The Sun. — London, England, 1848-07-22 00:00:00

what he chose to terra " his public life" when he aga.in reteirned to "public life" to organize this system, and when he passed in review at successive intervals persons who, if not possessed of arms, had been instructed in training, and told that it was nothing, unless they had arms to use—when he observed all this, was there any difficulty in seeing the object in view? — (Hear.) He therefore said that the notoriety of the case was made out, and when the Noble Lord made his mo tion for copies of the reports from stipendiary magis trates, he did not object to it, but he wished him to sub stitute " extraots of dispatches," because they included a great deal of matter which it would not be fit to lay before the public—(Hear, hear)—and which would weaken the case and defeat the object of the Govern ment if published. With regard to the powers which existed, the Noble Earl at the head of the Government in Ireland would not, he was sure, be suspected of not giving effect to those powers—powers which were more usefully employed than the Noble Earl opposite seemed disposed to think; for when he said they had not been so effectual in procuring the possession of arms, he must not forget that the power exercised led to the abandonment of the open use of arms, which had been productive of the best effect. The Noble Earl (Clarendon) attached the greatest import ance to the Act to which he referred. He (the Marquis of Lansdowne) knew he had abstained as long as he pos sibly could from applying it to the great cities in Ire land' and particularly to Dubli n . —(H ear , h ear .) H e also knew that his Noble Friend thought that the time had now come when the Act must be strictly enforced, and it would be with all that vigilance and sagacity which characterised his Noble Friend. Other Acts of Parliament applicable to the present emergency had been revived by the Government of Ireland, one of which against training had already been brought into operation with very good effects, and as it was about to expire, the Government would call upon the Legislature to renew it during the present session. —(Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the Noble Earl in thinking that the trial by jury was so ineffective in Ireland as he had represented it to be—more particu larly when he recollected the courage and honesty with which the jurors empanelled during the recent trials for murder had discharged the functions that devolved on them. The conduct of these jurors entitled them to re ceive the thinks of their country, and it was only justice to those who were ealled upon to assist at the cases at Limeriesk, to state that not a single witness shrank from, giving his evidence in a truthful manner, and thus aid ing the cause of justice. He entirely coincided in the opinion expressed by the Noble Earl, that the clubs ex ercised a power of intimidation in Ireland over all classes, high and low, rich and poor; and notices were universally spread abroad by these associations that they considered all who did not join them, and act in concert with them, to be their enemies, thus abusing what they termed liberty, and rendering that term more hateful than the worst despotism of an absolute Government. Was not this a state of things that ought to be grappled with by the Government?—(Hear, hear.) Did it not call for the exercise of all the powers of Government? — (Hear, hear.) And he would say that his Noble Friend at the head of the Ministry was prepared to use those powers, supported as he hoped he would be by both Houses of Parliament —(Hear, hear.) He knew it had been said, why did not the Government wait? Why do to-day what might be put off till to-morrow? In an swer to these objections he could only express his belief that they had arrived at a state of things, when any loss of time would be a certain loss of power.—(Hear, hear.) If the power of the Government were now exerted, so far from tending to a loss of life or an im patrment of liberty, the very reverse would be the effect of prompt measures.—(Hear.) Under these circumstances the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had informed the Go vernment that the time had arrived when it was necessary to arm him with the power of detaining all persons suspected of treasonable or seditious ietentions or opinions. He (the Marquis of Lansdowne) thought that this was a power very justly called for by his Noble Friend, because the exercise of it would strike at the leaders of the insurrectionary parties in Ireland.