HC Deb 28 February 1853 vol 124 c740

said, that in accordance with the notice he had given, he begged to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether the exposition of the law with regard to the duty of soldiers in riots or on emergencies, as set forth by Judge Perrin in his charge to the grand jury of the county of Clare on the subject of the Six-mile Bridge affair, was really the law, and whether it was in accordance with the opinions of Her Majesty's legal advisers?


said, that in answer to the question which the noble Lord bad done him the honour to put to him, he had only to say that he thought it was the duty of the Attorney General, as well as of other members of the profession to which he belonged, to take the law as it came from the Judges; and he hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not think him inconsistent if he declined to pass any judgment upon the law as it fell from the learned Judge on the occasion referred to.


then gave notice that on Friday, March 4, on the Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, he would move—"First, that the exposition of the law as set forth by Judge Perrin, with regard to the duty of soldiers employed for the suppression of riots, or on emergencies, is in direct contradiction to the instructions contained in Her Majesty's regulations for the Army, and antagonistic to the principles laid down in the Mutiny Act; second, that in the opinion of this House the soldiers of the 31st Regiment were fully justified in their conduct on the occasion of the riot at Six-mile Bridge, and are entitled to commendation for the discipline and forbearance they showed on that occasion."