The Sun. — London, England, 1852-11-30 00:00:00

will speak to Colville, if he is in town, when I get there on Tuesday.—Believe me, yours truly, W. Beres ford.—Nov. 21." So the matter rested until Feb ruary, 1848, when the right honourable gentle man again wrote to Mr. Flewker. "Feb. 17. — Dear Sir, —I am very glad to hear so good an account as you give of the prospect of success in the Derby petition. I shall be glad to give you any assistance in my power when the case comes on.—Yours truly, W. Beresford." Then came a, most important letter, and to which he begged to call the particular attention of that house. The right hon. gentleman was not content with subscribing 1001., but he thought he might render as sistance with regard to the election petition by sending Mr. Frail to Derby, and on the 25th February he wrote the following letter. He (Sir A. Cockburn) read that letter to show that, as regarded election matters, Mr. Frail was a stranger to Derby till that time, and that appeared clearly from that letter. "Dear have an agent who is skilled in all election matters, and un derstands every manner of scheme with regard to pe titions. He will be in Derby next Monday, and will bring an introduction from me. You may trust him most implicitly, and you will get some very useful hints probably from him respecting your petition.—Yours truly, William Beresford.-77, Pall-mall, February 25." It was clear that letter referred to a person who was a complete stranger in Derby to whom the right hon. gen tleman gave an introduction, and for whose capacity and trustworthiness he was called on to vouch, and for which he did vouch. He wrote another letter on the same day, the 25th Feb., to Mr. Flewker, and which was brought to him two days after by Mr. Frail : " Dear Sir, the bearer, Mr. Frail, is th e p ers on I wrote to you about.—Yours, truly, W. Beresford." This showed conclusively that up to the 25th of Feb., 1848, Mr. Frail was a total stranger in Derby, and had never intermeddled in any of its election matters. The next letter he would read would be for the purpose of showing the relative circumstances that existed between the borough of Derby and Mr. Frail. On the 3d of March the right hon. gentleman wrote to Mr. Flewker as follows : "Dear Sir,—l have endeavoured to see Mr. Colville, but I find he is in the country hunting, probably near Ather stone. I will speak to him whenever he comes up to town. I have seen Mr. Frail, who gives me a good account of the case that can be made out against the sitting members. I have requested him to give you every assistance in his power, and attend to everything that the Derby party desire to be done. I shall be happy to assist you also when the committee sits." (What this meant he (Sir A. Cockburn) did not altogether know.) " The great matter to be looked to is to collect funds and to keep the case quiet till it is brought before the committee.— Yours, truly, W. Beresford.-77, Pall-Mall." The next letter he should read was one written by Mr. Frail, and was important, as showing the footing on which he stood with regard to the political and electioneering in terests of the borough of Derby, and it was written and dated from Carlisle. (Cheers and great laughter.) It appeared that an election was going on at that moment in the city of Carlisle. A petition had been presented against the hon. gentleman who had been returned at the general election of 1847, and the petition having proved successful in unseating them, there was a new election in order to fill the vacant seats. Mr. Frail ap peared to have been sent if not by the direction, but with the connivance of the right hon. gentleman to lend his assistance in the conduct of that election, and Mr. Frail wrote to Mr. Flewker to the effect, " That he had just received his letter, and that he would be in town on the following Wednesday, and that he had written to make the necessary arrangements for the lodgings of the wit nesses. If he could he was to get Andrews or Alex ander." (This meant two learned friends of his, eminent members of the parliamentary bar.) "If not get Byles." That meant his learned friend Serjeant Byles; one of the most distinguished advocates in Westminster Hall, but who would probably be better known to hon. gentlemen opposite as the- author of a work entitled "Fallacies of Free-trade." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He was really very sorry that his learned friend should have stepped aside from his professional career to enter on matters of that kind, and should now be left high and dry with nobody to read his book, and no one, except, perhaps, such gentlemen as the hon. and gallant member for Lincoln, who would be ready to offer him any inducement to publish a second edition. (" Hear," and laughter.) But the most sig nificant part of that letter was, that although it was signed in the na me o f " Frail," above the signature was written the words, "Nixon, King's Arms, Carlisle;" thus showing in what manner he was to be addressed at Carlisle ; and he added, "my best compliments to Hib bert, and remember that it is Thomson and not John son ;" thus showing that there had once been a mistake about a name. The next letter was from the right hon. gentleman to Mr. Flewker, and was as follows :—" Dear Sir,—Mr. Frail has been out of town on very important business for four or five days, and that is the reason why you have not heard from him. I do not think that he has got your letter. I think he will be able to get to Derby on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, but not before. I have sent to speak to a gentleman from Derby, and will give him any direction I can that may be serviceable. I regret that Frail is out of town.— Yours truly, W. Beresford.—Saturday (1848)." That correspondence clearly established the purpose for which he (Sir A. Cockburn) had used it, namely, that Mr. Frail had nothing to do with Derby in 1847 ; nor until 1848 ; and that letter in question could have nothing to do with any election before that time, but that it was written subsequently to the election of 1848; and looking to the position which the right hon. gentleman and Mr. Frail had established in the borough, it was possible they had applied to him for a safe man, and that if he had sent Mr. Frail he would have been readily accepted as an agent. The petition in 1847 ended in the va cating of the seats of the sitting members, and there was to be a new election ; the writ was sus pended till the 24th Aughst, and the new election took place on Friday and Saturday, the Ist and 2nd September. Did the letter in question apply to that election ? It certainly might, looking to the posi tion the parties to it held in the borough ; but in order to test that point, the proper way was to look at the letter itself, and see whether it applied to the circum stances of 1848 or to those of 1852. It should be ob served in the first place, that the letter was addressed to Mr. Frail, and directed him to send a safe man to Derby, on the assumption, that he was too much occu pied to leave " his own place." But how would it have been known to persons in London what his occu pations were ? Now, Mr. Frail was in no business at all. He was originally a hair dresser, but left that business some years ago, and had applied him self to two pursuits exclusively—horse-racing and elec tioneering. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) He was described in the letter as clerk of the course at Shrewsbury, and was anything going on in the way of horse-racin g and turf matters which would have con fined him to that place just then in 1848 ? Nothing of the kind. The Shrewsbury races took place in the spring and in November. Nor were there any races in the neighbourhood of Shrewsbury at that time. He would next ask whether there was any electioneering going on at that moment ? None. The seats for that borough were both full, and no election was going on. But there was proof that Mr. Frail did go to Derby at that time and appeared at the races in a jockey costume, that he called on Mr. Flewker, and having taken an in terest in the unseating of the late members, asked if h e could be of any use in the next election ; but he found that there was no money stirring. Whether it was that the honourable and learned gentleman the present member for Falmouth, who was then a candidate, had a great aversion for corruption, or whether it was that there being two conservative candidates, only one of them having a chance, there was no spirit in the electioa—(hear, hear)—Mr. Frail was informed that there was no money going, and he withdrew, no doubt not without great dissatisfaction. (Hear, hear.) But he (Sir A. Cockburn) turned to the election of 1852. Was there anything to keep Mr. Frail at Shrewsbury then ? Yes ; there was a contested election going on there, s and besides, it required peculiar activity on his part, seeing that a contest had arisen at the last mo ment. The election at Shrewsbury took place on Tues day and Wednesday, while that at Derby did not take place until Wednesday and Thursday ; while the contest at Shrewsbury did not arise until the previous Friday. There was great excitement and turmoil, and the exertions of Mr. Frail were necessarily confined to his own borough, and therefore the right hon. gentleman had a right to suppose that Mr. Frail could not leave. But that was not all. The writer of the letter directed thata man should be sent from Shrewsbury to Derby immediately on the receipt of the letter. The letter was written on the Monday, and on the Tuesday Morgan started from Shrewsbury. In 1848 the election at Derby took place on the Friday and Sa turday, and there was no necessity for such speed ; and, in fact, on that occasion Mr Frail himself did not appear in Derby until the Thursday, when the races com menced. It appeared to him (Sir A. Cockburn) there fore, that looking at all the circumstances, the letter applied to the election of 1852, and not to that of 1848. But the greatest difficulty was yet behind, for it was im- Possible that, if that letter had been written with refe rence to the election of 1848, it could have been made bailable for the purp oses o f th e e l ec ti on o f 1852, except y the coneocti on o f a v ill a i nous an d a b om i na bl e conspi raq• lie of such a looked to see if there was the remotest proof tend the oeenspiracy, and whether all the proof did not conspi me ;ber Way. He would first ask if there was a told that /eh' were the conspirators ? He might be wards hi s p,l lew ker was capable of any hostility to a conspi racy. Y , rd was likely to have carried on such Mr. Flewke r ; but e was not standing there to defend chose of him, w as t ' h any one think the worst they turpitude in a man he not a difference in the degree of Nylviloo rhevadeald the secrets of his party and that of a man scheme of such fraud a n d yin the audacity to concoct a Mr. Flewker was cap a b le of a itg. But, assuming that not make a conspiracy ; and, doingalt so, one man could