The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-06 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDA.Y.

Some conversation was elicited, by a question put to
Lord Stanley respecting the administration of Sir Charles
Metcalfe in Canada. The noble lord announced that Sir
C. Metcalfe, in what he had done in that colony, had the
entire concurrence of her Majesty's government.
Ma. WALLACE, pursuant to notice, moved that the
order or the house, by which discussion on the presenta-
tion of petitions is prohibited, be rescinded.
Dr. Bow RING seconded the motion.
Sir R PEEL pointed out some of the inconveniences
attendant on the ancient practice of discussing petitions
on presentation, and instanced the fact that 25,000 peti-
tions had last session been presented, as a proof that the
people at large had not been discouraged by the present
practice born addressing their petitions to the house. It
could not be said that the petitions presented last session,
on the subject of education, had been without their effect.
The present practice did not preclude members from raising
debates on petitions; but it was required of them, when
they entertained such an intention, to give a regular notice ;
and such a discussion had infinitely more weight than a
mere incidental debate, for which the house was wholly
unprepared. The present practice had been adopted and
repeatedly confirmed by large majorities of the house,
and he hoped that the house would not now be prevailed
on by the arguments of the hon. members opposite to re-
scind the order.
Mr. BROTH EATON said that petitions were dealt with
much more fairly now than at a time when only one or
two petitions c.oild sometimes be presented on the same
evening, the time of the house being occupied by a few
hon. gentlemen, who got up debates regardless of the con.
venience of the house.
Mr. WARD, though he had formerly been in favour of
discussing petitions on presentation, was now convinced
that he had been in error.
Mr. FIELDEN supported the motion. If the hon. mem-
ber for Greenock went out alone in the division, he (Mr.
F.) would go out with him. (A laugh.)
Mr. WALLACE found his motion would be attended
with some technical inconvenience, and he would, there-
fore, beg leave to withdraw it.
Mr. WILMA ms expressed regret that orders should be
retained which were habitually violated, and which the
house had not even the power of enforcing. There was no
law, for instance, to prevent papers from interfering with
elections, and if they did so interfere, the house had not
the power of proceeding against the offender.
A somewhat desultory conversation followed, the result
of which was that the sessional orders were agreed to, no
amendment having been moved.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD objected to the paragraph referring
to the Repeal of the Union. He had never joined the
Repeal Association, but he would not pledge himself
against supporting such a measure as repeal at a future
time; and he thought that all to whom the rights of Ire-
land were dear ought to be extremely cautious of giving
such a pledge. He should move the omission of all those
words that referred to the Repeal of the Union.
Sir R. PEEL expressed surprise at this objection, after
the general satisfaction expressed on the preceding evening
with the manner in which the speech from the throne had
been framed. He certainly could not accede to the pro-
posed omission.
Mr. BLEWITT highly approved of the amendment. It
would be just as reasonable to call on the house to pledge
itself against ever repealing the corn laws, as to demand a
pledge such as was now demanded. The conduct of
England towards Ireland had often made him blush to
think he was an Englishman. (A laugh.)
Mr. ROBED mc rose to put a question to the right hon.
baronet opposite respecting the conduct of the gentleman
now conducting the state trials in Ireland. A gross breach
of law and decorum had been committed by the Attorney
General for Ireland, and he (Mr. Roebuck) hoped that
public officer would not escape the indictment to which he
had rendered himself liable. Mr. Roebuck drew a com-
parison between the public conduct of the Irish and the
English Attorney Generals, and while he looked with pride
to the manner in which the latter had conducted state
prosecutions, he could not but condemn in the strongest
terms the " desecration of justice" of which the Irish At-
torney General had been guilty.
Sir R. PEEL deeply regretted that the hon. gentleman
had been induced to make these observations, but nothing
should induce him (Sir R. Peel) to depart from the rule
he had laid down for himself of abstaining for the present
from all remarks on the trials now going on in Ireland. He
must say, however, that the remarks which had been made
were much more severe than the case at all called for. It
was impossible for the house to judge of the nature of the
irritation which led the Attorney General into a moment-
ary forgetfulness. Her Majesty's government had cer-
tainly no intention of taking such notice of the occurrence
as might lead to the dismissal of the Attorney General.
Mr. WYSE supported the motion for the omission of the
words objected to. The hon. gentleman admitted that the
attacks on the Attorney General had been such as must
have severely tried that gentleman's patience.
Lord ELIOT spoke warmly in defence of the character
of the Attorney General for Ireland, though the momentary
indiscretion into which he had allowed himself to be be-

trayed on the occasion alluded to was certainly not to be
vindicated.

