The Sun. — London, England, 1837-04-22 00:00:00

di :iebate. Now, with reference to what had fallen from Noble Lords o p pos i te, he contended that this was no interference with the G overnment of Spain. What special pleading had there been used in this debate? What co-operation or assistance was it hot to give all the assistance in our power to furthe r the object which our ally aimed at ? He would contend that if the Noble Duke had been in the command of the Spanish army, he would have expected from then, Precisely the same assistance as he had expected in the eas e of Ad m i ra l P enrose. The Noble Duke had given a true and j ust account with respect to the employment of Marines. Now, he was quite certain that those Marines hWho were employed in Spain could not be placed in safer ands than those of that gallant, able, and discreet officer, Lord John Hay. He was satisfied that under his com mand the national honour would be preserved. The No ble Duke, however, had commented upon one thing upon w hich he (Viscount Melbourne) wished to have some dis tinct explanation. The Noble Duke had adverted to what had been done in Spain as matters arising out of Stock Ex change speculations or machinations, and that the state of thing s in Spain was kept up because the Stock Exchange speculators thought it necessary that troops should he em ployed here or there. Did the Noble Duke mean to say that his Majesty's Government had designs of that kind, or had any Privity with those persons on the Stock Ex change ? H e thought the Noble Duke had expressed himself very warmly on this point, and, indeed, so much so as to leave some imputation of the kind. It was, indeed, an extraordinary notion to suppose that persons engaged in t hese pursuits or designs had any influence with the Go vernment. He could only declare for himself, and on be half „ f h • „ Colleagues, that they had not been influenced by anY motive s of the kind which had been alluded to. The Duke of WELLINGTON was understood to re- Peat that we had no right to interfere in this contest in the way we had done. If the Noble Viscount referred to 7hat he h a d sa i d, he would find that he (the Duke of Wel .l/?,_g,t°n) had s t a t e d th e o bj ect o f t h e treaty was a bl oc k a d e. 'Hs was intended even after the month of August. The Noble Duke concluded by declaring that he ha not, and I t ' l e i v er could have, the least wish or intention to impute to vis..(3reverument such motives as those to which the Noble Viscount had referred. , r ,", answer to some question put by Lord ALVANLEY, tw; L i ne Earl of MINTO said that Lord John Hay was tile retreat of the British Legion and Spanish troops from rtern an i, He was upon the ground, and present at every ini'vernent made by the Marines ; and every step was fact, upon his judgment. He believed, in point of act, that if it were necessary Lord John Hay was, and always would be, present. Of course his Lord shin was the responsible Commander, and the Officers t nder hi m were responsible to him. He believed that he battalion of Marines were never engaged but in his e r es ence. With regard to another question whi c h h a d t en Put by the Noble Lord, there must, of course, in cer ain instances, be a communication between the two Gene nerals. General Evans was perfectly independent of the Mari nes, and the Marine battalion and Kiog's troops were tinder the sole command of Lord John Hay. They were a separate force, under the sole command of Lord John Hay. He did not think this the most convenient course for adop tion, but it was the only shape in which the King's troops could co-operate. He took it for granted that the ge neral outlines of the operations were matters of arrange 'pent amongst the different officers. Lord ASHBURTON adverted to a charge which bad b b een made against him of having said that peace could not e maintained for six months when the present Ministry came into office. He denied that he had ever said anything of the kind, and for what he had said he would refer to the Pages of the Mirror of Parliament, where the whole pas sage was to be found without any such prophecy as that which had been attributed to him. What he had said upon a question which had reference to Belgium in stating his °Pinion was, that the affairs of that country were not in s uch a st a t e as to secure the peace of Europe. But nomi nally the Government of Belgium was established. This was the substance of what he had said, and the prediction which hihad ma d e was one w hi c h h e was proud o f h av i ng ma d e. e did not now think it necessary to waste their Lord -BhiPs' time on this part of the subject, but he would advert to ,, the majority on thi s ques ti on , o f 36, i n anot h er H ouse . tle believed that nearly two-thirds of the other House also entertained the opinion which was the unanimous °Pinion of the country in reference to this question. In t he course of his recollection of Parliamentary proceed ings (and he would appeal to the Noble Viscount) be never recollected a great debate like that which had just been concluded elsewhere to pass over in the other House of Parliament, where the conduct of the Government was arraigned, and a direct motion to arraign the conduct of his Majesty's Government- Lord HOLLAND rose to order. The Noble Lord was out of order in alluding to what had occurred in ano ther House of Parliament. But not only did the Noble Lord allude to the debates in the House of Commons, but INe was about to enter into a disquisition on the conduct of ' 4 Members. Lord ASHBURTON said a few words which did not ?e ach us. Th e motion was then agreed to. Several Bills were advanced a stage, and the House ad- Jourrled at ten minutes past Ten. the shipping interest it gave but very little advantage, for according to the statement of the Honourable Mem ber himself; ships were to be taxed for that from which they could derive no possible benefit.—(Hear, hear.) It was the duty of the Government, in his opinion, to examine propositions of this kind, and to come forward and state to the House whether they approved of them or not. Such projects as the one now before the House were merely raised for private purposes, and the individuals who wished to establish them ought to pay for them. He would never cease to raise his voice as long as he had a seat in that House against the system of passing tolls for the maintenance of harbours. It was a dangerous principle, and there was no possibility of limiting or preventing it, unless the House on occasions like the pre sent opposed it. Mr: CAI LEY thought the speech of the Hon. Mem ber for Tynemouth would have been much more applicable to the Committee of last year. Mr. G. F. YOUNG—I was on the Dublin Election Committee during the sitting of that Committee.—(Hear.) Mr. CAYLEY was proceeding to address the House on the Bill before it, when he was interrupted by Sir Augustus Clifford, Usher of the Black Rod, who appeared at the table, and summoned the House to the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to several Bills. The SPEAKER, attended by several Members, immedi ately quitted the House. On the SPEAKER'S return, he reported to the House that the Royal assent had been given by Commission to several Bills ; for which, see Lords' Report.' Mr. CAYLEY resumed. He supported the Bill, be cause of the report of the Committee of last year. He was not in favour of every clause of the Bill, but he would support it on the ground he had already named. Sir G. CLERK, as Member for one of the northern ports, was most decidedly opposed to the Bill, because it went against the interests of the shipowners of these ports, and against the principle laid down by the House, that passing tolls were bad in principle. He was of opinion that no private harbour could be of any use for general pur poses. He cared not whether the Bill was opposed now or afterwards, for the passing toll clause must be struck out, and then the Bill would fall to the ground. The LORD ADVOCATE gave his strongest opposi tio❑ to the Bill. Sir F. TRENCH supported the Bill, considering it a most important measure in favour of the cause of huma nity. The harbour of Scarborough, as it at present existed, though extremely defective, had been greatly productive to the safety of life and property. Out of 217 vessels that bad been wrecked, no less than 40 had been lost in the bight of Scarborough. The petition that had been presented that night had been laughed at by the Honourable Mem ber for Durham. Now he (Sir Frederick Trench) had looked to the names attached to that petition, and he found a great number of them actually residing in that part of the country which the Hon. Member represented. He was sorry the Hon. Member had thrown out remarks of that nature, because he could tell