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

MISSION TO SHOA.

Dr. BOWRING;oved for a copy of the correspondence
relating to the late Mission t• Shoa.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR moved for copies of any
!orrespondenee that had taken place between the Poor- law
Commissioners and the guardians of the Glastonbury Union,
relative to the dismissal of Mr. George Newman from the
medical superintendence of the poor in that union.
CANADA—SIR C. METCALFE.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he had to put a question
cfgreat importance to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the
-..7olonies. He wished to ask his Noble Friend, whether the
course pursued by Sir Charles Metcalfe in Canada had the
zoncurrence of her Majesty's Government?
Lord STANLEY said he was not at all sorry that his Hon.
Friend had put the question to him, because he believed that,
in a matter of this kind, it was essential that there
should be no mistaken impression upen the public mind.
--le had no hesitation in saying that the policy pursued by Sir
Charles 'Metcalfe in Canada had the entire approbation of her
Majesty's Government. The selection of Sir Charles Metcalfe—
a man of tried abilities, and known liberal views in politics—as
Governor of Canada, was quite in keeping with the course
which her Majesty's Government wished to pursue in that coun-
try. But although Sir C. Metcalfe went out to carry out the views
of the Government at home, yet he was equally determined to
resist any demands inconsistent with the dignity of the Crown.
He should conclude by saying that Sir C. Mtcalfe, in pursuing
this course, would have the entire support of the Home Govern-
er

Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to ask whether it was the
rtention of the Government to communicate to the House the
zatructions sent out by the Government at home to Sir Charles
bletcalfe, or the correspondence which had taken place be-
tween the Government and the Colonial •office?
Lord STANLEY said that no communication such as the
Noble Lord alluded to had been sent to Sir Charles Metcalfe,
hut at the proper time, if the Noble Lord chose to put the
moestion, be would explain the course pursued by Sir Charles ;
wen he would hope to satisfactorily vindicate it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, when

Mr. ROEBUCK called the Noble Lord to order. It was
not right to allow a conversation of this kind, when no ether
person could make an observation.
1111,ZILg.

Mr. HAWES wished to ask the Eight Hon. Baronet, the
First Lord of the Treasury, if he would have any objection to
lay upon the table copies of the papers connected with the re-
cent treaty concluded with the Brazils?
Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to the Hon. Gentleman's
question, he felt bound to say that the treaty would
expire in about a year, and during the present state of the
mat ter he did not deem it consistent with his public duty to
'oder the returns to which the Hon. Gentleman alluded.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

In answer to aViestionfrom Sir GEORGE GREY,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that he did nut ask the Right
1-lon. Gentlemen to withdraw the motion of which he had given
notice, but he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that
d•iring the recess the subject had been under the anxious con-
siJeration of the Government, and at a very early period of
e session a measure would be proposed upon the subject.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

Sir GEORGE GREY begged to ask the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet another question :—Whether it was the intention of her
!Majesty's Government to propose in this session any measure
for the improvement of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and if so,
whether tha measure would be introduced in this or the other
House of Parliament ?