--(Hear, hear.) The condition of the population of that coun • try ought to be taken into consideration. "hey had strong tendencies to commit excesses. They wore marked by an incapacity to judge correctly of their own condition. They were deprived of the advantages of having capital employed amongst them, and when, in addition to all these characteristics, ho found that they had recently suffered severely under a dispensation of Providence which had inflicted the horrors of famine , upon them, he felt that there were some excuses for the population being excited into manifestations of sedition, and led away by their teachers and orators. But as for those leaders and teachers, who knew the falsity of the statements which they uttered, and who had taken advantage of the sufferings caused by famine to turn the minds of the people against the Government, he felt that for inch-leaders no pity ought or could be entertained, and it was against them that the whole power of the Government add of the Parliament would be fairly and justly levellede—(Hear.) He was, therefore, of opinion that the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was justified in making the demand which he had done, and he trusted the Parliament would manifest no other feeling on the subject than that they trusted the power so asked for in safe hands—(Hear)—and, also, that his Noble Friend, having only asked for it at the last moment, was all the more likely to exercise it prudently and with modera tion. For the reasons, therefore, that he had stated, he hoped the Noble Earl would withdraw his motion, as the production of the correspondence would only lead to bad results, and could do no good. Before he sat down he must state on the authority of his Noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon") that, although there were individual instances to the contrary, the conduct of the great por tion of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland had been most meritorious—(Hear)—and they had exerted themselves most effectually in opposing the progress of sedition and inflammation—(Hear, hear)—and he might add, that many cases might be cited where they had made effectual exhortations to their flocks to maintain peace and to prevent the contagion of treason and dis content from reaching them. And these facts his Noble Friend was most anxious should be publicly stated and universally known. Lord BROUGHAM said that he was one of not a few Members of their Lordships' House who were dis posed to ask the Government why they had waited so long. Now, however, after the delay of six months, they were prepared to act, and he cordially approved of their intention, only hoping it was not adopted too late to be effectual. The enly way to avoid the unhappy state of things observable in a neighbouring country was to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, or, in other words, to give the authorities there the power to imprison persons without having any sworn informa tions against them. By so doing the Government would have the power of imprisoning the leaders of the sedition, and thus those would be taken away in whose absence the insurrection could not proceed. He would call their Lordships' attention to a statement made by a person of high legal authority, who gave it as his opinion that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was a remedy for the evil, inasmuch as it tended to cure and not to irritate. He had been told that he was at liberty to cite the name of the late Mr. O'Connell as that of the authority to whom he referred, but he had declined to do so unless the conversation wherein he made the assertion was committed to paper by the very respectable person who had held it with him. This had been done, and he would now proceed to read the record of the conversation. The Noble Lord then read a statement to the effect that about three weeks be fore Sir Robert Peel's Coercion Bill of 1845 was brought in, the late Daniel O'Connell deliberately stated to the writer, in the presence of a Learned Doctor and another gentleman, who was since a Member of Parliament, whose names he (Lord Brougham) would, together with his informant's, communicate to the Noble Marquis, that in his opinion the true remedy and the safe and constitu tional course to pursue in regard to Limerick was to resort to what was commonly called the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, as that would cure and not irritate. And Mr. D. O'Connell also then stated that if Sir R. Peel made out a case, he would support him in suspend ing the Habeas Corpus Act, provided he (Sir R. Peel) produced at the same time to the House those measures of relief and justice to Ireland which he (Sir R. Peel) had so often promised to give to the people of that country. In that case, Mr. D. O'Connell said he w ould give hi s . hearty suppor. t to the suspension of the Habe as C orpus, but he would oppose any Curfew Bill, as that would irri tate and not cure the malady. The writer proceeded t o state that, with Mr. D. O'Connell s permission, he h a N d o p b u l e t this conversation on paper and sho wn it to Sir R. Pe e l and Lord J. Russell. Such testimony, continued the Lord (Brougham), was of no slight value in supp ort of the measure proposed by the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland and I her Majesty's Government. H e himsel f wa s, i n com mon with the Noble Marquis opposite, a firm unalter able friend to liberty, and it was because he was so that he detested anarchy, and such scenes as were now witnessed in Ireland. He hoped a nd trusted that the Noble Lord and his colleagues wou ld not. forget one ht sentence uttered by his Noble Friend near m, namel y, that the peril was great and immediate. Let the measure be also immediate in its enactment, believed so that the remedy might be quickly applied. 