him they were utterly without foundation. There never was a stronger case for the second reading of a Bill than that which was then pre sented before the House. He trusted Hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble of reading the evidence given before the Committee, and of coasidering the question, before they made up their minds to oppose a measure which was ab solutely necessary for the preservation of life and property. —(Cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. LAMBTON must vote against the Bill, and he should do so upon principle. Mr. P. THOMSON was decidedly opposed to the prin ciple of passing -tolls, although he did not think himself justified, on the part of the Government, in opposing the second reading of the Bill. He should prefer leaving it to the House to decide whether the Bill should be sent to a Committee or not ; but if after it left the Committee it contained those clauses relative to the levying of passing tolls, he should on the part of the public decidedly oppose it. Mr. BELL objected to the Bill, and should give his decided support to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Durham. Mr. ROBINSON said that a great difference of opinion had existed in the Committee with respect to the present Bill, and he, for one, had opposed, as he always should, the system of levying passing -toll. Sir E. CODRINGTON thought the question could never be properly settled unless the Government took it into their own hands. Mr. BETHEL defended the Report of the Committee and could assure the House that every gentleman belong ing to it had notice of the day the Report was to be agreed to. Mr. B. THONIPSON conjured Hon. Members to pause before they threw out a Bill which was calculated to do so much good. Sir J. JOHNSTONE replied. Mr. W. DUNCOMBE wished to correct the supposi tion that the Bill imposed any now duties : it did no such thing. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the second reading B6 Against it Majority against the second reading... 4 The Bill was consequently lost. On the motion of Mr. MILES, the Clum Forest Inclo sure Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted. ROUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 21. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before four o'clock. Mr. LOWTH ER brought up the Report of the York and North Midland Railway Bill. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from Sunderland against the Bridlington Harbour Bill. On the motion of the Hon. Alderman the Durham and Sunderland Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. SCARBOROUGH HARBOUR. Sir J. JOHNSTONE moved the second reading of the Scarborough Harbour Bill. If he did not think an efficient harbour could be established, he would not have brought the present Bill before the House, but he was sure it could ; and further he was certain it would be a great improvement to Scarborough, and of benefit to the shipping interests. he next point upon w hi c h he should ground his was, that the harbou r was wanted. Scarborough was Placed within the deepest part of the indentation to the coast, between Flarnborough Head and Whitby elt. It was not denied that each of these large indenta "os on the coast required harbours to enable vessels which "old not weather the headlands to anchor with safety. It was stated that three millions, and a thousand men, were an nually lost on the coast—the harbour he advocated Wou ld be ca l cu l a t e d to save m an y o f the lives, Proi much o f th e p ro perty. By th e i mprovements .Posed, the vessels would be enabled to enter it at half a tid e ea r li er than now. At any time of the lowest tide there W ould be five feet water, while the spring tide at the lowest w.nuld be seven feet. He hoped, on the principle of h i uma ilttY, the House would agree to the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) b W es not more than fourteen months ago si, boat, with fourteen men, was lost, who decidedly . would the b ltv e been saved had the harbour been Lr°P°sed improved state. The Hon. Member con i c n luded jlll "ing the second reading of the Bill. and Mr. PEASE objected to the second reading of the Bill ; notaithstandinr, the statements of the Hon. Member 4.'PPosite, it was most remarkable that all the shipowners theinterest was in the trade with Scarborough had pe T t h it e w har_ H o e d against the introduction of the measure. "" of Scarbor ough had already had upwards of 60,0001. exp endedupon. been derived, it, from which no benefit whatever had that the exp enTad h e had no hesitation whatever in saying p d b the Bill would have the Same effect, T ho u i r l e art 3 o ro u - r o of Scarborough, according to the accessible that had been iven by several naval men, only ve:essible for eight hou g rs out of the twenty-four ; wand an he ;_.ould, therefore, put it to the House, whether it an es. Il n e so large an expenditure under such circums o f Sir forl-1". Membe r here referred to the evidence thJeolinstone and others before the Shipinr , Coinmittee, Would Purpose of showing that the harbour in question nny as vessels confe no advantages on the Shipping comm Int o were more likely to receive damage by running to a port like that of Scarborough than by standing out h. ~0 2 1 e ,a: At a public meeting held in the town of Scar de o r a very strong opinion against the projectedu ha : g %vas expressed by many of the influential n nts.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The payment I under such circumstances, was, •• his opinion,highl o y f t ° b b e ie ', lt Ytable, and for these reasons he should move that itturlll.be read a second time that day six months. • 'Alderman THOMPSON rose to second the amend- C a nt, b ecause the Bill would inflict a very great hardship on 'llll constituents. The ships belonging to Sunderland tax.had 4.. 4 . r, ;before been proposed to be subjected to a passing_ c_ buc_tnis Bill, no ship which passed within 100 miles of b 441111 would be exempt from the tax. It was a novel,_ 4;7 'n his *opinion a very bad precedent, for the . co t rn he of this country. There was no passing toll in eot ' f or of Sunderland, yet 12,000/. a year bad been laid of that t wenty years, all contributed by the ship-owners ship..:" Port. Was it just or honest, then, that these r.. %veers were to be taxed in this way, for the rrPo.,se of making pleasure grounds and improvements ine people of Scarborough. He opposed the Bill • ustle ground, because on a gale from the North East no ~,,,"L:tibte.tioleulndnglyo into the proposed improved harbour, when that wind in which vessels from the Tvne could sietun ,Y Make any use of it. He, therefore, with pleasure bur haumed the amendment of the Hon. Member for South h4rßillG u • r • YOUNG opposed the second reading of the tr aveo lVn two grounds. First, that it was in direct cone chased " of the principle which the House had de hour ass determination to preserve, namely, that in har -43i1l it would not sanction the payment of passing tolls ; %y ou] , fl dlY, that it did not offer those advantages which u induce the House to sanction such a measure, To The Belfast and Hollywood Railway Bill was also read a second time, and ordered to be committed. TRINITY (NORTH LEITH) HARBOUR. Sir ANDREW L. HAY moved the third reading of the Trinity (North Leith) Harbour Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE would feel it his duty to oppose the third reading of the Bill. Sir G. CLERK also opposed the Bill. The Bill was then read a third time, and passed. The Goring Bridge Bill was read a third time, and passed. Mr. W. O'BRIEN begged to know whether precedence would be given on Monday to the Irish Poor-law Bill ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not give any decided answer. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1837. published ought to be left to the Committee. He would not say that the resolution of the Noble Lord was strictly neces sary, but lie thought it was expedient, and he should there fore support it. All publication should take place under the authority and sanction of the Speaker, and not otherwise. The evidence taken before the Committee on the affairs of Canada had not been published, because the Hon. Memb..Jr for Bath suggested that doing so might close the doors against an amicable arrangement. Evidence affecting the character and honour of individuals ought not to be published without the sanction and full consideration of the House. The Com mittee had been anxious to avert this appeal to the House. They did not think that although the Hon. Member for South wark had avowed himself at the Stamp Office as the proprie tor of the True Sun, in which the publication took place—they did not still think that he would have braved the decision of that House, and submit, as he said ha should, to go to New. gate, or to be expelled. The Hon. Gentleman had been told by the Committee that he was guilty of a breach of privilege, but instead of attending to that representation, he still con tinued to publish, nor did he publish the evidence fairly, for in many instances he gave garbled extracts only of the evidence. But was this all? No. The Hon. Member actually published a document which the Committee had not received in evidence at all, but had laid aside, to consider whether or not they would receive it at a future time ; and yet in 48 hours after the Committee received this document, and before it was even con.. sidered, the Hon. Member published it. The question of pub lication, however, was only a secondary one. The great ques tion involved in this discussion was, whether or not that House was prepared to maintain its privileges ; and rather than per sist in violating those privileges, he hoped the Hon. Member would still bow to the decision of the House, if it adopted the Noble Lord's resolution. Mr. HARVEY denied that be had said he would brave the decision of the House, or set himself against_ the majo r ity o f the Members ; but he said that he w ou ld submit to be sent to Newgate, or expelled, if he infringed the law. With respect to the document to which the Right Hon. Baronet had alluded, that document was brought before the Committee by Mr. Hawley, a witness, and there was therefore every right to con sider it part of the evidence. After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM, in explanation, Mr. HUME said, that although he agreed that the privi leges of the House were generally good and salutary, still he thought it would be for the public advantage that the evidence taken before Committees should be published. Cases might arise in which it would be desirable to suppress part of the evidence taken before a Committee. This was done in the case of the evidence given by the Duke of Wellington before the Finance Committee. It was deemed advisable that the Noble Duke's evidence should not be printed. In this he, as a member of the Committee, concurred, and he regretted it ever since, for the publication of it might have saved an ex penditure of 2,000,0001. in Canada. There was nothing peculiar in this Committee to require that the evidence should not be published from day to day. On the contrary, it would tend to disabuse the public, and to remove a great deal of the misrepresentation that had gone abroad. If ever there was a case which ought to be made an exception to their general principle it was this. They were near carrying a pro position of the same kind in the Committee. It was lost by a majority of only one to two. Mr. W. W V'NN said the original motion of the Noble Lord and the amendment were not opposed directly one to the other. The motion went only to assert the general rule, but that was not incompatible with making the particular case of this Corn mittee an exception. The great point was to maintain still the privileges of the House. A Committee could have no privileges but what it derived from the House. The power of sending for !persons, papers, and records, of adjourning and reporting from time to time, was given under the authority of the Speaker, who derived his authority from the House. The power of reporting from day to day might be given, as well as the power of reporting from time to time. It appeared to him very clear that it would be highly inconvenient if one Member of a CommUtee were permitted to publish the evidence taken before that Committee from day to day. The House, how ever, if they judged proper, might direct the evidence to be so published. If the amendment was brought forward in a sub stantive shape he, for one, should have no objection to it. Mr. WA RBURTON was ready to support the general rules, asserting the privileges of that House, whether as to the printing of evidence taken before Committee, or to the exclu sion of strangers. lie and his Hon. :Friend ( Mr. Hume) sometimes infringed the privileges of the House by reporting what took place with closed doors, and in so doing they thought they exercised a sound discretion. He would not be under stood, therefore, as condemning, in all cases, any lion. Mem ber for publishing what occurred in a Committee. He never sat on a Committee, select or secret, the proceedings before which might not be published at Charing-cross without in convenience. Mr. W A KLE Y said, if ever there was a case in which it was desirable to publish the evidence from day to day, it was this. The interests to be vindicated were those of the poor and feeble, who had not the power to protect themselves, and could not afford to hire a person to protect them. It might, indeed, be said that they were all disposed to protect the poor ; and he felt himself bound in justice to take this opportunity of openly declaring that in the Committee it was, from the pro ceedings, impossible to ascertain who were friends or enemies, for the inquiry was conducted in the :most fair, manly, and candid spirit.—(Cheers.) He saw in the Committee no dis position on any side to refuse any evidence, no matter what the tendency of it might be. If they refused to publish the evi dence from day to day, he feared that then an unfavourable, however unwarrantable, opinion out of doors might be the con sequence. If this was not allowed, they might as well termi nate their proceedings at once. Mr. WARD would support the amendment, if brought for ward as a substantive motion. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the debate be adjourned to that day six months. The amendment might then be brought forward as a substantive proposition. The Times newspaper published every morning the evidence taken in the case of the Longford election ; and why should the lion. Member for Southwark be particularly selected ? The rule of the House was violated day after day. Mr. ROEBUCK said if the House wished evidence not to be made public they had nothing to do but to make any Com mittee secret, in place of making it select. He was not in clined to make a martyr in this case. Lord J. RUSSELL said his object was not to make the Hon. Member for Southwark a martyr, but as the privilege of the House was called in question, he felt it his duty to submit this resolution, for the purpose of removing any doubt upon the point. He hoped the House would have the opinion of the Chair upon it. Mr. ROBINSON would support the original motion, but if the amendment were brought forward as a substantive pro position he should support it, because in this case it was most desirable the public should know that there was no disposition to withhold the evidence. Mr. RICHARDS would affirm the general proposition of the Noble Lord. The SPEAKER said that all papers connected with the proceedings of the House were printed under the authority of the House, and for the use of the Members. It was different with papers printed by order of a Committee, and such papers were for the use only of Members of the Committee. This rule was occasioned by circumstances which occurred in 1814, when a Committee sat for the purpose of inquiring into the mode in which lunatic asylums were managed. It was thought the evi dence might, if made public, be productive in soma cases of pain and inconvenience, and hence arose the rule that papers printed by order of a Committee we r e f or th e use on ly o f i ts Members. They were printed under the ,authority vested in the Speaker by the House, but it was on the faith, and with the understanding, that they were for the use only of theiCom mittee. If any member of a Committee took upon himself to have such papers printed and given to the public, the Speaker would have no alternative but to recal his order for printing, and, if that should not be found sufficient, to bring the matter before the House. A Select Committee had no authority of itself to print papers. Their authority to print them was derived from the House, and therefore there could be no doubt that in the present case there was a breach of privilege. The House then divided on the adjournment of the question ( Mr. T. Duncombe's motion), when the numbers were— For the motion BB Against it Majority against the adjournment 43 On our re-admission to the gallery, we found— Mr. HARVEY on his legs. The Hon. Gentleman ex pressed his hope that the amendment he had proposed on the motion of the Noble Lord would be disposed of that night— ( Hear)—because the merits of the question, as far as regarded the opinions of Hon. Members on both sides of the House, were already exhausted. Though the subject was undoubt edly one of very great importance, yet, if it were to stand over till Monday, the whole question would be re-opened, every Member would