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his Noble Friend the
Lord Chancellor had announced in the other House his inten-
tion to bring in a Rill upon the subject at an early period.
THE CASE OF MR. BONHAM.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that as he saw the Hon. Mem-
ber for Exeter had jest taken his place, he wished to ask
him a question relating to a notice given by the Honourable
Gentleman, which, it not explained, might have an injurious
effect upon the reputation of ass Honourable Friend of his.
He alluded to the notice which the Mon. Member for Exeter
had given of a motion on the Bth of February, for an address to
her Majesty to dismiss F. R. Bonham, Esq., from the office
of Storekeeper of the Ordnance.—( Hear, hear.) He (Sir
IL Peel) wished to inquire whether the Hon. Gentleman
weld(' object to state what were the grounds of his motion ?
Mr. DIVETT said that when he gave the notice he had no
intention of injuring the reputation of Mr. Bonham ; but, on
the contrary, he sincerely hoped that gentleman would be able
to give a satisfactory explanation of his conduct on the occa-
sion of which he (Mr. D.) thought he had reason to complain.
As a preliminary, he must state that, though undoubtedly he
was influenced by public considerations in bringing the subject
inrward, the complaint which he had to make referred not to
Mr. Bonham's official position, but to the frinctions which
he performed in the position which he held with refe-
rence to the Carlton Club, and the Conservative party.—
( Great laughter. 1 Gentlemen might laugh ; they pro-
bably knew Mr. Bonham's functions much better
than he did; but undoubtedly his functions appeared to him of
snob a questionable character that he thought it essential that
the Government should learn what they were.—(Cries of
" Oh ! oh !") He was not aware that he had said anything to
cause that interruption. As he had already said, he most sin-
cerely hoped that Mr. Bonham would be able to give a satis-
factory answer to the charge which he had to make against
—( Hear, hear.) That charge, he would now state, related
to his conduct in reference to the last London election. The
charge was, that Mr. Bonham, either through himself or guided
by others, had made representations which, if not intentionally
fraudulent, were certainly reprehensible. He had been
very sorry to find it necessary to make any complaint of
that nature.—(llear, hear.) lie had even thought of writing
to the Right Hon. Baronet to know whether he justified
such a mode of carrying on the business of elections, but he
had ultimately thought that it would not be desirable to pursue
such a course. He thought, however, that as the matter was
one affecting the purity of election and the state of the Parlia-
mentar) representation, it was his duty to bring it under the
consideration of the House. If the Hun. Gentleman wished
him to state the case then, instead of making the
deliberate motion which he had put on the books, he
was prepared to do so. At the same time he must state that
there were two or three letters on the subject, which he had
not then in his possession, and the reading of which was es-
sential to its proper elucidation.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir R. PEEL said he had no wish to elicit from the Hon.
Gentleman a general statement of the transactions to which lie
referred, he had only wished to ascertain whether the motion
was grounded on some official act of misconduct, independently
of any electioneering question.
Mr. DIVETT repeated, that it did not relate to Mr. Bon-
nam's conduct in his official position. It referred not to his
ostensible, but to his real position in relation to the Govern-
anent.—(lronical cies of Ilear, hear.)
RIGHT OF PETITION.
Mr. WALLACE rose to bring forward, according to notice,
a motion—" That the practice of the House on the presenta-
tion of petitions complaining of the grievances of the people be
altered, so diet in future petitions may be publicly discussed at
ths time of their presentation ; and that any rule or order of
this, House, which contra„ or prohibits the discussion of the peti
tionaof the people at the time a their presentation, be rescinded."
The sessional order on this sui)e,co. having been read by the
Clerk at the table, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that
it was his intention to move, in conformity witi; the terms of
the motion he had just read to the House, that that Drdi.r be
rescinded ; but as the question had been often discussed, he did
siof feel it necessary to occupy much of the public time I
Sri addressing himself to it. The people of this country,
bo. wooer that House might frame their regulations,