'H o that the Government could not take a wiser or more regular course than to suspend the standing orders and pass the Bill at once. Those who wished to see an outbreak in Ireland would avail themselves of the delay, however short, which might intervene between the present time and the passing of a Bill into law. Lord STANLEY said, that however great the alarm might be which was created by the knowledge that the Government was going to resort to strong measures, there was no right-thinking man in the country who would not cordially rejoice at hearing the announcement made by her Majesty's Ministers, and if there was any drawback to that feeling of satisfaction it was not on aecount of the promptness of the determination of the Government, but rather because of the delay that had taken place in coming to it. For the measure about to .be proposed was not a lose of power but a means of strength—and had it been proposed some months ago, the state of Ireland would not be so dangerous as it now was. He did not know if the powers asked for would , be sufficient for the purpose, but at all,events they were of a right class—tor thereby the Government would be enabled to strike the proper persons. He did not desire to see the victims of their own credulity sub jected to the penalties attached to the law. He rather hoped and expected to see those who had so basely prac tised on the credulity of the people, and who had for their own personal purposes misled them, first struck at by the authorities. It was those who incited others to sedition and treason, and yet who had knowledge enough to en able them to keep within the letter of the law, that ought to pay the penalty of their wickedness. He did not wish to see them punished for the sake of vengeance, but for that of example and for the good of the community. On them he trusted severity would fall in all the weight of the law, and he also hoped that no delays would be per mitted to retard the progress of the measure ; if such . de lay should be permitted to take place the sword of justice would fall without effect. If the course pursued in for mer trials for sedition was again followed, it would be I ~ t- , THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING. JULY 22, 1848. competition of the Dutch refiners. It had been strongly argued that the Dutch bounty was no advantage to the refiners of that country; but he knew that in foreign countries the British refiner was every year more unable to enter into competition with his Dutch rivals. It was ' a remarkable fact, that since the alteratiens proposed had been made known, some capitalist in the City had been stimulated to subscribe 70,000/. for resuscitating the Dutch refinery of M•Queen and Co. This could not but inflict a great injury on the British refiners as well as on the colonists. Mr. J. WILSON said the question was simply whether a duty of 245. Bd. on refined was equivalent to a duty of 203. on raw sugar. Formerly, these duties had been levied on no principle whatever. Government had taken great pains to ascertain the exact produce of a hundred weight of sugar, and the result of their inquiries was, that the duties which they proposed to fix on foreign single and double refined sugar, of 265. Bd. and 245. Bd. were exactly equivalent to the duty of 20s. on the raw sugar. The subject of the bounty said to be enjoyed by Dutch refiners had been imported into this discussion ; but h• considered that it was quite beside the question before the Committee. The bounty, so-called in Hol land, was merely a drawback, and only applied to the sugar refined for home consumption.—(Hear.) That point had long ago been reached ; and hence the Dutch refiners had petitioned the Government to be allowed to refine in bond. as was done by the English refiners. The case of the Dutch refiners referred to by the Hon. Member who had last spoken had no reference whatever to this question; for the arrangements had been made three weeks before the Government plan was known. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had correctly laid down the principle that we were entitled, on entering into treaties, to make what conditions we chose; but it should be remembered that the question referred to a treaty already in existence—. not one about to be made. With respect to the naviga tion-laws, he held in his hand a price current of Cuba, by which he found that the difference between the pri vileged and unprivileged flags amounted only to 15s. per ton, or 9d. per cwt. He denied that the British refiner would have any ground of complaint with the scale now proposed. Lord G. BENTINCK had heard the proposed reduc tio❑ on British refined sugar with great pleasure. This, accompanied with the permission to the colonists to re fine in bond, would be a great boon; but he regretted to hear that the measure would occupy a long time in its preparation. He was convinced, from the statement made to him by an extensive merchant, that the protec tion afforded by the navigation•laws was equivalent to 2s. 6d. per cwt.; and he could only account for the statement of the Honourable Member for Westbury, that the difference of rates at Huvannah was only 9d. per cwt., by supposing that the parties who freighted