned whether any
man could be found in England, no matter what his shade of
politics might be, who would not look upon the splenetic and
intemperate outbreak of the Attorney-General but as a dese-
cration of the temple of justice—a desecration of that temple,
not at a time when one man was being tried within it, but
when an entire country, by a multitudinous indictment, had
been dragged before the tribunal of justice. Had the Attor-
ney-General for Ireland throughout these trials acted with that
spirit of concession which emit: ntly distinguished State
prosecutions in this country?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Sergeant Murphy) would appeal to his Hon and Learned
Friend the Attorney-General for England, and he would
appeal to the mariner in which the Chartist trials were con-
ducted in Lancashire. He would appeal to what fifty-nine of
the persons who were arraigned, declared at the termination of
the trials, who said, " Whether. we consider the Judges--
whether we consider the Attorney-General—whether we look
to the whole fairness of these trials—to the Judge, Counsel,
Jury, or the Attorney-General, we must feel that the law has
been administered with temper, with moderation, and w.th
fairness." He (Mr. Murphy) was one of the counsel on this
occasion, and he could bear testimony to the truth of this.
These trials were conducted with the calmness and temper
which distinguishes the Attorney-General for England. As
an Irishman, he felt in his secret s ell the degradation the
Irish bar had suffered by the conduct of the Attorney-
General. But he was happy that it had been redeemed by
the speech of the Right Honourable Member for Dungarvon.
The Attorney-General for Ireland had gone into court, and
had, as it were. proclaimed that he cane there as the Crown
prosecutor; but he cautioned those against whom he appeared
that he should demand satistaction fur anything said in the
in Ireland hhaaddbheaedn
the whole
heat of the defence. This he (Mr. Murphy) said, was a most
cogent argument ,in favour of the Attorney-General: being
ig
America
Theri sa.pt prosecution
to
of
sheecy theth i
Wouldaod had, as it were, as
n law.n t
then, such con-
s st
institutedno me s is ne o
people looking on. tsol y
uphold
Europe d
dismissed.
wi
duct as that which had been displayed by the Attorney-General
be, in effect, a reproach to the majesty of the law—a reproach
to the impartiality of the tribunal and the Judges of the Court ?
th e A majesty
It became, therefore, the duty of the Government of the coun-
try to vindicate the majesty of the law, which alone could be
done by the immediate dismissal of the first law officer of the
Crown.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM was unwilling, after what had

fallen from his Right Hon. Friend and the Noble Secretary
for the Colonies, to prolong this discussion ; yet he thought,
on the present occasion, it would not be unworthy or incon-
sistent with his duty if he addressed a few words to the House.
He hoped the House would remember what was the position of
this case. A great trial was pending. Her Majesty from the
Throne had announced that her love of justice being adminis-
tered according to law had induced her to refrain from all
comment upon the trials now taking place. Notwithstanding
the various topics which had been commented upon, in the
course of the discussion last night, it was agreed he thought
on all hands, for the sake of justice, that the topics connected
with the pending trials should be avoided until a verdict should
be pronounced by the jury now empanelled to try the case.
Disregarding, however, the example of last night, in the
name of justiee the House was called upon to discuss a matter
bearing directly upon the question being tried. The Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down had alluded in terms of ad-
miration to the speech of the counsel for the defence. This
charge had been brought against a Member of that House ;
that Member was absent, and consequently could have no op-
portunity then of explaining more fully the merits of the case.
His Right Hon. Friend and the Noble Lord the Secretary for
the Colonies had both declared that they were not prepared to
vindicate the conduct of the Attorney-General in the particular
iastance which had led to this discussion. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment could not defend, and would not defend, an act such
as that which had been brought under the notice of the House.
—( Hear, hear.) But he was quite sure that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who had brought forward this subject
must see that there were mitigating circumstances. It was
evident from the speech of the Right Honourable
Member for Waterford that the Attorney-General had
been subjected to very eloquent and personal attacks.
He thought the more appropriate course to have adopted would
have been to have suspended their judgment until that officer
was present to defend himself; but, to say the least of
it, he thought it ungeeerous, as well as unjust, to pronounce a
censure when the Attorney-General had withdrawn the terms
which were found fault with, and also, after the matter had
been brought before the Court, in which it occurred, and when
that Court had expressed its hope that no further notice would
be taken of the matter. Another circumstance, he thought,
also fully bore him out in the opinion which he had expressed
with respect to the course now pursued, which was that the
.Learned Counsel with whom this unfortunate quarrel occurred,
in a manner the most generous and becoming to him, a mem-
ber of the same profession as the Attorney-General, came
down to the Court, and said that, upon reflection, he felt bound
to express his sorrow that any thing had occurred to woand
the feelings of the Attorney-General, and acknowledged at
the same time that he had given many provocations to the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, which led to this unfortunate transac-
tion, and that to the last moment of his life, he should regret
everything which fell from him tending lead to this occurrence.
He ( Sir J. Graham) felt bound to express his deep regret at
such an event occurring during the administration of justice,
for all legal proceedings should be held sacred for the sake of
the interests of society. He hoped what had occurred this
eight would satisfy the House that he was quite willing to take
his share of the responsibility of the course now so generally
recommended by those who knew the Attorney-General for
Ireland.

Mr.' WARD said he thought that so far as the high legal
qualities, the good intention, and the good heart of the Attor-
ney-General were concerned, they had nothing whatever to do
with the fact, as to whether a high legal officer of the Crown
had discharged a great and important duty in a manner likely
to reflect dignity upon the administration of justice, Th 6
Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, had stated that the
Attorney-General was drawn out under circumstances calculated
to exc.te the most and dispas,ionate individual. He
(11.1 r. Ward) denied that there had been any such occasions
for exciting irascibility, and he thought this assertion was
borne nut by the last expressions used by the Right Hm3.
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Deparonit, who said
that the Learped Coupscl had WO in 4 geptlemanly itnd
generwas rparerier, Where wa there eat earregoieß is Ow