have something to say upon it, and the time of the House would be again wasted in discussion upon a point which was already fully matured for division. If, however, this proposition wore not agreed to, he hoped the Noble Lord would allow it to come on on Monday in the shape of a substantive motion, for, if not, he (Mr. Harvey) would move it as an amendment on that night to the Order of the Day, let the business before the House be whatever it might. —( Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL would not object to the amendment being brought forward in a substantive shape on Monday, upon which, Mr. HARVEY immediately withdrew it until that day, and the discussion ended. AFFAIRS OF CANADA. Mr. P. M. STEWART wished, before the Houso pro ceeded to the Order of the Day on the resolutions respecting Canada, to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he had received any information with respect to a letter of M. Papineau, addressed to the House of Assembly of Up per Canada, containing certain resolutions which had been come to by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada ; also an address of that Chamber, calling upon the House of Ls t g_ sembly of Upper Canada to adopt the said resoli:.:; ions and an add ress o f t h e A ssem bly o f Upper Can- .0. to I „ ,is Majes e ty, prayi n g for the annexation, of Montrer.4' to that pro- vinc? Sir G. GREY said he had received a s'a:;.ng of resolutiona from Lower Canada, but not axaetly of nature alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman. Re In reply to a ques tion f rom M r . E BUCK Sir G. GREY said that his Majv tv ' s Government had re ceived no information of mn , ili „ --- r cr ican ce re l at i ve to a resolu tion of a Committee of to any e or _at of Assembly of that colony to make the Legislative Cow Mr. O'CONNELL ask . received a copy,oil elective. cd theilon. Baronet whether he bad the Bill to 7 . lilch t 49 Mr. O'CONN brought forward in the. ik ,use of Assembly of Upper Canada ? of a cer' a'in Bill which Mr. Haggerman bad Sir G. GREY plied in the negative, but had understood the Bill in question had b ,een rejected. a majority of two.--CM ; were unable to catch the name of ELL si Lid that it had only been rejected by I t t on, and Learned Member referred.) Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the Under Secretary would not object to lay on the table of the House the string of reso tions from Lower Canada which he had just stated he had received. Sir G. GREY had no objection to do so, together with n copy of the despatch received at the same time from the Go vernor of the colony.—( Hear.) Mr. HUME begged to know from the Hon. Baronet whe ther he had received any intelligence respecting the Report o f a Committee as to the existence of Orange Lodges in the pro vince of Upper Canada ? Sir G. GREY had not received any very perfect informa tion upon the subject. Mr. HUME expressed his astonishment at the answer of the Under-Secretary, as he (Mr. Hume) held in his hand in formation upon the subject.—( Hear.) Sir G. GREY had no objection to lay upon the table a copy of what he had received, provided, at the same time he knight be allowed to accompany that information with a copy of the dispatch of Sir Francis Head, received with it." Mr. C. BULLER asked a question with respect to New Brunswick, the purport of which did not reach the gallery. Sir W. MOLESWORTH presented a petition from the Working Men's Association against the resolutions of his Ma jesty's Ministers relative to Lower Canada. Laid on the table. Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the Order of the Day on the adjourned debate on the Canada resolutions. Mr. LEADER, in rising to move the postponement of the further consideration of these resolutions, was convinced it was the wish of his Majesty's Government, as well as Hon. Gen tlemen opposite, in supporting these resolutions, to restore tranquillity to Lower Canada.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath had proposed the other night a plan regarding Canada to which the Noble Lord had objected, as not being in conformity with the wishes of the Canadian people, and of which the Right Hon. Ba ronet opposite had said that it was not sanctioned by any con stitutional authority.—( Hear, hear.) Now, as that plan of his Learned Friend was highly approved of by many persons out of that House as well as by many Hon. Members within it, all he (Mr. Leader) wished was, that his Majesty's Govern ment should postpone these resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian people to state whether they agreed with the plan of his Hon. and Learned Friend or not.—( Hear.) It was allowed by the Noble Lord himself that the chief object of the resolutions was to prevent the non payment of certain officials.—(Hear.) But the question was, whether the rights of a whole people should be postponed to those of a few Judges--whether the salaries of a few unpaid officials were to be put in comparison with the constitutional claims of a whole nation.--( Cheers.) He trusted the Noble Lord would not so insult the Canadian people, and for such a purpose.—(Hear, hear.) The course the Noble Lord was pursuing was in every sense unjustifiable ; and he might depend upon it the effect of these resolutions would be not only to exasperate the people of Lower Canada, but also to alarm those of the Upper Pro vince, as well as all their North American colonies.--( Hear, hear.) The question was not confined to Lower Canada alone, but affected the whole of our American colonies : and he would once more, and in the most friendly spirit, entreat the Noble Lord, if he could not agree to any plan proposed by him (Mr. Leader), and those who thought with him upon this subject, at least to put off the further consideration of his own until communication with Canada could be made and replied to.— ( Hear, hear.) Ile assured the Noble Lord that it was as pain tul to those with whom he acted to oppose the policy of the Noble Lord as it was for the Noble Lord to be opposed by them.—( Hear, hear.) They had ever supported the Govern ment when they could do so conscientiously ; but, in the pre sent instance, they felt it to be their imperative duty not to do so.—(Hear, hear.) He begged to move, as an amendment to the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon them, " that their further consideration be deferred for six months," for the reasons he before had stated.--( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and begged to ask the Noble Lord what he would do in case the House of Assembly should refuse to give their consent to the adoption of the reso lutions ? Would the consequence of such a refusal be the restoration of good feeling towards the mother country on the part of the Canadians ?—(Hear.) For ten long years the people of G r anada had petitioned that House in vain. On one occasion they had sent up a petition, signed by 87,000 per sons, and he would put it to the Noble Lord whether, under such circumstances, lie was warranted in persisting in the course he had adopted ? He would ask him to give the Ca nadians time to consider these resolutions. It was true that 318 Members of that House had voted in favour of the No ble Lord's plan, and only 56 against it. But let not the No ble Lord imagine that the people of Canada would be in fluenced by any unanimity of the votes of that House in their views of the justice or injustice of that plan. Sir G. GREY could only say, in rising to support the motion for proceeding with the Order of the Day, that the Government had, with regard to this question, taken that course which they felt imposed upon them by a deep sense of their duty to this country and her colonies--(Hear, hear)._ that they saw nothing inconsistent with their principles in adopting that course, and that they most assuredly would not shrink from it. Mr. O'CONNELL wished the Government would shrink Hear, and a laugh)—for they might rely upon it they would cause great dissatisfaction to both their Canadian colonies. Sir Francis Head seemed to be a great favourite with the Govern ment, and yet no later than last year he had given considerable encouragement to Orange Lodges in Upper Canada.— ( Hear.) There was another point he wished to press on the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. The Solicitor-General of Upper Canada, Mr. Haggerman, had, on the last day of the sitting of the House of Assembly of that province, when one-third of the Members had left town, brought in a Bill for a repeal of the Aet by which the clergy reserves were held in trust equally for the benefit of all the people, both Protestant and Catholic. Now, the Bill which that gentleman had, un der these circumstances, introduced, had for its object to re invest these revenues in the Crown, for the sole benefit of the Protestant Church.