ed ugh one man might conceive such a scheme, it rec lu b. Even the co-operation of many to carry it into effect. Buc T i a M e cui r nd F I s p e i r w a k e y e r , credit for being capable o c f oncocti ng what could be his motiv es ? What motive against the right hon. gentlema ho 'i have for so acting h . ad made him no n'petatiTonhe; right hon. gentleman all that lie had promised him was th at he a nd he would contribute 1001. to the expenses of the Derby and Mr. Flewker could have had no farther claim, nor had he pretended to. have the shad ow of elaim on him ? But, assuming that Mr. Flewker had d es i re t o i n j ure his party, and ' had . forgotten any gratitud e l ie m ight have owed to the right hon. gentle man, and wished to injure him as a Minister of the Crown, look a t th e num ber of persons lie brought for ts. trd to vouch for the transactions at Derby, with re ga 'd to Morgan and Frail, and having called on the right hon. gentleman, for an explanatiOn, wou ld he, an attorney, a cute and experienced, lay hi m self open to a detection wh ic h was inevitable ? Here was a man who was irritated by the loss of his 7001., and yet he en trusted Morgan with a sum of 3001. or 4001. with which tie might have started off, and never given any account of it, if he was u ncerta i n who he was. But, assuming that r. Flewker was capable of coneeiying such vii- J lanies as had been attributed to him, and was besides dead to all prudential reasons, yet he could not have acted alone ; he must have had confederates and co-conspirators. If they were so, his honour able friend, the member for Derby, and Mr. Hey worth, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Moss, who was now, for the second time, filling the office of chief magistrato of the town, must all be considered as co-conspirators. He would not stop now to vindicate those hon. gentlemen—the character of his hon. friend the member for Derby spoke for itself. (Hear, hear.) In order to establish a plot and conspiracy, it was neces sary to include the whole body of agents and partisans of the conservative party. He would begin with Mr. Frail, and he would ask this question of those who asserted that there was a conspiracy—How came the letter to Mr. Frail to be in the hands of Morgan ? It was addressed to Frail and came into the hands of Morgan, and what was the natural supposition but that it was given by Frail to Morgan in order that he might show he had a right to go to Derby. He had heard it said that that letter was one which had been given by Frail to Flewker, and placed by Flewker in the hands of Morgan in order to the preparation of his scheme. Nothing, it appeared to him (Sir A. Cockburn), could be more improbable. But there were circumstances which set that question entirely at rest. (Hear, hear.) He had paid particular attention to what he was about to state, and he thought it was clear the letter must have been delivered to Morgan at Shrewsbury, and must have been given to him by Frail and not by Flewker. On the back of the letter was written, in pencil, in the same handwriting as the entries in the book containing a list of the electors which was found on- Morgan, and which was proved to be in his handwriting, these few words—" Stafford, Lichfield, Burton-on-Trent, Derby." Now, those were the places at which a man travelling from Shrewsbury to Derby would have to change carriages. There was no direct communication between Shrewsbury and Derby, and a man who was a stranger to Derby, and going there for the first time from Shrewsbury, might be supposed to ask for information as to where he would have to change carriages, and go on different lines of railway, and nothing was more natural than that he should write such information on the back of the document which he took with him. And accordingly there was written, first Stafford, secondly, Lichfield, thirdly, Bur ton-on-Trent, and lastly Derby, the places which fol lowed each other in regular order on his route from Shrewsbury to Derby. If the letter had been delivered by Flewker to Morgan at Derby, he having once gone that route, would not have required such information ; and in the second place, even if he had, the names of the places would have occurred in the order in which a man would go from Derby to Shrewsbury. That was a fact which, though small, was significant to show that the letter must have been delivered to Morgan at Shrewsbury, and not at Derby ; and any other hypothesis was out of the question. Then if the letter was delivered by Frail to Morgan, the consequence was that it was impossible to conceive the concocting of any conspiraCy by any one except Mr. Frail. Now, who was Mr. Frail ? He was a person with regard to whose electioneering character he (Sir A. Cockburn) had the worst opinion. He was, to use the language of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary-at-War, familiar with every agency and means which was put in motion when it was desired to work out a system of electioneering corrup tion—but there was nothing to make him (Sir A. Cock burn) say that he knew anything which could detract from Mr. Frail's fidelity to his party. No one knew better than the right honourable gentleman whether Mr. Frail was to be trusted in 1847 ; and all through, in the management of election petitions, and in the fresh elec tions consequent on the vacating of seats on petitions, he acted as the confidential agent of the right honoura ble gentleman, who at that time exercised the delicate and mysterious functions which he (Sir A. Cockburn) supposed were necessary to the management of the electioneering matters of his party. The right hon ourable gentleman said that Mr. Frail was a man implicitly to be trusted. Mr.. Frail had been engaged for fifteen years as a conservative agent in election mat ters ; and every gentleman connected with Shrews bury and with that part of the country would bear witness to Mr. Frail's fidelity and zeal for his party. (Hear, hear.) Had the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had represented Shrewsbury in one Parliament, been in his place on this occasion, he (Sir A. Cockburn) would have called him into court as a witness to Mr. Frail's reliable cheracter. (Laughter.) But there were other gentlemen in the house to whom Mr. Frail was known • and whatever might be thought of that person's morality in these mat ters, at least some of those who did know him would not for a moment call in question his character for zeal and fidelity to those whom he undertook to serve. (Hear, hear.) Upon what conceivable hypothesis, then, was it to be supposed that Mr. Frail would have given up this letter, if this letter really referred to a previous election ? Why did he give the letter to Morgan at all ? He (Sir A. Cockburn) thought that he could account for it. It happened that the contest going on at Shrews bury had taxed all the energies of Mr. Frail, and re ceiving the letter from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Beresford) late, probably, at night, in the midst of confusion, and having no time to write a letter of his own to the parties at Derby, while it was of importance to get Morgan off at once, he very naturally put the right hon. gentleman's letter into Morgan's hands, say ing, " Take that, show that, and it will make all right." Well, then they came to Morgan ; and the next question was—was Morgan in the conspiracy ? Morgan, it was understood, was the confidential man of Mr. Frail. Mr. Frail, among his other duties, had to superintend the registration of Shrewsbury and of the county of Salop ; and Morgan was the man whom Frail employed to serve notices, Morgan being an estate agent and valuer (so we understood), and therefore being very useful to give evidence for or against Mr. Frail's friends' claims when necessary. (Laughter.) Morgan was known in Shrewsbury to be devoted to Frail, and was it to be supposed that such a man would have lent himself, supposing Mr. Flewker had selected such a man, ,o an act a villany to his party ? But if the house were to believe all this, there was still a difficulty to overcome. No sooner did Morgan get to Derby than he was taken by the hand by the friends of Mr Horsfall, the candidate. He went-to the Messrs. Cox. Would Messrs. Cox have betrayed their relative and their can didate ? If the letter had been, indeed, written in refer ence to some former election, it could only have been made use of by Morgan on some understanding with Messrs. Cox ; or, supposing those gentlemen not in the conspiracy, was it possible that Morgan could have de ceived them with an old letter of 1848 ? The next ques tion was as to Radford. It would not be doubted for a moment that Mr. Radford was the staunchest partisan of the Conservative party in Derby. The statement of the landlord, Taylor, was, that the moment Radford was madeaware of ; Morgan's arrival in Derby, he went to the County Tavern and had an interview with Morgan. Well, then, was Radford in the conspi rac y ? In effect, therefore, the house had to make up its mind, if it would entertain the idea of a conspiracy, that all these persons, Frail, Morgan, Messrs. Cox and Radford, were in the plot ? But there was another circumstance to be borne in mind. The stranger who was found guarding the door when the police were in search of Morgan was the man who came from Nottingham with Hibbert by the desire of Huish and Radford. But there was another test to be applied to this theory of a con spiracy —the experiment um crucis—and the inference ap peared to him to be conclusive. If all these people were in a conspiracy, what would have been the conduct of fhe responsible agents of Mr. Horsfall, when the facts were brought to light, and Morgan was taken before the magistrates ? If Morgan had been an impostor, they would have denounced him. But they came for ward, and threw the shield of protection over him. (Hear, hear.) Was not the conclusion obvious ? (Hear, hear.) When Morgan was brought before the magistrates, Mr. Forshawe, Mr. Horsfall's s o li c it or an d confidential agent, appeared with a Mr. Sale, another attorney, who had been acting as a subordinate agent. Nr. Forshawe was seen talking in a corner of the hall with Sale while the preliminary proceedings were going on before the magistrates ; and at the end of the con versation Sale rushed forward, and announced himself as Morgan's legal adviser, Morgan, in the first instance, not appearing to have any legal adviser whatever. When the magistrates intimated that they would remand the prisoner, Sale said, " I hope you will take bail : we are prepared with bail to any amount." Was that reconcileable with the idea that Morgan had been be traying the conservative party ? (Hear, hear.) Again, when Morgan was brought up a second time, succour ap peared from another quarter. Of course, when the discovery was made public, there was consternation the minds o f F ra il an d o f his conservative friends 'in Shrewsbury and elsewhere ; and it did happen that two solicitors from