of the petitioners against the withdrawal of the Norwich
election petition was not without foundation, but that, as
there was no precedent bearing on the subject, their prayer
for the restoration of the petition must be left to the
consideration of the house. The committee reported Mr.
Brown not to have been actuated by corrupt motives, but
only by party zeal; but they strongly condemned the
system of balancing election petitions against each
other, by which, in connection with the present case, ten
seats had been affected.

Sir DE LACY EVANS brought forward the case of a
woman named Mary Hill, tried at the Middlesex
Sessions, and sentenced to seven years transportation, by
Mr. Sergeant Adams, who, after the sentence was
pronounced, had Increased the Term to Ten Years, in
consequence of the Woman's Violent Language in the Dock.
—Lord PALMERSTON treated the matter jocularly; but
concluded by stating that it was not intended to carry
the sentence into effect beyond the original term.

Mr. Napier brought the history of the Six-mile-
bridge Affray before the house, and moved for the legal
documents connected with the case. Having described
the circumstances at very great length, imputing the
chief and original blame to the Roman Catholic priests
who were implicated, and declaring his conviction that
the soldiers concerned had only done their duty, in
doing which he urged that a soldier ought to be
supported, he elaborately traced and defended the
course which he, as Attorney-General for Ireland, had
taken in the case, and animadverted upon that of the
subsequent Irish legal advisers of the crown. He
complained that the soldiers had been harassed and
ill-treated, while the priests had been allowed to escape
with impunity.—M. J. D. FITZGERALD taxed Mr.
Napier with want of candour, and described the
circumstances in another way, representing the electors as
having been carried by the landlords as prisoners to the
poll. He accused the magistrates of bad feeling, and the
soldiers of an unnecessary slaughter of unarmed persons.
The military, who had, he said, violated all the Queen's
regulations in such cases, had escaped from justice by
means of obstructions offered to it by the officers, aided
by Mr. Napier. He admitted that there had been rioting
and stoning, though not in the quarter where the
firing had taken place, and he denied that the priests
had instigated the disturbance, though allowing that the
priest Bourke had, in his excitement, forgotten himself
so far as to use unchristian language. After a
lengthened condemnation of Mr. Napier's official conduct
in regard to this case, he expressed his approbation of
that of the present law officers of the crown, and urged
that the sooner this calamitous transaction was forgotten
the better. He concluded by regretting that Mr.
Napier had chosen St. Patrick's day for bringing on an
Irish row.—Mr. CAIRNS warmly defended the conduct
of the soldiery, and contended, on the authority of the
Duke of Wellington, and in opposition to Judge Perrin,
that a soldier was bound to use his weapons when in
danger of being disabled from the execution of his trust.
He denounced the course of the present Irish Attorney-
General, especially in regard to his abstaining
from putting the priests into the felons' dock.
Every peasant in the county of Clare believed
that such a course had been dictated by fear.—Sir T.
YOUNG contended that the law had been fairly, honestly,
and impartially administered. It was a matter of regret,
first, that so few soldiers should have been called
in; for when the military were summoned, it should be
in numbers to render resistance hopeless; and secondly,
that they should have been posted in an unfortunate
position. He vindicated the course of the Irish Attorney-
General, who, he said, had shown no enmity against
the soldiery, but had pursued a wiser and higher course
than that of Mr. Napier. As regarded the priest
Bourke, he asserted the absolute necessity for calling
him as a witness, and the impropriety of subsequently
placing him on his trial at the same assizes, and before
the jury who had heard his evidence. And as regarded
future proceedings, their success would be very doubtful,
while there would be the certain mischief of keeping
alive ill-blood. He indignantly scouted the idea
that any member of the government could have sought
for popular support or favour in taking the course which
had been adopted in this case, and expressed his belief
that the best manner of obtaining the confidence of the
Irish people was by the strictest and justest administration
of the law. But if Mr. Napier thought he had any
case, government was ready to meet him on a definite
issue. The present motion was one which, if made at
all, should have been made in silence.—Mr. WHITESIDE
argued, from the ferocity which had been displayed
by the peasantry in another case which he cited,
and from his personal knowledge of the scene of the
affray in question, that if the military had not been
prompt, their lives would have been sacrificed. He
went into evidence to show the rioting, and the complicity
of the priests, energetically defended the magistrates
and the soldiery, and animadverted severely upon
the conduct of the Irish Attorney-General, whom he
accused of falsifying the promise of Lord Aberdeen.
He denied that this motion had any factious origin.—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked upon the intense
bitterness with which Mr. Whiteside had sought to
blacken the character of a professional brother, and
observed that the House of Commons ought not to be
made a court of appeal in such cases. In reference to
the case of the soldiers, he vindicated Mr. Brewster
from the charge of not assisting them, by stating that
the Secretary at War himself had given express orders
that they should be defended. He reiterated the previous
arguments which had been urged in favour of the
non-prosecution of the priests, and demanded of Messrs.
Napier and Whiteside whether, if they themselves
should return to office to-morrow, they would revive the
memory of the melancholy affair by sending Bourke
for trial. He concluded by energetically condemning
the tone in which the absent Attorney-General for Ireland
had been assailed.—The motion was then agreed to,
the debate having occupied seven hours and a half.

On Friday, March 18, the Maldon Election Committee
reported that the return of Mr. Miller and Mr. Ducane
was null and void, bribery and treating having been
practised by their agents; and recommended the
appointment of a commission to inquire into bribery and
treating generally in the borough.

In reply to questions put by Mr. BLACKETT, respecting
the Tyrannical Government of Austria in Italy,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL incidentally announced that "a
telegraphic message had been that day received,
conveying the intelligence that the Grand Duke of Tuscany
had liberated the Madiai, and that they had embarked
at Leghorn." This statement was received with cheers.
Lord John stated what this government had done in
regard to Lombard affairs. Her Majesty's government
had acceded to a request made by the Sardinian government,
that they would support the strong representations
made by that government to Vienna, against the
sequestration of the property of Sardinian subjects in
Lombardy. Lord Clarendon had expressed in the
strongest manner the sense of her Majesty's government
at conduct for which there was neither precedent nor
justification that he knew of. But he had lately heard
that the sequestration would be removed from the
property of those who could prove they had not supported
the insurrection.

The house adjourned to Monday, the 4th. of April.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS

Home of Lords.—Feb. 28th.—Bail In Error Bill read a second
time.

March 1st.—Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill passed.—Bail
in Error Bill committed.

3rd.—Registration of Assurances Bill read a second time.

10th.—Law of Evidence and Procedure Bill read a second
time.—Mutiny Bills read a second time.

11th.—Mutiny Bills passed.

17th.—County Polls Bill passed.

18th.—Royal Assent by Commission to the Mutiny, Marine
Mutiny, Consolidated Fund, County Election Polls, Grand
Jury Cess, Indemnity, Commons' Enclosure, and Inland
Revenue Bills.—Adjournment for the Easter Holidays.

House of Commons.—Feb. 28th.—Committee of Supply,
Ordnance Estimates.—Army Estimates reported.—Examiners in
Chancery Bill considered as amended.—Irish Land Tenure
Bills, Select Committee nominated.

March 1st.—Probate of Legacy Duties, Mr. Williams'
Resolution negatived.—Mr. T. Duncombe's motion as to Letter-
Carriers, and Mr. Collier's motion on Ecclesiastical Courts,
discussed and withdrawn.—Ordnance Estimates reported.—