—( Hear, hear.) Was that, he would ask, in unison with the policy and professions of the Government ? —(Cheers.) Whether so or uot, it was the policy of their re presentative, Sir Francis Head. He was astonished that the Hon. Member for Worcester and others connected with the Land Company, which was already unpopular in Canada, should render it still more so by supporting the resolutions of the Noble Lord.—( Hear. ) Sir G. GREY Could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentle man that the Statement he had made with respect to the Soli citor-General was altogether at variance with the facts. Mr. P. M. STE WA R T objected to any further delay with regard to these resolutions. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had said that 56 had been the minority in that House upon this question, but let him remind that Hon. Member that 56 had been the majority in the House of Assembly in Lower Canada, when the 94 notorious resolutions had been carried in that Assembly, in 1834. —( Hear.) He would venture to say, how ever, that the minority, in any division which might take place upon the question, would be less than those on preceding occa. stons.—( Cheers.) Talk of giving time to the Canadians to consider them. Why, from 1828 up to the present moment, the abuses of which they complained had been undergoing correction—( Hear ) — and M. Morin himself had stated, that out of the last twenty appointments which had been made in Lower Canada, not one had been given away with an eye to increasing the influence or interest of the Government. The two main resolutions were passed, and he trusted the Govern. ment would not be induced to concede with respect to the remainder. was once begua it must he continued. The Noble Lord should bite as well as show his teeth. Indeed the intimi dation system had already been begun. Sir Charles Grey, one of the Commissioners, told every one with whom he conversed—had told many members of the House of Assem bly—that England- was prepared to send out thre, , or four regiments, and to force the resolutions down the throats of the Canadian people with the bayonet. He (Mr. Roebuck) had a letter from M. Papineau stating that fact. Were these the persons to send out to pacify the Canadians ? lie would beg of the Noble Lord not to put faith in such men, or fol low the advice of the Right lion. Baronet. Let the Noble Lord delay a little—offer his (Mr. Roebuck's) plan—and see whether it would be accepted. The Resolution of 1825 had been referred to, but this resolution had never been carried out. Would the Noble Lord give the people a majority in i accordance with that resolution ? If not, what would he eive ? Of what use would be a half-dozen in the Legislative Coun cil ? How would it operate if tried here in the Upper House? Would not the composition of that House be still the same? If the object was to give the House of Assembly a predomi nance in the Council, why not do it at once, and not palter o with a sham reform? Where was the necessity for hurrying these Resolutions? Was there not business enough for the ? Ministry without them ? Oh, but they could not do that business ; they could not carry measures beneficial to Ire- 3 land—what was it that they could carry ? Nothing but co ercions.—(Radical cheers.) Something must be done, and as they could do nothing else, why they cur ed coercions. As 7 they could not carry liberal, they carried illiberal, measures, if it were only to show that they could carry something. Sir IL PEEL thought it would be more useful to have the , House occupied with the discussion of the Canadian resolu tit la: th. n with a discus: io ion his ( 1. Peel's) political life; The Hon. Gentleman accused him of arrays voting ncrains, the opinions of the majority. The Hon. Member would have it that those who did not agree with the majority %sere defi cient in political foresight. He also alluded to his (Sir R. • Peel's) conduct on the Reform Bill, but surely there was no thing exceedingly inconsistent in opposing a measure during its progress, but when it passed into a law acquiescing in it, and doing all that was pos s ible to carry itinto beneficia effect. —(Cheers.) With regard to the proposed scheme of the Honourable Gentleman, he could only say that he appeared - too irritable a person to undertake the framing of a Constitution ; he (Sir Robert Peel), however, would probably have escaped . the vials of the Horn ur ble Gentlen aos wrath if he had not . unhappily pronounced the scheme absurd.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. )—lt appeared to him to be so when it was first pro pounded, and lie was sorry to say that subsequent reflection so far from altering had confirmed his opinion.—(Cheers and laughter.) On the very first refloution the plan appeared absurd, and notwithstanding the time which had intervened, he thought it an absurd plan still. —( Hear, hear.) He would say with great deference—though be did not profess to be so deep an adept, or so thoroughly versed ;in colonial affairs— that the Hon. Gentleman, instead of proving his ( Sir R. Peel's) i 11 -ranee, had only exhibited his own in colonial matters.— ( Hear, hear.) When lie spoke of the plan as an absurd one, the disrespect was to the plan and not to the author. The Hon. Gentleman in the plan which the House had heard, and which was produced without any previous notice being given, proposed to change the whole course of Canadian Govern ment, and to alter altogether the Constitution of that colony, and pronounced him ( Sir IL Peel) to be in the wrong, be cause he would not at once consent to accept it. Because he was wrong in not at once acceding to Catholic Emancipation —because he was wrong in not immediately adopting the Reform Bill—it must necessarily follow that he was also wrong in not acceding to the Hon. Member's proposition of a new Constitution for Canada. Now, it was very curious that the Canadians themselves were opposed to the plan of the Hon. Gentleman. What right, then, had the Hon, Gentleman to infer that his plan would necessarily be ac ceptable in Canada, when it was evident—not a matter of opinion or of surmise, but expressly stated by the Canadian people—that they would prefer an elective Council ?—( Loud cheers.) The Hon. Gentlemin accused him ( Sir R. Peel) of utter ignorance in pronouncing the plan absurd, because it was in accordance with others of our colonial institutions. If any of our colonies had such a Constitution, he ( Sir R. Peel) would give up the point. The Hon. Gentleman objected to a Legislative Council depCndant on the will of the Crown. In deed, he proposed to abolish it, and substitute another in its room, which would not be legislative. Now, the Hon. Gen tleman ought to know that the Legislative Councils in the other colonies were appointed by the Crown in the same manner as in Canada. but with this difference, that in Canada they were appointed for life, whilst in the others their appoint ment was at pleasure. The question, the only question, he would put to the Hon. Member was, whether there was in any of our colonies a Constitution where the House of As sembly being elective the Council did riot enjoy co-ordi nate legislative functions ? If the Hon. Gentleman did not know this—he would not call him ignorant—he did not rise to bandy reproaches with the Hon. Gentleman, his only object being to free himself from the charges made against him.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman's proposition in his plan was to substitute for the Council a body which was to have no power, but whose task was like that of washing dirty linen—( Cheers and laughter)—namely, to c orrect the blun ders of the House of Assembly, who, after all, were not bound to pay the least attention to their corrections. Heproonploysdedutya body of men to be appointed by the Crow n , whose would be humbly to suggest amendments which, in all proba bility, would meet with no attention.