Shrewsbury suddenly appeared in Derby. One of them was an intimate friend of Mr. Frail—Mr. Frail's son being, in fact, in that Solicitor's office ; and the other, the clerk of the peace at Shrewsbury, was also a friend of Mr. Frail. These persons busied, them selves in the affair of Mr. Morgan, and in the end they procured the bail for Morgan. Well, now, was it credible that there was a conspiracy to the detriment of Mr. Frail ? These (continued the hon. and learned gentleman) constitute the facts of the case ; and I have gone through them with a twofold purpose. In the first place, to justify myself, in order that it may appear to the house that I have not rashly or inconsiderately brought the matter before them ; and in the next place, to put the right hon. gentleman in possession of the whole case —(cheers)—both as to the facts and as to the argument. (Cheers.) Unquestionably, if he had been conducting this case as an advocate at nisi prius, he should have rested upon the prima facie case, waited for the answer of the party charged, and reserved for the reply the additional facts he had adduced, and the observations arising out of them. But he had thought that in a case like this such a mode of proceeding would not have been handsome, and, in consequence, he had brought the whole of the evidence in the most ample manner to the knowledge of the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers) Under these circumstances, what was the course which the house ought to pursue? He apprehended that it ,vas impossible to say that an inquiry should not be instituted ; and he was happy to know that in that opinion the right honourable gentleman himself con curred. (Hear.) He was bound to do the right honourable gentleman the justice to say, that from the ve ry commencement, he had demanded an inquiry into this matter. (Hear, hear.) In his address to his con stituents in July last, the right hon. gentleman had declared th at h e would insist on a complete inquiry into " conspi racy, " and that if no one else asked for an inquiry, he would himself propose it to the house. (Hear.) That was a manly and straightforward declaration ; and he was glad that the right hon. gentleman approved of the motion for an blquiry. The hon. baronet (Sir J. Y. Keller), w ho had spok en f or the right hon. gentleman other evening, had also expressed himself favourable to an inquiry, but he had at the same time hinted his doubts whether j such an to instituted by th e h ouse would not be preudicial to the object of the committee who Would try the Derby election petition, He (Sir A.Cookburn) could not see the justice of the objection ; he thought t o h n e t d he efe c n on da tr n a t ry s t t e h kh at e it w w ex o a u et ld ly be w ra ha t t he t r he a y n 7 ad e v re an c ta ha g r e ge t d o to with. de ( f H eh ea d r h , i h s ea e r.) hara W et he e n r aahmdan,in his a s e ca at s ? e l h ik e e h A ad . Cockburn) spoke feelingly —it was very desirable to know the grounds upon which he would be attacked ; and he therefore did not anticipate that any practical in convenience could accrue from the house proceeding at once to investigate the circumstances which he had laid before them. (Hear, hear.) Even were it admitted that there would be some inconvenience, that inconvenience wouldbe outweighed by the consideration brought before the house. (Hear.) Were this an ordinary case it might be left to the ordinary tribunal appointed by the house to deal with election matters. But a case which affected a right hon. gentleman, a member of the Government, and a Privy Councillor, did appear to him (Sir A. Cock burn) to assume a very important aspect, and into which it would not be beyond the province or beneath the dignity of the house itself to inquire into. (Hear, hear.) The form in which that inquiry should be carried on he would leave entirely to the house ; and he should only move that a special committee should be appointed. The constitution of that committee—the quarter from which it should be selected—that he would leave en tirely to the house, feeling confident that, whatever the number of the committee, and from whatever side of the house is was taken, an impartial and careful investiga tion would result satisfactorily. (Hear, hear.) In con clusion, the hon. and learned gentleman (who was fre quently, in consequence of speaking with his back to the reporter's gallery, very indistinctly heard), thanked the house for its attention, and expressed a hope that from a consideration of political morality, and in dealing to great offenders that justice which was insisted on to poor voters who were tempted into venality, the motion would meet with no opposition. The motion, as read by the SPEAKER was that a select committee be appointed, &c. Sir J. Y. BULLER said that the course which he had taken on a former evening in reference to this matter, would prepare the hon. and learned gentleman for the de claration on his part, that, having listened to the state ment of the hon. and learned gentleman, he had come to the conclusion that an inquiry was necessary; and he was, accordingly, ready to second the motion which had been made. (Hear, hear.) And, having thus accepted the motion, and not anticipating any opposition from other parties in the house, he might be excused expressing the hope that the case would now go to a committee unpreju diced by any debate of that house. (Hear, hear.) He, for his own part, would refrain from any comment on the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, and he would sit down with saying, that in whatever way the committee was constituted the result of a fair and ample inquiry would be thoroughly satisfactory to the house and to the individuals at present implicated. (Hear, hear.) Mr. S. WORTLEY took the same view of the import ance of this case as the hon. and learned gentlemen, and if the house was of the unanimous opinion that this investi gation should be referred to a select committee it would be extremely unbecoming in him to offer any opposition ; but he was anxious, he confessed, with all proper consideration for the privileges of the house, of the importance of the case, and of the desirability of serving the ends of justice, that these proceedings proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman should not be :taken without at least his protest against their being drawn into a precedent. This petition was presented at the very outset of the session, and at the very time when a Derby election petition was pending. Now, he believed, that for the last half century it had been the constant endeavour of that house to remove all matters connected with election petitions beyond the jurisdiction of the whole house. For that purpose the Grenville Act was introduced, and to improve that act again Sir Robert Peel introduced the existing act of parliament, the object of these measures having been to remove from the general consideration of the house, where party feeling was always supposed to prevail, all matters connected with elections, and to refer such matters to an impartial tribunal, which a select committee was presumed to be. This petition rested upon the asser tion that there was a general system of bribery carried on at Derby, and that was precisely the assertion which a select committee would have to inquire into—(hear, hear)—and if that system was found to have prevailed, then the election for Derby would be void. To guide the house in this matter there were several precedents, but there were none exactly similar to this case. There was one committee on which he (Mr. Wortley) had had the honour of presiding, the subject being the interference of a noble peer in an election for Stamford. Another com mittee had been appointed in 1835 or 1836, to inquire into the conduct of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Raphael in an elec tion for the county of Carlow. An older case was that of a committee appointed in 1819 to inquire into the con duct of a member of that house, Mr. Quin, who had used his power as Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Limerick to influence voters. But in that case an election petition had been pending. An older case still, and a celebrated one, was that of a committee appointed in 1806 to inquire into an allegation of Mr. Sheridan having been accused of tampering with the witnesses before an election committee. On that occasion a committee was appointed, but it should be remarked that it was not appointed without great ob jections having been urged against it at the time; and the results of the course then taken ought to have great influ ence with the house now. On that occasion the late Lord Grey, then Lord Howick, and at that time a Minister of the Crown said, " That since the passing o f G renv ill e ' s Act, it had not been the practice to hear witnesses at the bar" (which was tho preliminary) ; and he earnestly re commended the house to confine the examination to the question of tampering. The subsequent proceedings de monstrated how difficult it was to confine the exami nation in that way ; and another distinguished person, the last of the illustrious brothers, Thomas Grenville, also expressed at the time his anxiety that the house should strictly act upon the principle of Gren ville's Act. That, however, was not quite a parallel case, for in that case it would have been possible to par ticularise the subject of inquiry for the committee, to take only the charge of tampering with witnesses, and keep that separate fro m a ll th e o th er quest i ons involved in the election in question. But here that was impossible, be cause here the gravamen, except the personal part of the allegation, of the charge was, that there had been a general system of bribery at Derby : upon that the hon. and learned gentlemen rested his whole case, and his whole object had been to show that in the organising and promoting of that system of bribery, the right lion, gentleman (Major Beres ford) was implicated. (Hear, hear.) If the committee now asked for should find the right hon. gentleman guilty of the offence imputed, they would establish the fact of bribery at the Derby election, and consequently the election would become void, and to all intents and purposes such a committee would be doing what the ordinary election committee would do. Whatever the result of the com mittee might be, the case on one side would be disclosed, and that was not desirable. The hon. and learned gentle man had said that the disclosure would be a benefit to the sitting member ; but the proceedings of that house ought not to be of a character either to benefit or to inj ure any party. There was another danger. In assenting to thi s motion they would be establishig a precedent of permit ting political parties to come with private petitions to that house, and to try their hand with their case before a select committee, where witnesses could not be examined on oath, but where they could be cross-examined, and where, per haps, in the result, the eads of justice would be defeated. (Hear.) He had brought these general considerations be fore the house as a matter of duty. If he received no support, he would submit to the decision of the house ; but he did think that those who were in the habit of tak ing the lead on either side of the house ought to be very cautious in establishing a precedent of this kind. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WALPOLE said if he thought that the privileges of the house would be at all intefered with, or that the rights of individual members would be at all intruded upon, by an assent to the motion of the honourable and learned gentleman, he (Mr. Walpole) would have given it the utmost opposition in his power. But the right hon ourable gentleman who had just sat down must have the goodness to recollect that the rights of that house to in quire into election proceedings were independent of statute law, and besides that, the right honourable gentleman would observe that it was the right of the house to enter tainwagear against r ya thet c e h (i a i r n g eas manner membersra o n nu of fhr the toh e against mG oayk Government, r n a i n tm y t eh m ne e t particularlyoofse the house charges d if be nt r y th to inquire into them. For that reason he was assured that they were not violating any constitutional privilege in acceding to the appointment of a committee, assuming that a sufficient case had been made out. After the statement of the honourable and learned gentleman op posite, it would he impossible to deny that a case for enquiry had been made out, and if it could n o t b e s h own _ _ ,hat there would be practical inconvenience, the commit tee ought to be granted ; and seeing that the right hon. gentleman, through his hon. friend, had himself courted the inquiry for personal -vindication, to refuse the com mittee would be in effect to refuse the right hon. gentle man a privilege he was entitled to. (Hear, hear.) Further than that, he (Mr. Walpole) would not go. He did not wish to prejudge the case at all, and he would only make this remark upon the statement of the hon. and learned gen tleman, that perhaps the argumentative mann er i n which he (Sir A. Cockburn) had urged the latter part of his case, might be calculated in some degree to prejudice the inquiry. The only inconvenience which he (Mr. Wal pole) could apprehend from the appointment of a commit tee was as regarded the effect upon the interests of the sit ting member ; but it was to be remembered that the result could not in any degree bind the ordinary committee to whom the election petition would be referred ; and at any rate of two evils it was preferable to select the least, and to assent to the motion. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") Far greater inconvenience would result from refusing th e inquiry ; in the first place, to the right honourable gentleman (Major Beresford), for, in point of fact, the right hon. gentleman was no party to the election petition, and in the petition committee he would have mno ode of interfering to defend his own rights. (Hear.) He would not enter further at all into the considerations attending this matter, and as to the construction of the committee, he would suggest that it be left to the committee of selec tion. (Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL was glad to find the right hon. gentleman assenting to the appointment of a committee, and thought the right hon. gentleman had fully answered the right hon. gentleman with whom the objection had originated, and that he (Mr. Walpole) had taken a per fectly constitutional view of the quostion. He (Lord J. Russell) believed it would be a great evil if there should be any bar such as that suggested by the right hon. gen tleman (Mr. Wortley) to the house, instituting an imme diate investigation into any allegation of a specific offence against a privy councillor. (Hear.) The suggestion of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) as to what should be the construction of the committee was entitled to great weight with the house. Mr. HORSFALL asked for the indulgence of the house while he ventured to correct a misstatement of the hon. and learned gentleman which affected his (Mr. Horsfall's cha racter. Tho hon. and learned gentleman stated that he (Mr. Horsfall) was stopping with his worthy friend Mr. H. Cox, as showing that he Was a party to the transaction alluded to, because, as he said, he was one of the firm of Cox, Bro thers and Co. Now, he begged to say that Mr. Henry Cox was not a partner in the firm of Cox Brothers and Co. Another point to which the hon. and learned gentleman alluded as being most conclusive, was the fact of his (Mr. Horsfall's) solicitor, Mr. Forshawe, attending before the magistrates when this man Morgan was before them. He did attend, but not as the hon. and learned gentleman re- presented, to defend Morgan, but to see that nothing was said or done that might be prejudicial to him (Mr. Horefall.) These were two points on which he wished to set the hon. and learned gentleman right, and it was not his intention to enter into the case, so speedily to come before a com mittee ; but he did venture to say this, and he believed that those who knew him would give him credit in stating the fact, that highly as he valued the honour of a seat in that house, he should consider it dearly bought if he obtained it by participating directly or indirectly in such transac tions as those which were alleged to have taken place in this election. Sir C. WOOD remarked that the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State had suggested that the committee should be named by the committee of selection. It ap peared to him there was another body by whom it would be far better that they should be selected, and that was the gentlemen appointed by the Speaker's warrant for the general committee of elections. Mr. WALPOLE said he believed he used the wrong word. He meant the general committee for elections. Sir C. WOOD was pleased to hear that the right hon. gentleman concurred in his suggestion. Probably the number would not exceed that of an ordinary election com mittee, namely, five, but it might be well to follow the course taken in the Carlow case, namely, that one member representing the petitioner, and one representing the right hon. gentleman, should serve on the committee, not to vote, but in order that the accusation on the one side, and the defence on the other, should be fairly brought before the attention of the committee. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with the right hon. baronet that this committee should be selected by the general committee for elections, and also that the number he had named was the most desirable number, but he dif fered with him as to the desirability of their following the precedent of the Carlow case, that there should be a friend chosen on each side to sit as assessors. He was quite sure that if any such gentlemen were selected, they would act pre cisely as the old nominees acted, they would become advo cates. Sir C. WOOD—They are not to have votes. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would infinitely rather that they should have 'votes. He did not think there should be advocates on the one side or the other, and es pecially in a case of this kind. He thought the committee should be left to exercise their own judgment, and that there should not be advocates on the one side or the other to argue the question with them. Sir A. COCKBURN said it was found in the adminis tration of justice that it was essential to have advocates, and that they were a great safeguard to truth, and valuable instruments in attaining truth ; and he trusted, therefore, that his hon. and learned friend would offer no obstacle in this case. If the hon. and learned gentleman still objected to nominees, but would allow each party to be attended by counsel, he did not want the nominees. He would take the liberty of saying, in answer to an observation by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State, that this was not merely an accusation against the right hon. gentleman (Major Beresford), but it was an accusation met by a counter accusation on his part, that it was a scandalous conspiracy ; and therefore it was a matter that should be sifted. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY observed that he only hoped this would not be drawn into a precedent. Sir J. Y. BULLER said his right hon. friend had left his case in his hands, and he could have no objection to counsel. If it were his own case he would rather have counsel. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had not the slightest ob jection to counsel appearing on either side, but he had the greatest objection to members of the house acting as advo cates. Mr. WALPOLE decidedly concurred ix the suggestion that there should be counsel. He thought it very objec tionable, in a constitutional point of view, that members of the house should have the power to examine and not the power of voting. The motion was then put and agreed to, and an addition was afterwards made to it that each party may appear by themselves or by counsel. A resolution was likewise carfied that it be an instruc tion to the gentlemen to be nominated on the general com mittee of elections to nominate the committee. COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, Mr. FITZGERALD said he was most anxious to sup port an amendment of the law, and to assist his hon. and learned friend to the utmost of his power in making this bill as perfect as possible ; but when he stated to the house that the bill contained 276 clauses, and that it had only been in his hands since that morning, he hoped the house would excuse him if he were not perfectly acquainted with it. It appeared from the preamble that it was a bill "to simplify and amend the course of procedure as to the pro cess, practice, pleadings, and evidence in the superior courts of common law and equity in Ireland, so as to make the same less dilatory and expensive, and to prevent sub stantial justice from being defeated by reason of the variety of forms of action, and the unnecessary length of records, and to consolidate the provisions of several statutes and rules of court relating to such proceedings, and also to enable the said superior courts of common law to give effect to certain legal rights and just defences without the expense and de lay of a resort to a court of equity." He believed the bill contained 144 sections taken from the Common Law Procedure Act of last session. Now he conceived there was nothing more prejudicial than ill-adjusted or hasty amend ments of the law, leaving them in a state of uncertainty whether what had been made law one session would con tinue to be law for the next twelve months. During the vice-royalty of Earl De Grey a commission was issued for the purpose of inquiring what should be the amendment in the law ; and their recommendations were embodied into law in 1850 ; and it appeared