the unprivileged ships, deceived by the large pro mises of our Whig Government, had supposed that their vessels would be admissible here as soon as they arrived, owing to the navigation-laws having been repealed. He was led to the conclusion that the Dutch refiners would, by this means alone, enjoy a protec- Lion of 2s. 6d. a cwt., besides their bounty, which he must still regard as a bounty. He had in his band two specimens of Dutch sugar; one of these was at 235. in this market on Saturday last, but which rose to 255. after the alteration proposed by the Government. The other specimen had risen from 21s. 2d. in bond to 245. Sd. With regard to the Dutch treaty and the assertion of the Government that the Dutch were entitled to in sist on the admission of sugar refined by them, though not the produce of their own country, how was that to be reconciled with the fact that the Government up to the 30th of May, were resolved to maintain the Act of 1846, which contained a clause that the shipmaster or consignees of foreign vessels were to prove that the sugar to be imported at the lower rate of duty was bona fide the growth and produce of the country from which it was forwarded?—(Hear, hear.) They dealt in that manner with regard to Cuba, Porto Rico, Brazil, and their own British possessions, and it was a most mon strous absurdity fur Holland to expect to be treated in a more favoured manner than their own possessions. Mr. MITCHELL thought that the Noble Lord had greatly exaggerated the difference of freight caused by the navigation laws when he made it 2/. 108. He be lieved that 255. was considered the outside difference, and for himself he believed that 10s. was much nearer the truth. After a few words from Lord G. BENTINCK and Mr. MITCHELL in explanation, the duty ,of 18s. was sub stituted for 19s. 6d. In the next itentl63 was sub stituted for 17s. 4d., and corresponding changes were made in several other items up to a certain point, be yond which, in consequence of some inaccuracies and mistakes contained in the Bill, the Committee did not proceed. On theanotion of Mr. CARDWELL the Bill was com mitted pro forma, with a view to its being reprinted ; the Chairman reported and the House resumed. Mr. BARKLY hoped that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would bring the Bill under the consideration of the House as soon as possible. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would do so, but it could not be brought forward on Monday. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had given notice of a measure of great importance fur to.-morrow (Satur day), with which he should feel it necessary to proceed without fail or delay.—(Hear, hear.) March, 1849, before the instigators of the seditious practices of May and June, 1843, could be tried. He entirely agreed with the Noble Marquis and his Noble Friend near him, that the juries in Ireland had done their duty admirably dur ing the late trials. But it must be recollected that the trials were on the charges of murder, and the offenders had not been brought to conviction without many pre cautions having been taken to protect witnesses ; but cases of prandial crime were very different from such offences as were contemplated by the measures of the Government; and if the political feelings of the popu lation of Ireland were such as the Noble Earl had de scribed, they would to a man rejoiee at the escape ' from conviction of a rebel. If that were so, and he believed it was, could it be hoped or expected that ordinary juries would convict men of political offences in Ireland? He mistrusted the j ur i es a s far a s political trials were concerned, not only on account of their sympathy with the prisoners, but also because of the feeling of timidity which would prevent them from giving a verdict against their own countryman and fellow-Ca tholic. And he agreed with the Noble Earl in think ing that if there was a class of men exposed to danger amidst the conflicts of political and religious opinions in Ireland it was the Roman Catholic farmers and gentry. It was impossible for that class of persons to give any assistance or to show any countenance towards ' convictions for political offences withot subjecting them selves to be termed Orange Catholics. The people of Ireland and their priests looked on the Protestants as enemies, but they regarded with far deeper hatred and suspicion the Roman Catholics who supported them. The gauntlet had however, been throwa down in Ire land, and now the question was, shall the law or the mob have the upper hand. Every hour that this question was in doubt, added to the numbers and the strength of the disaffected ; and even men who would rally round the standard of the Government, did they know where to find it, were now driven into the ranks of the disaffected—first, by reason of being left to them selves ; and next, because they dared not refuse to make common cause with their countrymen. He would, how ever, not now stop to ask why matters had been suf fered to go the length they had done. He was only too dlad to see that the Government was determined to put own the seditious and treasonable practices of the leaders with a strong hand. He was confident