Capt. BERNAL looked upon the Attorney General's.
conduct throughout the whole of these trials as calculated
to show his utter uniltuess fur the tyffiue hc held; and that
was the opinion of the friends as well as foes of that gen-
tleman.

Lord STANLEY had listened with pain to the able but
needlessly bitter speech of the hon. member for Bath. No
one attempted to vindicate the infirmity which the Attor-
ney-General had shown, but he (Lord Stanley) confessed
that he had often himself felt the greatest difficulty in
governing his temper when remarks were made in that
house of a much more moderate character than those to
which the Attorney-General had been subjected. A
systematic attack had been carried on throughout these
trials with a view to provoke that gentleman into some
indiscretion ; and though that might not vindicate a pub-
lic officer, whom the Government could not hold to be
entirely blameless, yet he (Lord Stanley) hoped the House
of Commons would not, upon the information now before
it, sanction the severe censure to which expression had
been given. _ _

Ser3eant MURPHY attacked the general conduct of the
Irish Atorney-General, and maintained that for the act
to which more direct allusion had been made, that public
officer ought to be ignominiously dismissed. He would
appeal to the English Attorney-General on the subject,
whose conduct in the prosecution of state trials presented
so strong a contrast to what had lately occurred in Ire-
land.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM reminded the house that her Ma-
jesty had forborne all comment upon the state trials now
going on, and he had believed that a general feeling pre-
vailed in the house that a similar forbearance ought to be
shown there. In a very short time all these matters
might be freely discussed, when the hon. and learned
gentleman would have an opportunity of meeting in person
any attack that might be directed against him. Under
great provocation, the Attorney-General for a moment
departed from that prudent conduct which he had pre-
scribed to himself; but it was not for a popular assembly
to take upon itself to pronounce on the conduct of a pub-
lic officer in his absence, when the court of justice where
the occurrence had taken place had already declared itself
on the subject. He (Sir J. Graham) would certainly
never consent to be a party to that ignominious dismissal
which had that evening been called for.
Mr. 'WARD was glad that no attempt was made to
excuse the indiscretion of which the Attorney General had
been guilty, and which that gentleman would probably ac-
knowledge himself if he were now in the house; but that
would not remove the impression which had been pro-
duced, that a public officer had been guilty of conduct
that proved his unfitness for the charge he held.
Mr. SHAW could not have believed that so ungenerous,
unjust, and unjustifiable an attack could have been made
by one gentleman, or one lawyer, on another. Was the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) the man of all others the
most qualified to censure the Attorney General for Ire-
land for the occurrence referred to ? The Attorney Ge-
neral was an honour to his profession • and considering
the trying position in which he was placed, he bad acquit-
ted himself most creditably in the discharge of a very dif-
ficult duty.

Dr. STOCK, in answer to an appeal from Mr. Shaw,
said that the Attorney General throughout a very trying
course, up to the unfortunate occurrence which could not
but he regretted, had acquitted himself in a most exem-
plary manner, though it must be admitted that the selec-
tion of Mr. Smith for the office he held had been a most
unfortunate one.

Mr. BROTHERTON said that he should be glad to see
the house come to some resolution in condemnation of
duelling. At the same time he thought many of the re-
marks that had been made that evening ought to have
been reserved till the Attorney-General was present.
Sir H. BARRON made a violent attack on the Irish
Attorney-General, for the whole course of his proceed-
ings in these state trials, and dwelt particularly on the
exclusion of every Roman Catholic from the trial, as an
insult to all the Catholics of Ireland. If that gentleman
was retained in his present office, Ireland never could
be governed in peace.
After some observations from Dr. BOWRING, in sup-
port of Mr. S. Crawford's motion, the house divided,
and the amendment was rejected by a majority of 142
against 35.

—On our return, after the division, we found Mr. FREE cif
complaining of the appointment of Englishmen to the
most important offices in Ireland.
Sir R. PEEL with some warmth vindicated the appoint-
ment of Lord Devon as one of the commissioners for in-
quiring into the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
The noble lord was appointed as an excellent Irish land.
lord, and as one, at the same time, well acquainted with
English law on the subject.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD passed a high enlogium upon the
commission, for the appointment of which the highest
credit was due to her Majesty's government.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, after a few brief remarks, moved
the amendment, of which he had given notice, in the last
paragraph of the Address.
Sir R. PEEL said, there was nothing in the Address to
pledge any gentleman on the subject of the registration of
voters in Ireland, and therefore he hoped the honouratle
gentleman would see there was no necessity for pressing
his amendment. The government were about to bring in
a bill on the subject of the franchise in the counties in
Ireland, and it would be much better to postpone all dis-
cussion till that bill was before the house.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE consented to withdraw his amend-
. ._