strange, after so recent a change that they were to have a fresh change in an act of 276 clauses. The commercial transactions of Ireland were so interwoven with those of this country that it was unwise to have one law for one country and another for another. This act, however, made a strange alteration. It was well known that choses in action were not by common law as signable, with the exception of bills of exchange. The 208th section of this act made choses in action assignable, but only in Ireland, and the consequence was that policies of insurance, and contracts of that nature would be assign able in Ireland, whereas they were not so in this country. Then in some respects this bill did not go far enough. It dealt in some measure with an important security in Ire land—the security by judgment. The law respecting that had been altered year after year, till at last it was difficult to say what the law was, and he could appeal to his hon. and learned friend, whether, if he were asked to state what the law was on that subject, he would not reply with some hesitation ? Again, another portion of the act pro fessed to repeal a number of acts of parliament, which were said to be mentioned in schedule A, but on looking at the schedules he found a schedule B, but schedule A was want ing. Then there were some points in which the bill was not half so extensive as it ought to be. There was the great question whether the distinction of the courts of law and equity should be allowed to exist. He did not profess to have formed his own opinion on it, but in this bill this question had been dealt with, and in some important par ticulars that distinction had been swept away. If the principle were good, why should they stop short and apply it only in this measure ? If they did not take great care what friend coming forward with ano th er bill next session to would have his hon. and learned in jurispruden ce . Th ey h a d amen d e d th e common t a h m e e y nd we t r hi e s a . bo T u h teyth e stood in Ireland in advance of this law, they had county 'courts in Ireland long before the Imperial Parliament established them in this country, and they had also made amendments in the administration of chancery many years before any step was taken in this country. He believed he was mistaken when he said his hon. and learned friend was a protectionist in law ; he thought he had rather become a free trader in law. He was not going to object, nor should he object, to its being stated in the preamble that this was " a wise, just, and beneficial measure." He thought, however, in order that there might be time to consider the bill, that if it were now read a second time it should not go into committee till after the recess. fir.I:OWE observed, that he was bound to say, as one who had paid great attention to the subject of law reform, that this was a measure very much in advance of that of last session. In the first place, it did away with the tech nical divisions of actions. In the next place, questions might be raised without the necessity of pleading. Then it introduced another valuable principle, that of assign ment of choses in action ~ and in many other respects he considered it a great advance of the bill of last session. But just in proportion as it did honour to the hon. and learned gentleman legislation, as instanced in law reform. Last session they dealt with the common l aw p roce dure of England. This was it a reflection on our system of year they dealt with the common law procedure of Ire land, the principle in both being identical, and it was not wise that on two subjects so identical there should emanate from that house two bills so different ; for, although Ireland might be truly said to be in ad vance of this country, with regard to her jurispru dence, still the two obj ec t s were i den tical. A conference of eminent persons had been lately sitting to bring the laws of the three kingdoms into unison, but this bill tended to raise up new diversities, and even its very improvements were, in a sense, rath er a re t rogress i on . Therefore h e thought the matter required some care, and though he would by no means oppose the second reading of the bill, he h j would of suggesting some matters in to him the bill was worth consideration. Th wit appeared take Principal poi n t on which the ho n . an d learnee main i gentleman addressed the house was on the desira bility of retai • ng those forms of action which the hon. and learned gentlem an s t a t e d hi s i n t en ti on t o a b o li s h. H e ent a l n epi d an retaining replied that that was not to be carried out ; for though by the fifth section it is stated in the margin that techni cal forms of action " were to be abolished, yet when it came to the section it self it stated t h a t th e t ec h n i ca l f orms heretofore used. shall 11 not be necessary ;" not that they shall be abolished, leaving them in a middle state. They might be 1,-; I.° —ved. If they wore good, they ought to be retained ; if they were bad But if they we n t a little further they ought to be abolished. r ther they would see that not only were thes e f orms of action no t a b o lished but th e y re mained as vital and integral a part of the l aw a s they ever did. The si xth section stated that " the right to recover any debt or damagesor personal chattel, in respect of any matter of cont ract or of tort, or taking or detention which might have be en heretofore the subject of any action of debt, covenant, as psit, trespass, trespass on the case, trove; forced in an action to be called a personal action, replevin, or d e tinue, shall and may be en and all action s of ejectmen t s h a ll henceforth b e com menced and prosecuted in the mannerhereinafter Now, what did that mean ? Why, it meant that if a questi on arose as to the jur i s di c tion of th e cour t s o f common law in Ireland or as to w hat this act applied pro vided."to, the only answer th e hon. an d learned gentl eman gavewas that th e Courts of comm on law would have juris diction, and that this act applied to matters which had been sued for in those different forms of action which the hon. and learned gentleman now proposed to abolish. So that this act, instead of relieving them from these forms of action, only Proposed to perpetuate them, for the Irish lawyer 100 years hence would b e j u st as much obliged to acquaint himself w ith all th es e forms of action, debt, assumpsit, covenant , account, trespass, and so on, in order to see the difference b e t wee n the jurisdiction in law and equity, as a t present. He qu ite agreed that these forms of action we re t o be abolished, if they were to take an ad vance in common law proceedings; but then it followed that as these form s o f action cons tit u ted not only mere form s of pleadings , but the very basis of the common law procedure of th e common l a w courts themselves, by abolishing th ese f orms, the very distinction between common law a n d equ it y was taken away without in tending it. It seemed to him, therefore, on the hon. and learned gen tl eman ' s a d m i s sion, that if a law re former could make u his mind to go as far as this bill went, he ought to make up his mind to go a great deal farther, and abolish the distinction between law and equity. This was not merely a theory on his part, but it will be remembered what took place as to the Common Law Bill of last year. The commission recommended that forms of action should be abolished, and then prepared their bill, and then they found that they were not merely getting rid ofthese forme of actions, but of the common law procedure _ altogether. Then they said they should not be necessary, and therefore in these two bills they withdrew the enact ment • and restored the forms of action. The hon. and learned gentleman had and he thought to his credit, gone beyond the commissioners. He was the more induced to put this to the hon. and learned gentleman, because in another part of the bill he proposed that, with regard to lost instruments there should be at law a perpetual injunction, and an' equitable defence to actions relating to personal estate. If the principle were good for this it was good for a great deal more. Was it not a monstrous inequality in this country to have one court that the said estate was in the mortgager ' and another that it was in the mortgagee ; one that said there was no right but in the trustee, and another that said the right was in the cestui que trust. He hoped his hon. and learned friend might be induced to consider whether the bill could not be carried further. Then, again, there was no provision for verifying the repli cation ; nor w as it eas y t o perce i ve w hy th oug a party might introduce new matter without leave of the judge, yet if ho wished to traverse any old matter ho must have that leave. He objected also to the proposed enactment by which the parties after having finished their pleadings, in stead of proceeding to trial should be obliged to draw up an abstract of the pleadings, and if. they could not agree upon them to apply to a judge. This was objectionable on the ground of expense, and would moreover be likely to lead the attorneys into mistakes. What confirmed him most in this view was the fact, that in the specimen of the pleadings given in the appendix the framer of the bill had actually stated the issues wrongly. He hoped the hon. and learned gentleman would direct his attention to this matter, so as to place it on a more satisfactory footing. So with respect to judgment. Under the present system there was a strict technical judgment for every form of action in common law, but if they abolished those forms, how was the judge to act ? (Hear, hear.) The hon gen tleman concluded by expressing his general satisfaction with the bill. Sir A. COCKBURN, being still a member of the Com mon-law Commission, wished to say a few words on the subject. He thought it would be a great pity if the bill were not read a second time at once ; and if these matters of detail were prematurely brought before the house, instead of being left for consideration in committee. (Hear.) hear.) He quite concurred in what had just been said by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Kidder minster, namely, that the bill was greatly in advance of the English Common Law Procedure Bill. (Hear, hear.) The abolition of the forms of action had been recommended by the commissioners, but the proposal meeting with the dis approval of certain great legal authorities, who had become alarmed lest the commi ss i oners should be going to too great lengths, they had been obliged to withdraw them to save the bill. (Hear, hear.) He very much re gretted this ; and he trusted that the principle would be extended to England. (Hear, hear.) The commis sioners had under consideration at that moment many very important questions that would form matter for their report, which would be before the house before their next meeting. Amongst these was the question of the various instances in which the