—( Hear, hear.) The only power in opposition to the House of Assembly would be, in the lion. Gentleman's plan, the veto of the Governor, who was to ect es a sort of arbitrator between the Assembly and the Council. Surely so extensive a power as this, vested in a single officer, would be more likely to give offence than if vested in a grave body, selected from the most respectable persons who could be procured. There was not mixch time for considering the proposition made by the Hon. Gentleman ; but there was still less time for delaying the resolutions before the House. The point at issue between him and the Hon, Member for Bath was, whether any of our colo nies had a Government similar to that which the Hon. Member was kind enough to manufacture for Canada--that was, whether there was any which had a Home of Assembly elected by the people in which there was not at the same time a Council vested with legislative authority. If it could be shown there was any such, then the Hon. Gentleman was right and he was wrong. Mr. GROTE approved of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bath, and thought it would be desirable to con vert the Legislative Council into a council of advisers. He contended that the Legislative C ounc il o f C ana d a was not lik e that of any other of th Colonies. As to the question of post ponement raised by the Hon. Member for Bridgewater, he objected to it, and he thought that before they came to the'Bth resolution—before they passed a resolution of such a tremen dous character—a resolution penal in its character—they Should inform the Canadians what concessions they intended to make. The House the divided, when, there appeared-- For the Amendment 29 Againsa it lB2 Majority On our return to the Gallery the House was in Committee. Mr. ROEBUCK, on the 6th Resolution being proposed, moved, as an amendment, " That it is the opinion of the Com mittee that an inquiry should be instituted into the circum stances connected with the Act establishing the Land Com pany." Mr. BE RNAL doubted whether it was competent to the Committee to entertain such an amendment. Ilc thought it was one that should, be put to the House when not in Committee. Mr. R. WA SON denied that the rights of the province were infringed on by those resolutions. Mr. ROEBUCK, before the House went to a vote, would make a few remarks on the observations made on the plan which he proposed. The difficulty, it seemed, which lay in the delay which he asked for was that the officers would not be paid. To obviate this the Noble Lord first proposed to in sult the Canadian people, next to take their money, and then to insist that the differences between Canada and the mother country were adjusted. Did any one believe that such a course of proceeding would do away with the differences? No ; on the contrary, the passing of these resolutions would but still further excite the Canadian people. The effect would be to pay the officers for one year, and at the end of that period they would be in exactly, elle same state as at present. There was reason in what was urged by the Right Honourable Baronet and the Noble Lord opposite, namely, that if coercion was useful these resolutions did not go far enough. In fact they did not coerce, they only insulted. The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell), it Would appear, had not made up his mind to reject his (Mr. Roebuck's) plan, but the Noble Lord said he was not aware that it would prove acceptable to the Canadian people. Why not delay, then, and ascertain that fact? To propose the plan after doing away with every chance of adjustment would be futile. It would be then too late—the time would have passed by ; war would be declared against the people of Canada, and they would watch the first opportunity of declaring war against us. Why should the Noble Lord act on the suggestion of the Rig'ee . Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and refuse a rap ee delay to those who advocated the cause of Canada? T hat Right Hon. Baronet was always too late in his cone,essions. He was too late with Catholic Emancipation, too I .ate w i t h the Reform Bill, was he not even now too late,, 'i n t h e opi nion of the Noble Lord himself, in refusing to, 'grant corpo rate reform to Ireland ?—(Cheers from the Peedicals.) The Noble Lord was aware of the Right lion. was aware f oresight' of his w an t o f po li t i ca l foresi I : 3, '.ronet's defects. and yet he mould prefer taking his advice on this subjee•te The Right Hon. Baronet was not well able to scour ' ctie political horizon; be could not anticipate the coming ;corm ; he could not see it in the speck not ierger than a men's haad ; in short, he was not aw are of its. threatenings he•heard the tempest howling around l eieti.—( Radical, timers.) This was - the Right Hon. Baroneeee peculiar as Led particular weakness ; yet it was to him that tlae Noble Lord looked for advice and assistance in his (4 5 1 .culties. The Right Hon. Baronet had pronounced his / Ar. Roebuck's) plan absurd. Now this alone ought to lead the Noble Lord to reflection. The Right lion. Baronet would act with Canada as he intended to do with reform. The Right Hon.. Baronet had exhibited—he hoped he would be pardoned the word—considerable ignorance on colonial subjects vaten lie pronounced the plan absurd. It happened that many of our colonies had just such Constitutions as he proposed for Canada. There were such in our West India colonies. The Right Hon. Baronet came down to the House and spoke as ex cathedra, and yet he was not acquainted with the Colonial Hornbook. Ile was like a blind man with a stick, feeling his way, seeking a place whereon to set his loot, and not knowing when he might stumble. Theßight Baronet came down to the House, and, because of his extraordinary powers and long standing, was considered of great weight ; but he (Mr. Roebuck) would show its value. His plan was pronounced absurd, yet he had shown the Right Hun. Baronet that it was a system which already existed. and was acted upon in many places. If it would appear that his plan would prove palatable to Canada he would ask the Noble Lord to pause before be proceeded to a course which would for ever pre clude its adoption.—(Hear, hear.) If the coercion system The motion having been more suitably worded, the terms of which we could not hear, was, then put by the Chairman. Lord STANLEY defended the course he had adopted with respect to the Land Company, and said that he had not en tered into anylarrangement without a frequent application to the authorities in Canada and in this country. Those who sup ported the conduct of the House of Assembly were desirous of keeping Canada a French, and not a British province, and he did not think that a British feeling, for he wished to see it kept for the benefit of British subjects.—(Cheers) The Noble Lord then read extracts from the reports of the Com missioners to show tiret the laud had been sold to the Com pany at a fair value, and that the contract was approved of in that report. A portion of the laud had been disposed of at the rate of 3s. ad. per acre, and a considerable quantity of unimproved land at 3s. The total sum paid by the Company was 120,000/..„ 60,000/. of which was to be expended on the making of 'reads and other improvements on the property. Upon thP:a abort statement he rested his case and the case of the Coregy la y., Right or wrong, it was the duty of Parliament Navin; 'ient its sanction to the contract, to keep faith with the part . .tei, but under the circumstances of this case, they were de al.ly bound to adhere to it. Sir G. GREY asked whether that House, after having, by 'an almost unanimous vote, negatived the proposition of the House of Assembly, would now by a side-wind permit that solemn contract to be got rid of ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had called this a private speculation. (" Hear, hear," from Lord Stanley.) He admitted the fact, bat it was a speculation which had proved highly beneficial to the country—( Hear, bear)—and he was prepared to show that the public interest had not been overlooked in the private con tract. He called upon the House to determine whether they would sanction the Hon. Member's proposition, brought for ward as it was with diminished minorities.—( Hear. ) Mr. ROEBUCK expressed his surprise that the Hon. Gentleman should taunt him with " diminished minorities." He could retort, and remind the lion. Gentleman of his " diminished majorities"—(Cheers and laughter)—and he would also ask the Hon. Gentleman whether he thought the Irish Municipal Bill less deserving of public support, be cause the majorities by which it had been supported happened to be diminished ?—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman forgot when he was launching his shaft at him that he might himself receive the blow. The Noble Lord had called him the paid agent of Lower Canada. Was not the Noble Lord at one time the paid agent of the Crown, and did any one find tault with him for receiving his pay ? He (Mr. Roebuck) had never suggested that persons who purchased property from the Land Company should be disturbed in , their possession. But he thought some inquiry was necessary into the circum stances under which this contract was made. When the CO,OOO/. to be laid out on making roads was deducted from the 120,0001.. the price charged for the land was only is. Gd. per acre, and when these roads were completed, the land would sell for 1/. per acre. These lands should not have been sold by private contract, but by public auction. This was the sys tem adopted by the United States. But that country had a frugal Government, and by adopting this system, they had rea lized four millions in one year.