Ministers would have the fullest support in that House, and also in the other, however inconsistent with constitutional saw the remedy proposed might:be. He hoped, more over, that the details of the measure would be as concise as possible, and that Government would ask for • % short and summary power, so that there would be no occasion for any lengthened delay in the progress of the Bill through Parliament. He was satisfied that if the Government was determined to restore order and the power of the Crown in Ireland, even though their mea sure was not within the pale of constitutional law, they would not only have the support of those who habitually voted with them, but also of every member of their bordships' House. The atarquis of LANSDOWNE said that he hoped the proposed measure would be passed into a law as speedily as possible, and if, as the Noble Lord opposite proposed, the House would agree to suspend its s t an di ng orders, that course would meet with the sanction of the Government. It would be satisfactory to his Noble Friend (Lord Brougham) to recal to his recollection that, should there be any unfortunate delay in passing the proposed Bill, the effect of which should be to hurry the unfortunate people who were now excited by their leaders into a state of insurrection, there did exist a statute of the Irish Parliament by which, should there be any outbreak or other manifestation of the com mencement of a rebellion, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire land was authorised to seize and detain every individual who should be suspected of seditious or treasonable practices or opinions; and he took that opportunity of stating that his Noble Friend the Earl of Clarendon was fully prepared to act at once upon that statute. Lord BROUGHAM said that it was a charity to the people of Ireland to remind them of the Act in question, and to apprise them of the determination of the Lord- Lieutenant to act upon it, which he hoped the Earl of Clarendon would fearlessly do. The Earl of GLENGALL then consented to with draw his motion. He stated it to be his opinion that the Government ought to call on the Lord-Lieutenants of Irish counties to repair to their respective counties. The motion was then by leave withdrawn. PROTECTION OF JUSTICES FROM VEXA- TIOUS ACTIONS BILL. On the motion that the report on this Bill be received Tho Earl of GLENGALL asked whether this Bill would be extended to Ireland? Lord CAMPBELL said he thought that such might probably be the case at some future period. The report was then received. Their Lordships adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Eight. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 21. SUGAR DUTIES. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK (in continuation) said-- He proposed to submit an amendment in Committee which, as it did not go to impose a higher rate of duty, the Speaker allowed might be put, though it was a nice point; but he would submit it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the best course would not be to withdraw the present Bill altogether, and bring in new resolutions, upon which a proper Bill might be founded; for no ono could believe that Government knew what they were doing when they framed the resolutions the House bad passed, and by which so serious a blow was inflicted on the British refiner (Hear, hear) — for if they did, what excuse could they make for keeping the trade and the country in ignorance of the intention to make so great a change in the law ? But if Ministers refused to take that course, he was prepared to unmask a new battery against them— (Hear, hear, and laugh ter)—he was ready to open a new budget of Ministerial blunders in respect to this mea sure.--(Hear, hear.) He was in a position to prove that they had made as many as twenty-three blunders in their calculation of their scale of duties.—(Cheers and laughter.) To make himself intelligible, he must ex plain that all the different rates of duty were based on the rates of duty leviable on muscovado—muscovado sugar, to use a railway expression, was the datum line of the calculation. Molasses were taken, as at 37i per cent. of the ♦alue of muscovado, white clayed at one sixth, high refined at one-third, and double refined at one-half higher than muscovado. With the first schedule, he had no fault to find ; but when he came to the second, that was, the duties to be levied on the sugar of other British possessions than those where foreign sugar was not excluded, he found that the amount fixed by the scale was 11.35. 4d., whereas it ought to be 11. Ss. 7d. In the next item, single refined sugar, in the first four columns there was no mistake, ho supposed, because those columns referred to old duties, and required no calcula- tion, but in the fifth column, the diity for the year 1352.3, the amount stated was 15g. while the proper amount, taking muscovado as the basis of value, would be 15s. 4d., and for the next year, 1853-4, the duty in the schedule was set down at 14s. 2d., instead of 14s. Bd. Them on white clayed sugar for 1852.3, the duty stated in the schedule was 13% 3d. instead of 13s. sd. ; for 1853-4 it was 12s. sd. while it ought to be 128.10 d. In the duty on molasses i❑ the first column for 1848 9 that which was charged 55. 