could not bring themselves to understand why, when their pe-
titions were sent up, they should, by a rule, in the making of
which they bad no part, and the practice of which they
disapproved, be merely mentioned, but not discussed.
To pursue this plan would be to make petitions obso-
lete.—( Laughter.) During two of the years he had had
the honour of a seat in Parliament, he referred to the years
1832 and 1833, the petitions of the people were discussed fully,
and this mode of doing business gave great satisfaction to the
entire country. As might be supposed, the discontinuance of
so wholesome and popular a practice had an effect exactly the
reverse. The people now were led to believe th t Members
received their petitions, just read their object to the House,
jammed
into that they were then thrown under the tables, or
into bags and large sacks. Now those who knew what
importance the people attached to this, their ancient right of
petition, should pause before they did anything that might
lead to a distrust in or a discontinuance of the prac-
tice. He (Mr. Wallace) did not deny that the former
practice was attended at times with considerable
trouble; but a distinction might be made were there any in-
clination shown by the House to do away with the present
system. In the session of 1839, a division took place on this
subject, and the numbers were for the continuance of the pre-
sent practice 105, and against its continuance 50 only. In
the session of 1842, the subject was twice before the House—
once being brought forward by himself, and once by the Hen.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Dencombe) ; for the division
on his own motion he had forty-three votes with him, and one
hundred and eighty-three against him. In that year there was
something worthy of remark in that House, in consequence of the
motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe). He (Mr.
Wallace) brought forward the question in that year
en the same principle that he did now—the inherent
right of the people—a right which that House
bad not constitutionally the power to wrest away. But his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Duneombe) had broached the subject as
connected with the question of taxation ; viz., that at all
events, when matters of taxation were petitioned about, they
should have the right to discuss these petitions—that therein, at
all events, the old and healthy practice should be restored.
On the occasion to which he referred in 1842, the division
showed 136 votes in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, whereas there were only 167 against it ; then
the motion was lost, even in a Conservative Parliament, by
only 31 votes. The people out of doors had no opportunity of
ever seeing their petitions after they were presented. They
were sent to the Committee on Petitions, who dealt with them
as they pleased—sometimes reading them in whole, and some-
times
reading mere extracts. The only way left to a representa-
tive of informing his constituents what had become of their
petition, was by stating that he had presented such a peti-
tion on such a day. But the people out of doors did
not understand this, and they found great fault
in being dealt with in such a manner. The rule that indivi-
dual petitions might be printed with the Votes, was overborne
by other rules. On two occasions—one last session, and the
other in the preceding session—he was forced to leave two
petitions undiscussed, because he could not find a day to
bring them forward, though he had watched every opportunity.
One of those he got printed with the Votes, but the other lie
did not, because it referred to the character of a judicial person.
He would therefore call on the House to depart from the
stringent rule by which the petitions of the people were kept
in a manner secret. The people could not purchase the voted
of the House, in which those things were noticed, and the
Members were not allowed to send them to their constituents.
He believed that the rescinding of that rule would be exceed-
ingly gratifying to the country. Having stated the nature of
the case which he had to bring before the House, and it having
been stated fully twice before during the present Parliament,
ke had merely to observe that, if this proposal should be re-
jected, the people would have a right to conclude that the majority
of that House were determined to de all that in them lay to
prevent the people having any knowledge of the manner in
which the business of that House was conducted. He should
certainly divide the House upon his motion.
Dr. BOWRING fully agreed with the observations which
had fallen from his Hon. Friend, and he should therefore feel
great pleasure in seconding the motion. It could not escape
• the observation of Hon. Gentlemen, that there was a growing
'indisposition on the part of the people for petitioning that
' House, and he, therefore, cordially seconded the motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL felt a little surprised at the observa-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the lime,
that there was a growing disposition to withhold petitions from
the House of Commons. He (Sir R. Peel) thought—he was
then speaking from memory—that during the last year 25,000
petitions were presented ; and if the Hon. Gentleman would
compare that number with the number presented during the
preceding year, he would not find that there was any disposition
on the part of the people to withhold petitions from the House
of Commons. Did the Hon. Gentleman recollect the petitions
that were presented with respect to education, when the Educa-
tion Bill was under consideration last year? If he did so, he ( Sirß.
Peel) did not think that in that case any proof would be dis-
covered of a want of disposition on the part of the people to
withhold petitions when they had any objections to public
measures proposed. He thought he had heard from Honour-
able Gentlemen that the result of these petitions was
a conclusive proof of the efficacy of the right of petitioning.
The question was not what would most suit the personal conve-
nience of Members, but as to which practice would be most
conducive to the proper conducting of public business, Some
years ago it was usual to enter into debate on petitions, as it
was then held that it was very useful, because many Members
of Parliament, who distrusted their own powers, and were un-
willing to enter into a general discussion, had this an opportu-
nity of speaking on petitions. He (Sir R. Peel) must say, that
the confidence of the House had very much increased
and now there was no such diffidence on the part of individual
Members to address the House.—( Hear, and laughter. )
In point of fact the practice had grown up of having debates
on questions of great public importance, which lasted six or
seven days, and thus the opportunity of addressing the House
was afforded ; and he thought that a speech made a
greater impression when delivered in the cenrse of
a consecutive discussion, than when delivered at an unexpected
time on the occasion of presenting a petition. This subject was
brought under the notice of the House when the late Govern-
ment was in power, and when Mr. Abercrombie filled
the chair which the present Speaker now so worthily
occupied ; and he begged to remind the House of the rule then
laid down. The impression was se great, of the inconvenience
of occupying the early part of a day fixed for an im-
portant public discussion by the discussion of petitions, that
the general sense of the House was taken on the point, and
by the general concurrence of the House, the practice was
changed. But what were the regulations at present ? It was
competent for any Member to present a petition ; he might state
the place from whence it came, its objects, and the number of
signatures attached to it, and if he pleased, he might have
that petition read at the table. If he intended to found
a motion on that petition, it was not referred to the Select Com-
mittee on Petitions, but was printed with the Votes—if the pe-
tition referred to a personal grievance, then he apprehended
that it was competent for the Member to have that petition
discussed. These were the standing regulations, and, instead
of arguing the question, he thought it better to leave it to the
sense of individual Members to decide whether it was
not better for the order and satisfactory conduct of
public business, to adhere to the present rule, rather
than originate a discussion on the presenting of petitions.
His own opinion was that it was for the public advantage to
adhere to the Standing Orders formed by a large majority of the
House, and lie hoped the House would not now depart from the
rules it affirmed in 1840.
Mr. BROTHERTON said he was convinced that the
discussion on petitions, when presenting them, was impracti-
cable. He never saw one of his constituents whom he could
not convince of ins impracticability. The present mode, so far
from being objectionable, was the best, and petitions were now
presented in the best manner in which he had ever seen them.
According to the old principle it was impossitle to present
more than three or four petitions of a night. He hoped his
Hon. Friend would not attempt a division. He would merely
direct the attention of his Hon. Friend to the number of peti-
tions which had been presented at different periods. In the
five years ending 1799, the number of petitions presented'
had been bSO ; in the five years ending 1805, it
had been 1,026; in the five years ending 1815, they had been
4,498. In the five years ending 1831 they had been 24,492,
and in the five years ending 1843 they had been 94,295.
( Hear, hear.) Now he would ask his Hon Friend if it were
possible to have a discussion upon all these petitions.—( Cheers.)
The fact was, that under the old system petitions were sent to
only a few Members, who would occupy the time of the House,
regardless of the feelings of all present, and who would make
long speeches. He had, under the old plan, brought down
petitions to the House, for nine days consecutivel, without
He having had an opportunity of presenting them. e had the
strongest conviction that the people would not be dissatisfied
with the resent ;plan if it were properly explained to them.—
( Cheers. ) Although he was generally found voting on the
popular side, and although he was not insensible to the appro. '
bation of the people, he felt, from a sense of duty, bound to
vote against the motion.
Mr. WARD had, some years since, brought forward a mo-
tion similar to that proposed by the Hon. Member for Greenock,
but further experience had convinced him of the correctness of
the views entertained by the Hon. Member for Salford, and of
the impossibility of discussing petitions when they were pre-
sented. He should, therefore, be compelled to vote against the
motion, although he had brought forward a similar one himself
some years since. He felt that the adjourned debates to which
allusion had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet, afforded
the Members representing large constituencies a more conve-
nient opportunity of placing their sentiments on record, than
would be afforded them by any discussion upon petitions.
The Right Hon. Baronet, however, had overlooked the fact
that many Hon. Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the
House were constantly anxious to press on a division. The Right
Hon. Baronet should recollect that in debates en great cern •
mercial questions it was but right that every Member repre-
senting a large commercial -constituency ought to have an
opportunity of delivering his sentiments. It was true
he had brought forward a motion something similar
in purport upon a former occasion, but that was in the days of
his inexperience, and much as he might regret it he felt bound
to vote against his Hon. Friend.
Mr. FIELDEN, who from the extremely low and indistinct
tone of voice in which he spoke, and the noise in the House,
was nearly inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that
he hoped his Hon. Friend would divide the House upon his mo-
tion, when he (Mr. Fielden) would certainly vote in its favour.
Mr. WALLACE said that all he had heard on both sides of
the House had not changed his opinion that the people out of
the House would be glad to have the rule rescinded. He en-
tirely differed from the view taken by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Salford. His Hon. Friend was a member of
the Committee on Petitions, and most people were
easily biassed in their opinions by the possession of mock autho-
rity. However, he did not wish to waste the time of the
House—( Laughter, and Oh, oh)—and as he was reminded by
the First Lord of the Treasury that to do away with the rule
would interfere with another regulation, which he considered
very useful, he would withdraw his motion for the present, but
at another time he would show the House that the rule ought
to be modified.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
THE SESSIONAL ORDERS.

