The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-15 00:00:00

RIOTS IN IRELAND.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that although he had not
given notice of his question, yet, with the sanction of the Go-
vernment, he would put it, as it !elated to an unfortunate
transaction which had occurred in his own country, he meant
the loss of life which had occurred at Ballinha4sy, and he wished
to know if a general order had been issued by the I ish Govern-
ment that the police should rot interfere in cases of fairs, or
larger parties collected, without expreSs instructions ; and that
when these instructions were fulfilled, they should again remove
from the place where such fair;was held. He (Mr.- Roche):had no
heAtation in saying, that if a single magistrate had been there,
and if that magistrate were resi,ected, this loss of life would not
have taken place.

Sir T. FiIEMANTLE, in answer to the question, said ha
would feel it to be his duty to abstain from giving any opinion
which might affect the proceedings before a competent tribunal.
He might sly, however, that there had been more than one
magistrate present at hallinhassy during the day on which the un-
fortunate occurrence took place. It was nine o'clock at night
when it took place, and there were then no magistrates present.
With reference to the orders alluded to, he would decline at
present giving any opinion regarding the issue of such a di-
rection.

NEW ZEALAND.
Mr. C. BULLER postponed his motion regarAng New
Zealand.

In answer to a question from Lord HOWICK,
Sir R. PEEL declined to give any other documents re.
s pectin g New Zealand except extracts. It would not be
thought advantageous to the public service to furnish copies of.
instructions to Captain Gray, the new Governor, which in-
structions had not yet reached the co!ony. He could only give
the extracts promised.
Lord HO WICK said he wished to know whether the ex•
tracts would enable the House to form an opinion as to the
policy pursued by the Government in New Zealand.—( Hear.)
Before Parliament separated it would be absolutely necessary
that it should know whether or not the Government meant to
pursue a different line of policy towards New Zealand than
that which had hitherto so unfortunately regulated the affairs
of that colony.
Sir R. PEEL said he could not sq, but he thought tl e
extracts which he would give would !lenity answer the purpose
of the Noble Lord. But if they did not, the Noble Lcrd
would be at full liberty to make any further motion on the sub.
jeet. He wished to know what had taken place in New Zea-
land, and whether any difficulty was felt in giving the papers
to the House.

Lord HOWICK wished to know when the discussion would
take place, and on what night the Right Hon. Baronet pro-
posed to take the vote on New Zealand.
Sir R. PEEL saw no reason why the papers should not be
laid on the table of the House to-morrow or the next
The discussion on New Zealand might be taken on Friday or
Monday next. It was intended to go into Committee of Sup-
ply to-morrow, and the matter might then be introduced in-
cidentally.
Lord HOWICK thought that it was not necessary to press
the vote, and that it might be gone into after the debate.
Mr. C. BULLER wished the debate to be positively fixed
for Monday.
Sir R. PEEL assented to the propositinn.
BRAZILIAN TARIFF.

Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to ask the Right Honourable
Baronet when the returns could be laid on the table of the
differential duties imposed on British commerce by the Bra-
zilian Chamber of Deputies.
Sir R. PEEL said, that he thought he should be able to
place them before the House to-morrow.