7d. ought to be ss. 100. for the next year it was ss. 3d. instead of ss. sd. ; and for the third it was 4s. 9d. instead of 4s. 1 lid.; for the fourth 4s. 4d. instead of 4s. 6d. ; for the fifth 4s. Id. instead of 4s. 4d. ; for the sixth, 1853-4, it was 3s. 11d. instead of 4s. lid. -(Hear, hear.) On double refined sugar in tho third schedule the duty set down for the year 1852-3 was 195., it ought to be 19s. 6d. ; for 1853-4 it was 175., while it ought to be 18s.-(Hear, hear.) He was surprised Ministers could not obtain the assistance of persons con versant with common arithmetic to calculate these duties with something like correctness.-(A laugh.) In the same schedule and for the same year the duty stood for 1852-3 at 16s. Bd., it should be 17s. 4d.; for 1852-3 it was 15s. 2d., while it ought to stand at 16s. Hero was a difference of 10d. against the British refiner. Then in the article of white clayed, for 1852-3 the amount set down was 14s. 9d., instead of 15s. 2d.; and for 1853-4 it was 13s. 2d., instead of 14s. The same irregularities ex isted in the Hon. Member for Westbury's pet scale-the " brown clayed;" and if, as had been sometimes said, it was the nature of greatness to be irregular, the Hon. Gentleman had certainly succeeded.-(Hoar, and a laugh.) ss. 11d. ought to have been 6s. 4d., ss. 4d. ought to have been ss. 9d., 4s. 11d. ought to have been ss. 3d., 4s. 6d. ought to have been 4s. 11d., and, in the sixth column, 41. Id. ought to have been 4s. 7d. Now, that was the sum total, making 23 errors-(Hear, hear) -and he would ask whether it was too much to expect of the Government to throw out altogether this horribly blundering piece of legislation, and frame fresh resolu tions in accordance with the intentions of Parliament and the Legislature?-(Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that, as it would be extremely difficult to go through all the various points touched on by the Noble Lord, he would answer them one by one as they arose in Com mittee. into Mr. GOULBURN Committee, i t w th a o s u a g b h s t o l u th t e a l t y , n b e e n f e o s r s e ar they k w n e o n w t the plan the Government meant to propose, because, if it should involve duties it might be necessaryl increase of th e : ex i s ti ng go into a Committee of the whole House. The CHANCELLOR of to the EXCHEQUER said a reduction of that the only alterations int en d ed were sugar, foreign nd the refined certain duties respecting refined colonial corre ction of some inaccuracies respecting sugar. Mr. DISRAELI considered the statement of the Noble Lord exceedingly clear . It showed such an g l omera tion of error in this Bill, that he really did ano g think they should g o into Committee with out evincing t their want of confidence in an Administration that could produce a measure so saturated with mistakes,— (A laugh.) Mr. CARDWELL also pressed for explanation, on the ground that if they were dissatisfied with the Hon. Gentleman's explanation in Committee they would have no remedy. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the whole subject was matter of the purest detail, and that if his explanations were not satisfactory it would be competent for the Hon. Gentleman to move that the Chairman report progress. Mr. M. GIBSON controverted the idea of the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that the heading of the co lonial scale of duties was incorrect, and that the impor tation of foreign sugar was not prohibited at Jamaica. But that error, if error it were, must be completely nu gatory, because the Colonial Act was ruled by the Act of the Imperial Legislature. If the Noble Lord had given a deeper consideration to the subject he would aw l!a ueAc i tni e etnfsti f etn , w ) rh u teoa 7 that the heading of these scales of colonial Committee. On Ifestwelwauersdesbefrinome proposed, The the House Bill was not o pen The CHANCELL OR o to f th th s e ch E a X rg C es li o E f Q i U nac En gur s it a c i y d that the B ' which the Noble Lord so lavishly directed against it. _As to what the law was he had never entertained the least doubt; hut the Noble Lord having on Wednesday last stated that the Customs had demanded the payment of a higher rate of duty from parties importing Jamaica sugar than was legal, • he sent to the chairmen cf the Board of Customs, and found from him that no such de mand had been made, and that the entry of no sugar had been refused. The general wording of the Bill before the House clearly expressed the condition upon which the sugar of any particular colony was entitled to admission here at the lowest rate of duty, and that condition was the prohibition of the import of foreign sugar into that colony. The reason for that was stated in a letter from Mr. Deacon Hume to the Treasury in 1839, in which he said, " It is well known that the objeet of the prohibition is to prevent those colonies in which sugar is produced from being made the medium of a fraudulent transit of foreign sugar, as the produce of those colonies, into this country."; Accordingly, when the power of admitting sugar from the East India provinces were conceded, a distinction was