The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-08 00:00:00

I life had been passed. Their Lordships were well aware
of that Noble Lord's present position with regale' to the Go-
vernment.—( Hear.) Was ho then, when he saw such conse-
quences arising from such declarations, to be precluded from
remarking on the speeches of public men, because they were de-
livered in other places, and were conceived to be without
responsibility ? He decidedly felt himself entitled, in his place
in Parliament, to make such observations upon any such
apeeeh ; and especially when that speech was delivered by a
Minister of the Crown—by a Member of the Cabinet. He
was ready to allow the utmost limit for the heat of debate, and
the impulse of eloquence. It was not this that he regretted.
What he did regret was, that this speech was not too warm
in its tone, but that it declared a fact, and it was of this fact
that he (the Marquis of Normanby) complained. That Hon.
Gentleman declared, that a punishment had been inflicted
which would never be inflicted again—that Colonel M'Gregor
had suffered that which was not to be inflicted on any other
individual.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Duke (the Duke of
Wellington), had said that he had found him (the Marquis of
Normanby) out in some inconsistencies. He had received
a letter from Colonel Shaw Kennedy, in which that
officer had expressed his regret that he had been mis-
apprehended in the particular instance of supposing himself in-
vested with the power of appointing msgistrates. But he (the
Marquis of Normanby) had not felt it his duty to continue
Colonel Shaw Kennedy in the post which he had held. He
did not speak in this motion of appointments but of promo-
tions. The Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington)
seemed to think that he (the Marquis of Nor.
manby) conceived that something had been taken from
the inspector-general which he had previously possessed.
Such was not the case. The appointment of head-constables
had never been held by the inspector-general, but he had
always possessed the power of appointing men from the lowest
ranks to the several ranks of commissioned officers. The rule
that had been observed ever since the institution of the force
was to give two out of three of the appointments of commis-
sioned officers to the force, and the parties who obtained them
were necessarily recommended by the inspector-general, and,
if the persons recommended were fit men, he thought that it
was not only wise, but right, that those recommendations
should be acted upon. In the case immediately under con-
sideration, he was ready to acknowledge that Major Priestley
was a very good man, but that Illr. Brownrigge was a more
proper man for the purpose. The Noble Duke wished to
know where the whole of this matter originated. He said he
could net conceive where it had originated. He (the Marquis
of Normanby) would tell him. It had originated in the
speech of the Prime Minister of the Crown, in the first debate
in the present session. Sir Robert Peel had said, in that
speech, that, as the inspector-general had the direction and
the responsibility of the conduct of the constabulary force ripen
his shoulders, he ought to have the power of recommending
the appointment of all the officers of that force. He, there-
fore, should move for a return of the appointment of the
deputy inspector-general since the decease of the late Major
Galway, of the constabulary force in Ireland, and of any com-
munications from the inspector-general respecting the ap-
pointments that had been made, and also a return of the
number of her Majesty's army in Ireland, from the Ist of
January, 1835, to the Ist of January, 1845, both inclusive.
The House then divided, when there appeared—

Contents
Non-contents •.. 32
Majority against the motion —2o
The return for the number of " Her Majesty's Army," &e.,
was subsequently agreed to, with an amendment by the Duke
of WELLINGTON, to the effect that a statement should also be
included in the return, of the number of soldiers sent out of
the country during the same period. The Noble Duke thought
this was requisite, in order to show the state of the country
during the years 1840 and 1841.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly 'before Four
o'clock.

NEW MEMBERS.

Mr. BRINSLEY SHERIDAN was introduced by Lord
Marcus Hill and Mr. Ord, and took the oaths and his
seat for Shaftesbury, ill the room of Lord Howard, now
Earl of Effingham.
Mr. DEEDEs took the oaths and his seat for East
Kent, in the room of Sir E. Knatchbull.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, in the absence of the

[lon. Member for Waterford, presented a petition in
avour of the Limerick and Waterford Railway Bill.
PUBLIC-HOUSES.—SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

Mr. CAREW presented petitions from Llandrossy,
and other places in Wales, praying the House to adopt
measures for restricting the number of public•houses,
and for preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors on
the Sunday.
Mr. THORNELY presented petitions from places in
Northumberland to the same effect.

Mr. KEMBLE presented petitions from Surrey to the
same effect.

Mr. J. S. WORTLEY presented similar petitions.
Lord ASHLEY presented a number of petitions from
places in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Scotland, to the
same effect.

Mr. GREENE presented similar petitions.
An HON. MEmenu presented petitions to the same
effect from places in the West of England.
Mr. HENLEY presented similar petitions.
Mr. FOX MAULE presented similar petitions.
Mr. LANE FOX presented similar petitions.
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION.

Mr. E. YORKE presented petitions from landowners,
and occupiers of land, in the county of Cambridge, com-
plaining that the interests of agriculturists had been
overlooked in the past measures of the Government, and
praying that an adequate protection should be afforded
them.