equitable juris diction of the Court of Chancery might be transferred to the courts of common law. For instance, there was dis covery by the examination of parties to the suit. They (the commissioners) would propose that the common law courts should have the power, by no expensive procedure in equity, but by simply bringing up the parties and put ting them to the torture of cross-examination, to enable the judge to strike out the pleas. So also those who had only an equitable right, or who had only an equitable defence to a suit, should have power to commence, or to plead to, an action at common law. (Hear, hear.) Again, by the pre sent rule a common l aw court, though it could give da mages for a breach of a contract, had no power to order a specific performance ; but he (Sir A. Cockburn) could see no reason in the world why it should not be able to do both, and the commissioners proposed so to extend and mould the order of mandamus as that it should effect this most desirable improvement. (Hear, hear.) The commis sioners would likewise propose to do away with all those technicalities which were nothing more than mere obsolete forms. They would also suggest for consideration the question whether juries should still be required to be una nimous in their decisions ; and what was even of greater importance, whether the judge should be left by consent, as in the county courts, to deal with the question of fact, in stead of compelling the parties in every case to have re course to the more expensive and less satisfactory decision of a jury. (Cheers.) He (Sir A. Cockburn) felt that one reason why the county courts had proved so successful was the circumstance that if in the course of the trial anything should turn up, there being only one judge, he could close the books and order the parties to come before him again ; whereas, in the superior courts, if anything occurred by surprise, the party had no remedy but to suffer a nonsuit and to get a new trial on the payment of costs. (Hear, hear.) These matters, which were all under consideration, would be viewed in a liberal light, and with a desire to make the procedure in common law as nearly per fect as possible. The fault of our present law was that it was imperfect and bad, stubborn, inflexible, and in capable of application to the wants of the age ; and yet the Legislature, instead of mending it, had only abused the lawyers. (Cheers.) If the law was inconsistent with the wants of the times, the first thing to be done was to make it better ; and to effect that to which we were tend ing, namely, to do away with all distinctions between law and equity. (Cheers.) He trusted that they had all started in this great and long-deferred work with a con scientious desire to discharge their duty ; and he was proud to think that from one end of Westminster Hall to the other there was but one common feeling, namely, to lend their best aid to this reform. (Cheers.) It was quite a mistake to suppose that it would be against the interest:a of the lawyers; for the present system, by preventing parties from insisting upon their rights, was really as injurious to the profession as to any other class of the community. (Cheers.) Mr. CROWDER gave his cordial support to the bill ; but he was astonished to find that the various improve ments to which referenc e h a d b een ma d e h a d beenintro duced into this bill, whereas they had been omitted from the English act after the attention of the law officers of the Crown had been drawn to them. For instance, there was payment of money into court. By the English bill money could not be paid into court in suits for assaults, for false imprisonment, for malicious arrests, for criminal conversation, or for debauching the daughter or servant of the plaintiff, although the Solicitor-General expressed his agreement. (Hear.) He (Mr. Crowder) hoped that these alterations would before long be again introduced to the consideration of the house, and th a t they would be incor porated also with the English law. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply to the observa tion of the hon. and learned gentlemen who had preceded him, remarked that they must have forgotten the circum stances under which the law officers had the charge of the English bill committed to them. It was utterly impos sible for them to have acted differently. The hon. and learned gentlemen opposite seemed to have forgotten the impatience with which hon. members on that side of the house had listened to any proposal at all on the part of the Government to introduce new measures. Every such at tempt was viewed as an endeavour to prolong the session unnecessarily, and to disappoint the expectation that they formed of an early dissolution. (Hear, hear.) The bill came down at a very late period from the House of Lords, and it was perfectly impossible to introduce any amend ments, unless at the risk of losing the bill for that session. He (the Attorney-General) was, therefore, not a free agent in the matter ; and as f or th e present being in advance of the English act, they must remember that a dwarf on the shoulders of a giant could see farther than the giant himself. (Laughter.) The Irish law reformers had had an opportunity of seeing how far the English had gone, and of considering how much further they might go themselves. He (the hon. and learned gentleman) should await with much anxiety for the report of the Common Law Commissioners, but it would be necessary to consider very carefully their suggestions (and more especially one of them), the nature of which had been intimated to them by the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir A. Cockburn). The house must not rush at once into allthe reforms which had been proposed by ardent reformers, but must carefully weigh their propriety. As to the suggestions of the hon. gentlemen who had spoken, they were undoubtedly of great value ; but they were somewhat ill-timed. The question at present before them was the principle of the bill—its details had best be left for committee ; and he hoped they would all come to the consideration of the measure with a desire to make it as good and practical a bill as possible, and one that would furnish the same example to English law reformers as the English bill had set to those of Ire land. (Cheers.) Mr. COLLIER thought the bill one of the most compre hensive that had ever been brought in by a lawyer ; and he thought that the hon. and learned gentleman (the Attorney-General) had taken an erroneous view in sup posing that any reflection had been intended on the conduct of the law officers. The great advantage of the bill was, that instead of attempting to patch up the present system of technicalities, it had thrown it entirely aside, and adopted an altogether new one. (Hear, hear.) He did not think there was any rational distinction between law and equity. Equity was in fact a mere excrescence, which had grown up in consequence of the defects of the law. But it was another question whether the two could be fused and united in one. There was not the slightest objection even to the permanent retention of the equity courts ' • but what was objectionable was, to have two different tribu- Mils dealing with the same subject matter upon two differ ent principles ; or to have two courts which had a partial jurisdiction in the same kind of case. Different courts might be retained to deal with different kinds of jurisdic tion on the principle of division of labour. (Hear, hear.) Sir D. NORREYS recommended a still further exten sion of the County Court jurisdiction in Ireland, as one of the most obvious modes of effecting the desirable end of making law cheap and efficient. He had made particular enquiries as to the working of the last extension, and he found that it had been followed by the most beneficial results. Mr. WHITESIDE said a few words expressive of his gratification at the manner in which the bill had been re ceived, and the valuable assistance he had had in drawing it up from various gentlemen of great legal authority. He rejoiced to hear the improvements that had been suggested by Sir A. Cockburn, and he hoped that due consideration would be given to them. This bill was founded on the practice of the County Courts and the Scotch Procedure Bill. In Ireland there was not so much necessity for Chancery reform, as by a rapid process in use there, up wards of 1,500 summonses had been disposed of in a very short time. Mr. GEORGE objected to these being one law for Eng land and another for Ireland. As the Common Law Pro cedure Commission Was about to report shortly, he thought it absurd to introduce a bill specially for Ireland. He hoped that, when their suggestions were matured, they would be made applicable to both the Irish and English law. Mr. PHILLIMORE expressed his gratification at the provisions of the bill before the house. He hoped that this country would not long allow Ireland to have the start of her in legal reform. He was opposed to the un necessary multiplication of oaths in wurts of law, and therefore doubted the propriety of having pleas verified in this way. Believing the interests of the profession to be concerned in the improvement of the law, he rejoiced in the efforts now making for that purpose. Mr. NAPIER hoped that there would be no jealousy because Ireland was taking the lead i n l aw reform. (Hear, Mr. ) BUTT pointed out what he conceived to' be a printer's error in the copy of the bill, theomission of a sohedule of the repealed acts. Mr. WHITESIDE promised that this should be sup plied, and the bill was read a second time. WEST INDIA COLONIES, &c., LOANS ti.CT AMENDMENT EM. This bill was then read a second time. BANK NOTES BILL. This bill passed through committee. ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND). Mr. MACARTNEY moved for ce r t a i n returns connected with the working of this Court, which was agreed to. The house adjourned at half-past nine o'clock. THE SUN, LONDON, T CESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 30, 1852. LAW INTELLIGENCE. PRIVY COUNCIL, SMITH, APPELLANT, V. DEIGHTON AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS. The arguments having concluded in this case, Sir Stephen Lushington delivered the judgment of the Council. He said the question was what was the con struction of the statute regulating parish vestries with regard to public notice ? The object of the Legislature evidently was that notice should be given to the pa rishioners as to what was the special business to be dis posed of by the vestry. The Council were of opinion that in order to comply with this statute special pur poses should be stated in the notice required to be given. The notice in the present instance was to the follow ing effect :—" Notice is hereby given that a meet ing of the parishioners of the parish of St. Michael, in the town of Cambridge, will be held in the vestry-room of the said parish on the 23d day of January, 1851, to levy a rate for the purpose of defray ing the expenses incurred by the churchwardens in and about repairing and restoring the parish church, rendered necessary by reason of the late fire'— or otherwise to consider the expediency of borrowing the amount of such expenses on credit and security of the church rates of the said parish, pursuant to the statute of the 58th George 111. ; and in case it shall be considered expedient to borrow the amount of such expenses, to authorise the churchwardens to take the necessary mea sures for that purpose." It was difficult to entertain any doubt as to the meaning—the only meaning—of the words "for the purpose of defraying the expenses of repairing and restoring the parish church, rendered necessary by reason of the late fire." It was to give notice that a rate was only to be made for the purpose of defraying the expenses " rendered necessary by the late fire." This notice, therefore, excluded any other matter which was not rendered necessary "by the late fire." It appeared to the Council that upon the whole the notice was insufficient, and that the statute regulating parish vestries had not been complied with. The cause would therefore be remitted to the court below ; the costs in the court below would be allowed ; but the appeal would be reversed without costs. Judgment accordingly. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—Nov. 29. (Sittings at Nisi Prius.) PEACHY V. ROWLAND AND ANOTHER. The plaintiff, a grocer in Marlborough-road, Chelsea, sued the defendants, Messrs. Rowland and Evans, who were builders at Islington, for damages done to himself, his horse, and cart, by an upset which occurred in the Fulham-road. The facts were, that the plaintiff, with his wife and two friends, were going home along the Fulham-road in a dog-cart, between 9 and 10 o'clock on Sunday even ing, the Ist of August. When they got opposite a place called Salem-buildings, they came upon a sewer which had been filled in, but the work had been done in such a manner that the earth projected about a foot above the level of the road. The consequence was that the cart upset, the plaintiff's great toe was broken, the cart and harness were much injured, and the horse was so hurt that ultimately it died of its injuries. As frequently happens in cases of this kind the great difficulty was to prove the liability of the defendants, and ultimately Mr. Evans, one of the defendants, was called, and he stated • that the work had been done by sub-contractors over whom the defendants had no con trol. The jury therefore found a verdict for the defendants . COURT OF EXCHEQUER—Nov. 29. (Sittings at Nisi Prius.) THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WILLIAM PRENTICE. This was an information filed by the Attorney-General to recover penalties from the defendant, for illegally un shipping a quantity of tobacco without payment of duty. It appeared that on the 2d of November, last year, a quantity of tobacco was landed from a vessel called the Neptune, of which a person called Best was the master, whilst she was lying in the river Orwell, in Suffolk, and about 200 bales were taken to the Trimley Marshes. A person named Farringdon, on board a vessel called the Gazelle, lying in the same river, assisted in the landing of the goods, and several persons, residing in til9 neigh bourhood, lent their carts for the purpose. About 90 bales had been seized by the customs officers, but the remainder had eluded their vigilance. The Neptune had been condemned and sold. Several witnesses were called, some of whom were accomplices, and a clear case having been established against the defendant, the jury found a verdict for the Crown. The Attorney-General said he would take a verdici for a single value-1,9601. penalty. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. GEORGE ARCHER. This was a similar information for landing tobacco at the same place, in May of the present year, from a vessel called the Alert, which had been employed to bring about 80 bales of tobacco from a port in Flanders. There were similar informations against William Ham mond and James Briggs, for being concerned in the same transaction. The jury found verdicts for the Crown, and the Attor. ney-General consented to take a single penalty of 784/, in each case. There were five other informations against persons concerned in the landing from the Neptune, which were undefended, and in all of which verdicts were given for the Crown, with heavy penalties. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Emanuel Nathan, coffee-house keeper, and Charles William s , wa it er , were brought before Mr:Hardwick, charged with having sold brandy without being licensed, whereby they had in curred a, penalty of 1001. The defendant Nathan is, or was, the proprietor of the Waterloo Coffee-house, in Jermyn-street, and has several times been summoned to this court by the police for keeping open his house on Sunday morning, and allow ing men and women to congregate therein. A short time back he was summoned for selling brandy and water in tea-cups to the customers, but the case failed for want of proof that money had passed. On that occa sion Mr. Broughton, who heard the case, recommended the employment of police constables in plain clothes, as he considered that coffee-shops, if allowed to sell liquor in the way described as the custom of this house, would become public nuisances, because of the encouragement they would give to intemperance. Inspector Lester said he sent two constables in plain clothes into the defendant's on Sunday morning last. He followed soon afterwards, but his approach was seen by some one stationed outside of the house, who went in and gave notice. He got into the house, and found a great many persons on the ground-floor and first-floor. He found several glasses of brandy and water, and some brandy and water in a coffee-cup. He took them away, and had brought them into Court with him. He also took Nathan and the waiter to the station-house, and locked them up. Nathan at the station-house described himself as a betting-office keeper. Two constables came forward and stated that they went to Waterloo Coffee-house, Jermyn-street, on Sun day morning, and on being admitted proceeded to the first-floor room, where there were about thirty men, and from fifteen to twenty women of loose character. Three persons who sat at the same table with them called the waiter, and told him to bring them three drops of brandy. The waiter went away, and in a minute or two returned with a tray and three coffee-cups filled with brandy and water. On being asked what was to pay the waiter, said 35., and the money was given to him. At that moment a ring was heard at the door, and immediately the glasses and cups containing liquor were put out of sight, some under the table, some under the dresses of the women. A communication was made to Nathan, who then came up to the constables and told them they must leave the room, as it was a subscription-room. Force having been used, the constables left the room, and were served with coffee in the room below. Nathan said he did not now keep the house. Inspector Lester said there was another name over the door, but Nathan was the rated occupant. Nathan said he knew nothing about the brandy and water. The waiter admitted that he had served brandy and water, but asserted that the persons themselves brought the liquor into the house with them, and that the money paid was for supper and not liquor. Mr. Hardwick said as the penalty was very heavy, he would consider the evidence and give his judgment on Friday next. SOUTHWARK.--The Rev. Mr. Armstrong, minister of one of the district churches of Bermondsey, applied for a summons on the behalf of a poor woman, against a Roman Catholic priest, for having assaulted her. Mr. Seeker, who presided on the occasion, inquired the nature of the alleged assault ? . _ The rev. applicant said that the poor woman by whom he was accompanied, was the person on whose behalf he applied ; that she was from Ireland, and that some time since he (applicant) baptized one of her children ; that she had become a convert to the Protestant faith, and that the person against whom she now complained was a Catholic priest, who, on hearing what had occurred with regard to the baptism of her child, called upon her, used language of a highly objectionable nature, and ultimately struck her ; and that it was for the assault under such circumstances that the present application was made. Mr. Seeker directed that the woman, should be sworn, and this having been done, she then stated that the priest called at her lodgings and inquired if she had had a child baptized by the Rev. Mr. Armstrong ; and upon her replying in the affirmative, he got into a great passion, and said that both she and her offspring were sure to go to hell. She begged that he would leave the place if that was the benediction he predicted would befal them. He did not go, but lifting his umbrella, gave her several blows with it over the head and shoulders, and then quitted the place, expressing that she was certain to go to the place he had before men tioned. Mr. Seeker inquired if any persons had witnessed the alleged assault ? The applicant having stated that there were two or three persons present at the time, the magistrate at once granted a summons against the person complained of. THAMES.—A very portly, red-faced gentlem an , described in the police sheet as John Wilson, aged 40, of the Castle and Falcon Tavern, City, shipowner, was brought before Mr. Yardley, charged with being d run k and incapable of taking care of hirnielf, at half-past 11 o'clock on Sunday night, in Lower Sha,dwell. Mr. Yardley —What have you to say to this, Mr. Wilson ?—Defendant--Well, I got a glass too much. It was vexation and the depression of the times caused me to do it, sir. Mr. Yardley—We are all congratulating ourse l ves that we have very prosperous times. You are a master mariner, I presume, by your. appearance. If Y" g` r -- drunk you will lose your certificate.Defendant-S° tu 1 0 worship, lam not a master mariner. I belo n g to agricultural interest. Mr. Yardley—l see you are described as a s hipown e i r : You plough the ocean.:—Defendant—No ; I plough tue land, and my ship ploughs the ocean. Mr. Yardley—Then you are making money both on land and sea. The division of Friday night, I suPP °se ; caused you to get drunk.—Defendant—l was vexed sci things. Mr. Yardley—l must fine you ss.—Defendant--! hope you won't do that ; things in Northumberland aw very bad. Mr. Yardley— Oh ou come from Northumb erlapd —Defendant--Yes,sir. We can't get the interest of the money lent—l can't really. Mr. Yardley—Besides being a shipowner and owner, you lend money on mortg tge ?—Defend aut" Well, I do ; but I am in very great distress indeed. The agricultural intest is very low, sir. Mr. Yardley-Is it really the case the acricultu interest is in a state of distress ? (A laugh.) Pe i° ant—Well, it is in great distress. Mr. Yardley—Very well, then ; I will fine You only, on account of the agricultural distress. (L ou laughter.) The defendant put his hand in his pocket, and fr°lll from amongst a quantity of half-soverigns, _halfpeleci pieces of tobacco, and grains of wheat, picked out tw shillings, paid the fine, and waddled out of the court-- large and unwieldy monument of agricultural distress. COUNTRY MARKETS. CHELMSFORD—Nov. 26. 