made, and it was contained in the present Bill, as to the rate of duty on sugar from colonies from which the importation of foreign sugar was not prohibited. The sugar im ported from such colonies was therefore made liable to pay a higher rate of duty, because they did not pro hibit foreign sugar; consequently the condition on which the lowest rate of duty was demanded upon sugar im ported from our colonial possessions was that the itn • portation of foreign sugar into such colonies should be prohibited, and this was done with the view of pre venting foreign sugar being fraudulently imported here through those colonies. Now that was the case before the passing of the last British Possessions Act. In 1839 the question was raised whether foreign sugar refined in England was or was not to be considered as British produce, and the decision of the Government was that it was British produce, and as such admissible into the colonies. But lest any misapprehenlion should arise upon the subject, in the British Possessions Act of 1845, which was introduced by the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite (Mr. Glsdstone), and which was the exist ing Act, in the prohibition clause there was a special ex ception of sugar not being refined in bond in the United Kingdom ; and it was impossible, therefore, that any colonial law could affect that prohibition. If the British Possessions Act were repealed, that sugar might come in ; but it was distinctly provided that the importation of foreign sugar was prohibited into all the West India islands, audit was necessary that it should be so to allow them to send their sugar hero at the lower rate of duty. Mr. BARKLY referred to the Parliamentary papers of 1846 to show that foreign sugar was practically ad mitted into all the Britich West Indies in violation of, and though alleged to be excluded by, the British Pos sessions Act.—(hear, hear.) That was the real question to consider—which was simply one of fact. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question was rather what was the law. The Hon. Gentleman quoted returns to show that foreign sugar was imported into Barbadoes, Demerara, and other of our West India colo nies in violation of our British Possessions Act, but the fact of that importation did not prove its legality. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman having quoted several Acts on the subject, contended that any and every Colo nial Act in opposition to the British Possessions Act must be null and void. Mr. CARD WELL said that the confusion which had occurred on this subject might have been obviated if the attention of the parties concerned had been called at the proper time to the change which had been made in the schedule by the Jamaica Legislature. Mr. WILSON said that the Act did not come into operation until the 12th of this month, and as early as the 15th warrants were prepared in conformity with the Act of Parliament, and he did not think that much in terference to the trade had taken place. Lord G. BENTINCK assured the House that he knew cases in which considerable inconvenience had oc curred. The real question was—Was the sugar im ported to the colonies or was it not? It was known that it was, and that it paid the duty. How then could any man be called upon to present a warrant stating that his sugar was imported into this country from countries into which foreign sugar was not imported? How could Parliament pass an Act that would lead to warrants bearing falsehoods on the face of them? The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that all that parties were called upon to state was that the importa tion of foreign sugar into the colonies was prohibited — not that it was not imported. It was, in short, the dif ference between what was law and what was fact. Mr. GOULBURN then moved that after the words "growth or produce of British possessions" there be in• serted the words " in America, or any other British pos sessions." After a desultory conversation, in which the Clime- CELLOR of the Excaeotren, Mr. GLADSTONE, and other Members joined, the Committee divided on Mr. Goul burn's amendment, when there appeared— For the amendment Against it 73 Majority against it ... —4s The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose to propose an alteration in the duties levied upon refined sugar, and referred to a question which had been put by the Hon. Member for Leominster (%fr. Barkly), who had expressed his belief that these du ties were not fairly in proportion with the duties levied on muscovado sugar. It this were so, it would be pro ductive of a practical objection. But this was a ques tion which referred only to one part of the duties; for it was notorious that the colonists did not refine, and unless there was a permission to refine in bond no co lonial sugars would ever be used in this country. After a full inquiry into the subject, he was of opinion that the duty on refined sugars had always been taken too high—that was, assuming that the same amount of duty should be paid on sugar which was refined as would have been paid on the raw sugar refined not in bond. With regard to the admission ,of Dutch sugar, it had always been held that any article