—( Hear.) It was clear the land in Canada had been given away, and the Hon. Member for Worcester hail made a good bargain of it.—(A laugh.) Mr. ROBINSON would be glad to learn how many Mem bers of that House could be found to vote for a mean; re which directly struck at time security of property. He mr in tained that the Land Company had paid the full value for BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. The NOBLE Lean then rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a breach of its privileges, by the publication in the True Sun of the evidence taken before the Poor-law Committee. If it had been an ordinary publication, there could have been no difficulty in the proceeding the House should adopt. There was a case of a publication having taken place in the Dublin Evening Mail newspaper, in which a person named Sheehan had been committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, for having committed a breach of the privileges of that House. But from the declaration made the other night by the Hon. Member for Southwark, who avowed that he had been instrumental in the publication that had taken place in the True Sun Newspaper, he (Lord J. Russell) supposed that he was anxious to bring the entire subject under the consideration of the House, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the publication was or was not a breach of its privileges. In consequence of that avowal he (Lord J. Russell) had thought it right to submit a resolu tion which would convey the sense of the House on the sub ject. The resolution was to the effect, that according to the undoubted privileges of that House, such a publication was contrary to the public interests, and should not take place.--( Hear, hear.) He would state two or three cases, in illustration of that principle. In the first place he might mention the Select Committee that had been appointed to inquire into the affairs of Canada, and to which various documents were submitted, but at the olose of its sittings the Committee resolved that these documents should not be printed. Another was a Committee in relation to the military defences of the colonies and dependencies of this country. And a third was on the renewal of the Bank charter. In the first certain documents were put in as evi dence, the publication of which would have been very preju dicial to the public ; in the second the Duke of Wellington bad been examined at great length ; and in the third Mr. Roths child had communicated a great many private matters relating to tile transmission of bullion from this country, and his trans. actions with merchants in London and Paris. These commu nications, and those of the Duke of Wellington, were of a nature which were calculated in the latter case to injure the State, and in the former to injure individuals, should they be published. His (Lord J. Russell's) motion went to de bar the publication of evidence before a Select Committee, on the ground that it was as much to the disadvantage of the public as against the privileges of the House. For instance, the Colonial Secretary would not communicate private despatches to a Committee ; the Duke of Wellington would not give his evidence to the extent he had ; Mr. Roths child would have said nothing of the transactions which he spoke of, did they know their evidence would be made public the next day. Thus the public service would be injured if the principle which he (Lord John Russell) now sought to affirm were negatived. For this reason, less than to preserve the privileges of the House, which were only valuable so long as they comported with the public good, he felt it to be his duty to press the motion which he should have to propose. He would say one word as to the amendment of the lion. Member for Southwark. He (Lord John Russell) brought forward the question as one of privilege ; and on that alone the House should come to a decision. The amendment did not affect that question at all. The only doubt on the amendment was as to its expedience. It might be argued that the Poor-law Committee should report from d a y to d ay or ot h erw i se, b ut t h e rule which the Committee had laid down should be adhered to. The amendment of the Hon. Member was totally dif ferent from the question before the House. The Noble Lord concluded by proposing the following resolution That according to the undoubted privileges of this House, and for the due protection of the public interest, the evidence taken by any Select Committee of this House and the evidence pre sented to such Committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of such Committee or any other person." Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that the Noble Lord had greatly mistaken the motive which induced him to give notice of an amendment, if he thought it was to evade the assertion of a principle. It was quite the reverse. If it was the privi lege of the House to preclude the publication of evidence, where was the necessity of a resolution for affirming it ? If the law of Parliament was violated, why not inflict the due penalty on the transgressor? If he (Mr. Harvey) was that transgressor he was ready to pay the penalty. He denied that the terms of the motion were compatible with the interests of the public, however they might be so with the privilege of the House. The motion asserted these two distinct propositions. He (Mr. Harvey) denied both. It was a matter of regret and surprise to him (Mr. Harvey), that a Government pro fessing to be based on popular feeling should negative a great principle affecting popular rights. If the Noble Lord alluded to a secret committee instead of a select one, the precedents which he had adduced in illustration of his case would perhaps serve his purpose. But the very circumstance that there were two classes of Committees, select and secret, showed that what applied to the one would not to the other. The Poor law inquiry now going on was of a most important nature to the public. The parties to it were all the property in the country, and all the poverty. The former supported it, and the latter had every reason to oppose it. He (Mr. Har vey) regretted that the Noble Lord had taken the opportunity of founding his motion for the preservation of the privileges of the House on a case where the rights of the poor were in question. If all other Committees that ever sat were secret, the Poor-law Inquiry Committee should be public. The in terests of the most unprotected class in the community—of the poor millions—were unrepresented there; but the whole staff of Somerset House, the Poor-law Commissioners, and their able secretary were there every day, taking notes and prepar ing evidence. How were those poor people whose names were mentioned in evidence of the advantage to the poor of the law to know whether the truth was spoken of them or not, unless the evidence was published daily ? But it might be said in answer that the Reports of the Committee were published from time to time. Who would read 500 or 1,000 pages of a Report, and how was the poor man to procure it ? It was almost impossible for him to procure a newspaper, still less such ponderous folios. What was complained of? Not that a garbled report of the proceedings had been published ; but that the House was anticipated in the publication. That was the fact. He (Mr. Harvey), under these circumstances, could not help thinking that there was something—he would not say personal—but peculiar in the course pursued by the Noble Lord on this subject. Did the Noble Lord suppose he could attain his object—that of destroying the responsibility and de grading the press—by this course ? He could assure him he would not. It would be far safer for him to have the recog nized agents of the press employed in communicating it through that channel than to have other individuals do so, through the irregular channels of private conversation and con fidential communications. But it should not be for a moment supposed that the opinions of the Committee were all unfa vourable to the daily publication of the proceedings. On the contrary, when the Hon. Member for Middlesex moved that the Committee report from day to day, there was a division of eight for the motion, and only ten against it. The inquiry, as it stood at present, was, he would not hesitate to say, en tirely abortive. From investigation into the operation of the Poor-laws it was turned into a justification. The original ob ject of the Committee was to ascertain the evils of the law, with a ♦iew to their remedy : the object it now had in view was to inquire into its advantages, with a view to its further confirmation.