Sir G. CLERK moved the usual sessional orders.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said some of these standing orders were
so much at variance with the practice of the House that Govern-
ment ought to revise them. When the House had laid down rules
for the guidance of its proceedings, those rules should be strictly
adhered to; but such was far from being the case. One
of the orders was, " That no Peer of this realm hath
any right to give his vote in the election of any Member
to serve in Parliament." Now he would not discuss the right
of Peers to vote for:Members of that House ; but the order in
question ought not to be established unless they had both the
disposition and the power to enforce it. No statute law or
common law of this country forbade a Peer to vote for a Mem-
ber of that House ; and if a Peer were to claim to vote in virtue of
a proper qualification, no revising barrister:could refuse to allow
his claim. It had been publicly stated that a certain Peer had
declared that he would act in direct opposition to the standing
order on the subject; he did not know whether he had done
so, but he did not see what there was to prevent him. They
must bring their authority into contempt by passing rules
which they had no power to enforce. Take another of the
standing orders :—" That it is a high infringement
of the liberties and privileges of the honours of the United
Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate
to concern himself in the election of Members to serve the
Commons in Parliament." How were they to enforce this?
It was proved before a Committee in 1836, that the Members of
the House of Peers, without one single exception exercised all
the power which they possessed in virtue of property, office,
er in influencing the election of Members of the
Hoaupiethdiingese, lCommons. It was notorious that the Peers drove
their tenants and depgndelts to the poll, and made them vote
refused they were punished,
at their own pleasure, f they