01 Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat, white, old to to 54s Od, new 42s to 53s ; red, old 40s to 465, new 359 to 41s ; barley, 26s to 30s ; chev a li e r, 28s to 335 ; Grinuat, 21s to 27s ; malt, 55s to 56s ; chev a lier, 55s to 580 ; ° 33s ; 19s to 25s ; peas, partridge, 30s to 35s • white, 31s to - boiling 37s to 40 , s ; dun, new, 298 to 34's ; beans, tie'' to 343 ; harrow ticks, 31s to 36s ; mazagan, 29s to 328' COLCHESTER—Nov. 27. , h p; Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat white, i . so red, 36s to 45s ; barley, 28s to 34 8 ; oats : l7s to 24s ; mazagan, 30s to 32s ; middle and small, 34s to 38° ; white, 40s to 42s ; grey, 30s to 325. ne ie' The following is the official statement of the ql itit r tg of corn, &c., received in the port of London from the IVA in Essex, from the 22d to the 27th November, 1 852 ' inclusive : ----": -a 1: :, . • • O' ; P. , 4 m 0 pa _.. 150 Colchester 0 0 Harwich - .., Leigh 301 100 46 - „ 630 Maldon 486 250, 246 14 229 I _l% KIRICALDY—Nov. 27. The following are the quotations for grain : 116 Bes . Wheat. I Barley. I n Oats. 0d I First Secood I I Third 39s Oct 24s 6d l7s Od I 4, Oatmeal, per bag of 2801bs imperial, 28s Oct to 000' COAL MARK Prices of Coal per ton at t] LET—Nov. 29. he close of the market Hett0n..................... , 1 •7 6 Ha5we11.................... :;16 Lambton ................. .:6 Lumley . .. ............ Russell's letton .......... ; 6 Stewart's .................... Whitwell ...............••.• 16 . 6 Cassop.. .. . ................. .i 6 Hartlepool ................. 15 Heugh Hall .................. i 6 Kelloe .. . . ..... . ......... 1 6 South Hartlepool ..... •••.,5 Thornley. ................. West Kelloe.. .............. 1-6 Adelaide Tees ..15 Backhouse ................ : 1 5 6 South Durham .......... • 16 Tee 5........... ............ u Woodhouse Close ...... •• Fothergill's Aberdare g g 0 Steam. . . . ........... ••14 W. E. Yorkshire ....... Gwaen Cae Gurwen ••• 31 0 Nixon's Merthyr& Car' . 0 Cwm Garnaul ............. s. (1. Carr's Hartley 15 6 Chester Main 14 6 Wellington Hartley l4 9 Hasting's Hartley 15 6 Hedley's Hartley l4 6 Hartlepool West Hartley 15 6 Stewart's Hartley 14 3 Rayensworth W. Hartley 15 6 Tanfield Moor l4 9 Tanfield Moor Butes 14 6 West Wylam Trader 14 6 Wylam 15 3 Wall's End, &c. Winsor's Pontop 14 9 Gosforth 15 0 Heaton l5 3 Hedley 15 3 Lawson l5 0 Northumberland E. 15 0 Riddell l5 0 Walker l5 0 Jonassohu l4 9 Killingsworth E. l5 0 Eden Main 16 0 Belmont 15 9 Ships at market, 18 13 Sold, 97. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, NOV. 29. ~ork„ye STOCK EXCHANGE.—We have had a good, strong to-day, and a general advance on Saturday's r jos s: taken place, as will be seen by the following qu otas , s hir e ' —Aberdeen, 17/ ; Birkenhead, Lancaslaira, and "' e „ ri jaS l 6$ ; ditto (late Chester and Birkenhead), 22 ; Cs leav i itie 6 ' 34/ ; Chester and Holyhead, 25i ; Eastern ecl,,rel; 13 A 13c. 1-16 ; East Lancashire, 204 ; EdinburghLt re f ise` and Dundee, 7a ; Great Northern, B, 15 a Yorkshire, 88i ; ditto (fifth shares), 3d. ; Leeds I N° isrol 9. (late Leeds and Thirsk), 18/ a ; London and OW Western, 127 f 8 4 /c.; Manchester, Sheffield, an iA I; coin, 33 ; Midland, 80$ A a 794 c 80i 79ic ic B ' 6 o North British, 11 10 15-16 11; North taffordshire , yjd' South-Eastern and Dover, 241 ; York and Nortl l land, 32 ; Great Southern and Western, 52g. MANCHESTER, Nov. 29. tl lO STOCK EXCHANGE.—We have had a buoy mar c o being the account day, an d p r i ces i n some cases s q y, W shade higher. London and North Westerns were 501; 3/. better, the sales being at 127 s and 128. Midlan& , „ t ie• Boyers, 24 11-16 ; Caledoni a n, 353 ; E as t ern C° n "c o rict 13 n, s ; West Ridings, 2- f 3 / 4 d. • North British, 1 1 ;. 4 .10 14 Blackrock, and Passage, 15i ; Le e d s , ; Leeds NTgot 18 3 ; Cheshire Junction, 61 d. ; Edinburgh and G:_,l - s trio 38i ; Fleetwoods, ; Lake Bathurst, d. ; v 4. 1 0; Bank, p. ; East Lancashire, 2(4 ; Blackburn, 1 , 43 - " f oolat ditto Preference, 26 ; North Staff or d, 3 d. ; 33 ; York and North Midland, 31g. BIRMINGHAM, Nov. 29. STOCK EXCHANGE.—This market was very Slatnoe to-day, and prices advanced. M a n c h es t er and 11 e y were done at 33; and Birmingham and Stour v 10 LEEDS, Nov. 29. • Alva ° I STOCK EXCHANGE.—There has been a very a- - q o ao ket on Change this morning. Prices generally coot Dee' • hflv e f iber' rise, though the transactions this morning chiefly on speculation for the account middle of -v ee oP e t ," o In Leeds North erns th e t ransac ti ons were numeroll s ing at 18, and closing at 181. Midlands were doll? r ", close at 801. East Lancalires at 20} ; Lancash l . Yorkshire Fifths at 2 1 1 ; North Westerns at 9 1 . o South Easter n an d D overs a t 243 • CaCaledonian s9t York and North Midl an d s a t 311 • Leeds Northern v" sions, No. 3, ls. 6d. pm. ; North Western Pref., 3d. ; Nouveau Monde, 21. SEABORNE MAILS. Y [N signifies that the mails are sent from th e General by the night—and M by the morning —dispatch.] Day when made up From what 12 do :oautthhaa::::: ge6._. 1 COUNTRIES. in General Post- Port /‘ Office, London. dis , atched• ... .„.•;•• •6 ----- — _—_— ..., i America (byßrit.pack.N Dec. 4 .......... Liverpool .• im. 6 America (by United Sts. . . Dec* packet) ..........N Nov. 30.......... Liverpool • • America (by U. States pe e 4 packet . . N , 9 4 Australia (via South ampton ......... ',,,1 29th of Cc:l;m . rith . Ditto (zia M . arsenics) N 24th of the month Dover .• •• • a *Ditto (via Cape of Good Ncl' ;- Hope ............N 2nd of December.. Plymouth ••• D e. - 0 Africa (West Coast) ..N 23rd of the mo n th. Ply m outh •• go. Alexandria* ........N 19th&30th of mon. Dover •• • • ••• Dall.f i g Belgium ............N ' 1ai1y...... .. Brazil . . Buenor Ayres.... —.31 9th of the month.. Southampton ree , , i ,9 California .... .... „II 2d & 17th of month Southampton 50.; 9 iCape of Good Hope ..N 14thof the month.. Plymouth • • Nov. 31 Cape de Verde ......N 14thof the month.. Plymouth • • sa• , Constantinople* .. .. ..N 7thl7th27th o r mo . D over . • • • • • , i e. ' gat' Central America, ....114 2nd & 17th of mon. RouthamPtcL y Tp I ~, Channel Isles ........N Mon • W e d .& F r i day SouthamPt." D ec , ollY Chili ................N 4.1 & 17th of month • 4 outbamPt on ricic e 3 o , France ........ 31 & N Twice daily ...... D over ••• • " gov• zr Greece* .. Hamburgh ..........N Tuesd a y & F r i day London .• •• • son•-` l 6 , liolland ............M Wednesday & S a t L on d on • •:,:,.; pee pill Honduras ......... N 17th of the m on th Southampt on 11•1 1 oi Ireland ........ M & N Twice daily ...... Holyhead •• • Dec.l India (viaSouthampt.)M 29th of themonth.. Southampto n Dec. India (via Marseilles) N gth& 24th of month Dover .• •• " R d India (via Cape of Good 140' 0 Hope)... .... ......M 14th of the month. Plymouth ••: L•fof• Mauritius ..........N 14th of the month.. Plymouth • • 4 Mediterranean (via Southampton .. .. .. M 29th of the month , Southall:lo °n l i;:: 1 DAto Mexico (via Marseilles).N ith& 24th ofmonth Dover • • •:', D , ec. i g ......N ?lid of the month. SouthamPn; Dec• Madeira ............111 9th&23dofthenton. SouthaMPw' g g Ma1ta*....... ~,,, r th,l7th,l9th,27th, !Of' , ' **** ." &30th of the month Dover ••• • " Dec. g Naples* . ..........N sthlsth2sthofmon. Dover ••• • " Dec. 6 Papal States*. ..... ..N ithlsth2sthofmon. Dover • • • .. i"c. 1 Peninsula ..........31 Tthl 7th27tbofmon. Southampt on pec• g Peru ... ... ... —ld 2d & 17th of month 'zoutban 3 P ,o '" pec• 1 Tuscany* .N sthlsth2sthof mon, Dover •• • . °e e. West Indies Van Diemen' s Land(see _____ ooo ol . ) , Australia .......... I OW 1 _....< i i ili iii .---- • The mails for Australia via the Cape of Good Hope $l :9 O S sto on the second of every alternate month. Those Int e st rgel leg ieg 20th and 24th of each month via Southampton and J* 4. t ot sent by sailing vessels at present from Singapore, ba t o t fO f they will be sent in steamers. 01 3 "" ofi t Mails are also made up on the 2d of every alter:l t r s le 0 the Cape of Good Hope.—The mails which ought W b e d of the 14th will not be dispatched before the 25th. , ..,.. cosrr ei- * The mails to those countries thus marked (*).."" to P s French packet to Marseilles Oa W ES T COAST OF AFRICA.--The mails will not be made P 4th of next month. BIRTHS. 0 1 0 OF A SON. On the 28th inst., at Belle Vue-house, ,r_tting-h wife of C. H. Barnes, Esq. OF A DAUGHTER. i On the 28th inst., a t Up per Clo.pton, the 1 1 1 . fo 0.. f Priestman, Esq. MARRIE. On tho 24th i ns t , vt Woßaton D Nottingbanishire4l4t. G. T. Wade, 13th. (Prince Albert's) Light I D n fo,n' .13,01 ag00, Caroline Loui s H enr i e tt a, e ld es t d a ughter of D. _...-' Esq., of Tulloch Castle, N.B J. G. t p h a e le 2 y 9 , t , h Es i ci n . s ., t , deeply lamented, after a f 697 re ill" 1 1 ;' illness,_ . at the house . of his father-in-law, Sir Fitzrq 00 , of in riccadilly Captain John Green Paley, youngeg Oct 43ber' of Oatlands, Yorkshire. Between Ballarat and Buninyong, on the 30th ,„,, 1 1 ' 1851, cruelly murdered on his way home to INfel° ll :ort i : Lateward, Esq., eldest son of the Rev. J• F. 14 3 " e i 0 PY rector of Perivale, Middlesex, and British ChaPt. a ot Berne. The remains of the unfortunate deceased vs discovered till the August following ---••2-'-#.°;= loofa London : Printed and Published by 311JRDO No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, Do Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy-, __in the ow" Tuesday, November 30, 3.0% _.~..~-' b; Tt ' r I i Or t b_ • Willi oila_t o iteteal bY Pldllov e r e s a c _, ta;:'' Th e 1 41 4 ln Is a dvan ce tb ayes ig tall r" ap tileati ~xl/t4c r i l li I :11,,,,1„ 4lrelZil Ders o a n r , 3 ' a e:t I m oo T:3O,T, 4 5 0 Loac To ' t t)°° R RI D e e deliv I;ea Tender 1:f : 1 1 11 4. nd clelr e d i f o 4 r llan P orni c 011 4,1 0 , 18 0 by lettneereC, n o lC o tend: au t t,! n :° not r i, t - v , ris ed in r alto er Y ten( kiii'ehr Dat i l e k , , q h i a tzneiln, hcun tor Derfq Nita], 27, N.,. a . ordn e Tp e ,I , Ties eti 1-c 1,,,124411 'rho.; 'muraaa Wlll I. bav RE That RN, t - lthei r nat th e A t l en at -"" becen t , I'lll be con; PAST T he ( eeeloh ef ther jan na7, tE I'a 9 t and IS 1j13 • 11 t r : } , o Tlct fretn t h ,nox e 0 4 „ , :fes qvis L o 3o n '°rlll XVEC .- "END 14 to I , ll '4l 't SI '4 d r " whic , 1 1 1 '.•,c0;14id v. l nst ikt oet. 1 111 ' 1 1 4 j e, -%t n h t 11 4 ' "" ), 'rOk,"• At tt -Penn To th, C Ire bnlentlener lop ~ tB kth~, c, t4lity fllli ~heper 11,e Ittecit. C l l -112 do 'lsi(yr, N et f4r si tit ItAlg t 'RA? liko 'lt) t , l , Ittits., kessl (len t elko, it Ur th 'club% script',