—(l-Tear.) He (Mr. Harvey) was opposed to all secret inquiries in matters of public concern; but he was especial!) opposed to it in this, because the party most interested was not present to defend its owit rights. He denied that to make public evidence taken before a Committee would have the effect of keeping, back valuable information : the House was armed with the power to compel it. He did not hesitate to say that, if he was interdicted the publication of the evidence, he should decline any longer being a member of the Committee. He cared nothing for the penalties— whether they were close quarters in Nerrgate or expulsion from the House ; a great principle was at stake, and that he would contend for, that the public had a right to know what was going on there. After some further observations on the evils of the Poor-law, and the disadvantages of prohibiting the daily publication of the procedings of the Committee of in quiry into it, the Hon. Member concluded by moving the fol lowing amendment :—" That the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Act be instructed to report the evidence taken be fore them from day to day, and to take the sense of the House thereupon." Mr. WAKLEY seconded the amendment. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN was anxious that the greatest facilities should be afforded to the publication of the proceed ings before the Select Committees of that House; for it ap peared to him that the value of an inquiry by a Committee would be extremely deteriorated, as regarded the effect it would produce on the public mind, by the circumstance of the evidence not being communicated to the public from time to time, especially when the subject of the inquiry was calcu lated to excite a public interest. He considered that the pro ceedings of this committee were such as it was peculiarly en cumbeut on the House to make public, as the question was one of the greatest interest to the whole community. It had been his intention, if no other amendment had been moved, to have proposed as an amendment a resolution to the effect that it was expedient that the publication of evidence taken before select committees, not being secret committees, should be permitted. But the Honourable Member for South wark having already moved an amendment, he (Mr. S. O'Brien) had no alternative but that of giving it his ready support. Mr. O'CONNELL said that having intimated an opinion that he should move an amendment almost similar in terms to that suggested by the Hon. Member for Southwark, he felt it his duty to trespass for a few moment; upon the attention of the House. The resolution of the Noble Lord appeared to him to be totally unnecessary. He remembered that in the c Ise of General Darling, which was before a Select Com mittee, the majority of that Committee licensed (as far as they could do) the publication of the evidence. The minority appealed to the Speaker of that day, and he gave it as his opinion that there was no such thing known to the law as the publication of any evidence or discussions of matters unde cided by that House ; and certainly they all knew that it was a breach of privilege to publish even what was at the present moment going on in the House. Yet it was a breach of pri vilege which took place every day, and all of them would regret exceedingly in their turn if that breach of privilege did not take plate. It was therefore difficult to deal with the motion itself, while it was also difficult to negative any vote of the kind, if the opinion to which he had referred was correct ; because certainly cases might arise such as the Noble Lord had referred to, when it might be improper to apply the gene rarrule of publication to such excepted cases. But he was of ;pinion that those excepted cases might be very well left to the discretion of the Committee itself. He was, however, strongly of opinion that publication as a general rule would be highly beneficial. He did not think the lion. Member had accurately stated the rule as to the 'publication of proceedings in a court of law pending a trial, because the judges had lat terly been in the practice of prohibiting such publication. He thought the Judges were wrong, and that the prohibition did mischief. It was a modern power assumed by them. In 1794, when there was a great conspiracy to get rid of the Reform ers, a trial took place which lasted eight days. The evidence during the first three or four days was published, which led to the discovery of facts with ;regard to the character of certain witnesses that tended materially to serve:the cause of the ac cused. He thought, with respect to proceedings in courts of justice, it was favourable to have the e vid e nce published ; but he was quite convinced it was so with respect to Com mittees of that House, where 'persons did not speak under the ;sanction of the oath, and where the utmost .latitude was given, both as to the questions asked and the answers given. In reference to the evidence of the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, he conceived that there was every ground for affording to it the utmost publicity. The House perhaps might recollect that he himself voted against that measure in all its stages ; he had, however, since become convinced that he was exceedingly wrong in having taken that course.—( Cheers.) He believed that if time Were given for it to be worked out it was calculated to do great geode__ (Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Southwark appeared to him to be assuming too much when he called himself, by way of distinction, the friend of the poor man. He (Mr. O'Con nell) thought that every supporter of the Poor-law Bill had as good a right to be considered the friend and protector of the poor man as the Hon. Member. Indeed he (Mr. O'Connell) considered this was just the case in which every publicity ought to be given, so as not to give the slightest pretence for any one saying, "Oh you are getting up an ex parte case, I won't be a party to the delusion ; I will throw up my brief." He did not mean to say that the Honourable Member for Southwark was not actuated by the purest mo tives; but the pretence he had described might be made, and he believed would be made, with a view to exasperate the public mind. It had been said that this was a packed Com mittee. But was that true ? He believed there was no Mem ber on that Committee who wou ld e ith er cause i mproper evi dence to be given, or proper evidence to be suppressed. The Poor-law Bill was not a party measure, but was supported by Gentlemen on both sides of the House ; and none had ever ' yet shrunk from the avowal that they gave it their support ; therefore it was just that kind of measure which the House itself was concerned in having the fairest, fullest, most ample, and most unobjectionable investigation with respect to it. On Monday the question of a Poor-law for Ireland would be discussed, and he should be pleased to have all the evidence he could from the Committee now sitting. It would enable the House to do their duty more effi ciently when a system of Poor-l aws f or a country w hi c h had hitherto no experience of the kind was the subject of discussion. The amendment of the Honourable Mem ber for Southwark, if not adopted by the House, was one which ought to be taken up by the Committee, to afford the country information upon a question which had already been the subject of so much misrepresentation. It had been made a topic at elections. They all knew what had recently occurred at War wick. It was the principal war-cry of one gentleman who went to Warwick avowedly to sustain the principles of a party, the leaders of which party had actually supported the Bill in this House. Therefore it was absolutely necessary that the public should have an accurate knowledge on that subject. Let the advocates of the new Poor-law challenge investiga tion, let them take a lofty stand upon this—that the more there was of inquiry, the more there was of investigation, the more would the truth appear; and if the truth were against them, let them at once repeal or modify the law ; but if the truth were with them, then the measure, no matter how distorted and misrepresented ia its progress, in its ultimate results would and must be triumphant.—(Cheers.) Sir J. GRAHAM said that the subject was certainly one of great importance. He was glad he had given precedence to the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny, because he had given that Hon. and Learned Gentlema n an o pportunity of gallantly and honourably avowing that, although he had op posed the Poor-law Bill in all its stages, he now viewedit as a measure of great public advantage.—( Cheers.) He did not think the subject as to whether or not the evidence should be