either by removal from their situations or dismissal from their
farms. The Chandos clause was passed to carry into effect the
clause. He said then, that when they had not the power to en-
force these rules, they ought not to be annually voted. He was
quite sure that if a Commit-ee of the House were to on these
Standing Orders, a great number of them would be expunged,
as applicable only to times long past. They all well knew
that the Peers of this realm openly subscribed large sums
of money to buy votes, and otherwise influence the re-
turns at elections. Yes, he would be proud to say there was
not a gentleman on the Treasury benches, who could not point
out Peers who were subscribers to the Election Fund at the
Carlton Club, nor a gentleman on his side of the House who
could not point out others, subscribers to the Reform funds. He
said this was an interference of the Peers with the privileges of
that House. And yet, they took no means to put a stop to such
practices, except by passing a series of orders which they never
enforced. Another of these orders directed that no strangers
should be allowed in the House, and that should one be found
there, he should instantly be taken into custody by the Ser-
geant-at-Arms. Why this order was violated every day, for
every Member had the acknowledged privilege of giving an or-
der for the admission of a friend to the gallery, and that privi-
lege he exercised. And even their Speaker himself violated
this sessional order every day. There was a portion of that
House set apart, fir the Speaker alone to give or-
ders to—the part known as the Speaker's Gallery. Those
who desired admission to this gallery could only obtain
it through an application to the Speaker himself,
who, with his usual courtesy, directed the applicant's
name to be placed on his Secretary's list. How could the
House then, with these open and avowed violations, allow such
standing orders to remain at all ? He was surprised that self-
respect had not long since induced the House to abandon orders
some of which they could not enforce, others of which they
freely permitted to be laughed at and put on one side. They
ought to be abrogated, and others ought to be framed, which,
whilst they ensured the obedience of the House, would also
command the respect of the people.
Colonel WYND HAM said that as the representative of a
large agricultural community he could not refrain from making
a few observations, although those observations had no relation
whatever to the subject before the House.—(Laughter.)
The SPEAKER—The H on. Gentleman must confine his
observations to the question before the House.
Cotonel WYNDHAM—Ain 1 not at liberty, sir, to reply to
the statements brought forward by the Hon. Member for
Coventry

The SPEAKER—Yes.
Colonel WYNDHAM said he could not sit still after hear-
ing the unjust aspersions that had bee• thrown upon the landed
aristocracy of the country. The Hon. Member said that they
drove their tenant voters to the poll like se many sheep.—
Well that might have been the ease fifty years ago, but he
denied—emphatically denied•—that such was the case at pre-
sent. Why should not a man invest money in any mode of
business he thought proper, and had not a man a right to in-
vest money in land if he thought proper?—( Renewed ►aughter. )
Why common sense would tell a man that he had. Those
gentlemen upon the other side of the House who were the pro-
prietors of mills, and manufactories, were not interfered with
when they invested capital in these things, although numbers
of men employed in them had been turned adrift, and
become a burden on the agricultural community. The Anti-
Anti-Corn-law League—('Laughter)—had risen up in its own
defence, and shown the Government that the agricultural in-
terest was nine millions strong, whereas the manufacturing in-
terest was only three millions strong—that League had given a
confidence to the Government which they could not overlook.
Mr. CHRISTIE said that it was not his intention to move
the amendment of which he had given notice, respecting the
exclusion of strangers and the publication of debates at present ;
but as it would not prejudice him on a future occasion to post-
pone it, he would bring it under the consideration of the House
as a substantive motion at an early period.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS wished to know whether the Act that
was passed the session before last embraced the whole of the
sessional orders. If that were so, every proposition contained
in the orders was embraced in the Act, and therefore they
were not necessary.
Sir GEORGE CLERK was understood to say that the
orders now under consideration were brought in five or six
years ago, and the Hon. Member was mistaken in supposing
that the Act he referred to embraced them. _ _

On the reading of the order for the precedence of orders to
motions on two days of the week.
Mr. W. 'WILLIAMS said that he considered the order to
be attended with very great inconvenience. One effect of it
was, that it caused Bills at the end of the session to be hurried
through the House without discussion, and almost without
consideration. He trusted the Government would impose
upon themselves the same regulations they imposed on other
Members of the House with respect to notices of motion and
Bills brought in on the Wednesdays.
Sir R. PEEL did not think the regulations for which the
Honourable Member contended were necessary, or would
be productive of any benefit. It was generally
the disposition on the part of all Members to
take the business which was most convenient. The Hon.
Gentleman surely did not mean that his rule should prevent
altogether the bringing on of the supplies ? He thought
that the best course for the Government would be to give
notice on the days devoted to Government business, what
business should be brought on. But to say that they should
go through twenty orders of the day, would only be to defeat
public business. The Hon. Gentleman had said that he had
waited six nights to bring on a motion; if he had done so, he
had at least had the advantage of hearing discussions on other
subjects.—( A laugh. )
Mr. WILLIAMS rose to explain. If the Right Hon.
Baronet would only exercise the same ingenuity—(Cries of
Order, order," amid which the Hon. Member sat down. )
The orders were then agreed to.
THE ADDRESS.
Lord CLIVE brought up the Report on the address, which
was read at the table by the clerk.
Mr. S. CRA WFORD rose to move the omission of all
those words which related to the repeal of the union. They
were told that it was not right to discuss what was now going
on in Ireland. If so it was not right to introduee the repeal of
the union with the address, giving their approval to the pro-
ceedings which had not yet terminated. He was not now dis-
posed to give a pledge to maintain the union inviolate under
any circumstances. He had never advocated the repeal of the
union; he had never connected himself with the repeal move-
ment ; but he would not pledge himself to oppose it under all
circumstances. Unless the union was carried out in such a
manner as to do full justice to Ireland, it ought to
be repealed. If such laws as the Irish Arms'
Bill were carried, if they did not legislate justly for
Ireland, the people of that country might fairly demand the
repeal of the union. The House had often before given
pledges of their attachment to the union, but they had
accompanied those pledges with declarations of their desire to
improve Irish institutions; and having given those pledges, he
was bound to say that they had not kept faith with the Irish
people. It was said that there had been a conspiracy in Ireland
against the Government. He believed there had been a con-
spiracy elsewhere against the people of Ireland.—( Hear, hear. )
He wished to warn that House and her Majesty's Government
that the steps which had been taken in Ireland were adding
both numbers and power to the repeal agitation, beyond any-
thing which had hitherto occurred. Even those who
were best affected towards British connexion hardly knew
what course to adopt.—( Hear, hear.) He was himself an ad-
vocate of that connexion, but if it could be maintained only at
the sacrifice of the rights and liberties of Ireland, he would
throw it to the winds. He never would be a party to main-
taining British connexion by the surrender of all those rights
which every freeman was entitled to enjoy, and of which
Irishmen would not consent to be deprived. The Hon. Mem-
ber then moved that all the words relating to the repeal of the
union should he expunged.

The question ha;ingbeen put,
Mr. FITZSI EPHEN FFRENCH trusted that his Hon.
Friend would not object to having the whole of the paragraph
relating to Ireland expunged from the address, unless an as-
surance was given by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
head of the Government that some meaning was to be attached
to the words.

The O'CONOR DON agreed with his Hon. Friend in
thinking the tendency of the paragraph in question would be
most injurious, and that it was calculated to produce a most
prejudicial effect, as far as regarded the trials now pending.
The declaration of her Majesty at the close of the last session
was sufficiently explicit, and there was no necessity for a re-
newal of it at the present time, except as showing
the line of policy which the Government intended to adopt,
and that consequently it was calculated to exert great influence
on the jury. He was sure that the House must deplore such a
result. The present was not the moment for discussing the
policy of the repeal of the union ; that question, however, was
open to discussion. The Noble Lord the Member for London
had, last year, told them that the seeking of the repeal of an
Act of Parliament was not a breach of the Constitution.—
( Hear, hear.) It there were nu attempts to sever the two
kingdoms—if all that was wished was to place them in the
position they occupied previous to the year 1800—he thought
the advocates of the repeal had been hardly dealt by, for they
had been represented as wishing to sever the two kingdoms,
and as being deficient in their allegiance, when their only ob-
ject was to place the kingdoms in the same relative positiens
which they had occupied previous to the union. He protested
against the paragraph, as being calculated to affect the decision
of the jury.
Sir ROBERT PEEL appealed to the House whether the
general tenor of the address did not sufficiently prove that
it was not the wish of the Government, in the slightest
degree to influence the decision of the jury.—(Cheers.) He
was surprised at this objection being taken to-night, as
although the subject had been discussed last night, and many
Members opposed to the Government had admitted that they
had no difficulty in concurring in the address—(Hear, hear)
—some Hon. Gentleman had proposed an amendment—the
Hon. Gentleman himself had proposed an amendment on an-
other part of the address, but he had found no fault with that
part of it which was at present the subject of discussion.
fhe Hon. Member for Montrose bad also moved an amendment
to the address, but he had made no reference to that portion of
it. The Noble Lord the Member for London—the Noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton, had signified their concur-
rence ; and he thonght,:therefore, under those circumstances,
that those must be rather fastidious critics who thought that
the reference to the union would be likely to prejudice the
trial. On the other hand, it might be contended, with an
equal show of reason, that the desire expressed by
her Majesty to co-operate with Parliament in the
measures tending to the development of the resources
of Ireland, and to the removal of the evils
under which that country was suffering, would influence the
jury in favour of the defendants ; but there was the expres de-
claration on the part of her Majesty, that she forbore from
making any observations on events in Ireland, in respect of
which proceedings were pending before the courts of justice.
Even if there had been anything equivocal in those portions of
the speech to which he had referred, teat declaration, on the
part of her Majesty, showed that the disposition of those by
whom that speech had been framed, was to cautiously abstain
from the use of any expressions which would be supposed likely
to influence the jury. It was out of his power to agree to the
proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, and he considered the
fears that had been expressed to be totally without founda-
tion.—( Hear.)
Mr. BLEWITT, in allusion to the complaint of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, that this subject had not been mentioned last
night, would remind the House of the complaint of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, that they were called upon to vote the
address without having had any time allowed them to consider
the speech.—(Hear, hear.) Had a copy of the speech been
furnished to them beforehand, so as to give them an qppor-
tunity of considering it, he should certainly have brought for-
ward a motion similar to that now before the House ; for he
considered that part of the speech to which the motion re-
ferred to be most unconstitutional, indecorous, and improper.
—(A laugh.) He had last session complained that the Right
Hon. Baronet had used her Majesty's name in a most uncon-
stitutional manner, and he renewed the complaint now. The
Crown had no power to tell the people that they should not
agitate to procure the repeal of a law. It was the privilege
of the people of this country to agitate against any law from
which they dissented, or with which they were dissatisfied; and
not only because he believed that paragraph of the speech calcu-
lated to affect the trials, but also for the reasons he
had already stated, he should support the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman. He would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman what
would have been thought if a declaration had been inserted in
a speech that in her Majesty's opinion the corn-law ought to
be continued for ever?—( Hear, hear.) This would be only
the same thing as saying that the union should never be re-
pealed, and yet he felt assured that if in her Majesty's speech
it had been declared that the corn-law should not be repealed,
such an agitation would have been raised throughout the
country as had not existed since England had been a nation.
He felt exceedingly excited on this subject over since he had