manufactured in a country should be taken as the produce of that country,let it be grown where it might. England had always insisted in every case in which she had " the most favou red nation" clause, on the admission of our manufactures without reference to the place whence the raw material had been procured. The matter had been argued in 1835 in this country on the very question of the admis sion of foreign sugar refined in this country to the %Vest India possessions; and the decision then was, that no matter where the sugar was grown, it must be held to have become the produce of this country, and was so ad - mitted into the West India colonies. This principle was most distinctly laid down, and he had, therefore, not thought it necessary to re-enact an exclusion which it was impossible to maintain. He now proposed that the rate of duty at which foreign sugar came into this country should be the same as that at which the same sugar was introduced hero to be refined. Two ob jections were raised to this—one by the refiners, who complained of the Dutch bounty; the other by the shipping interest, on the ground of the navi gation laws. But there was no ground for saying that the Dutch refiners had any advantage from their bounty over the English refiners, who were allowed to refine in bond. A proof of this was the fact that the Dutch refiners had applied to their Government to be al lowed to refine in bond. As to the navigation laws, their operation would probably only be for another year, and they would not cause a difference of above ls. a cwt. —(Hear, hear.) Tho only party who could complain was the West India producer; and, from the information he had received from a variety of sources, he was in clined to believe that the proceeds of the foreign sugar refined in bond paying 20s. duty would be rather above 205.; hence the colonist would have the same protection against the foreign sugar refined here in bond as he had against foreign sugar generally. It was also to bo observed, that the greater the pro ceeds of the refined sugar the higher duty would it have to pay. He proposed, then, to reduce the duty on colonial double-refined sugar from 19s. 6d. to 18s., and on single-refined from 17s. 4d. to 16s. In this case, as in that of the foreign sugar, it would make little differ ence to the owner of the sugar whether he paid the duty on it in the raw or refined state. By these means he hoped to extend the consumption of sugar, and at the same time to consult the interests of the colonists. He proposed now to take the reductions of 191. ed. and 17s. 4d. to 18s. and 165., and also those in the first column. In the third column he admitted there were some inaccuracies, though not to such an extent as was imputed by the Noble Lord; and he should take time to consider the effect of these more fully. He now moved the reduction of 19s. 6d. to 185. Mr. GLADSTONE contended that the Government had no right to lay down the principle that sugars should only be regarded according to the country of their manu facture, and not that of their production. He questioned whether Holland was entitled to have her sugars refined in the East Indies admitted on the same terms as those refined in Belgium. A country had a right, if it chose, to take a distinction founded on the place where the article was produced; that distinction had been taken by other countries, and acquiesced in by us. There were also traces of it in our own laws. By the Act of 1832, sugars refined in England from colonial sugar were made admissible to the North American colonies free of duty, while those sugars refined from foreign sugars were sub jected to a duty of 10 per cent. Again, by the 5 and 6 'rict., e. 47, the manufactures of the Channel Islands made of foreign materials were deemed the produce of foreign countries, and held to be imported from such countries. Therefore, if we recognised that principle as against ourselves, we were perfectly entitled to do so with regard to foreign countries, in the way proposed by the Noble Lord. Mr. CARDWELL deemed it necessary to a thorough appreciation of this subject that the Committee should have some knowledge of the conditions and circumstances under which Government proposed that refining in bond was to be carried on; and of this information they were destitute. In the proposed reduction of duty from 19s. 6d. to 18s. everything depended on the accuracy of the cal culators ; for if, unfortunately, a mistake were made, the consequences would be most ruinous to the refiners of this country, owing to the intimate way in which the question was mixed up with that of the Dutch refiners. He thought that longer time ought to have been given to consider the alteration now proposed. He had under stood the impression amongst practical men, as to the 265. Bd. and 245. Bd. on foreign sugar, to be, that the al teration would operate unfavourably towards our own trade. Not only ought the Committee to be in posses sion of the calculations whence these results wore drawn, but they should also know what regulations it was pro posed to apply to the trade of the refiner. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any objection to lay the 'sale u r l e a fit time;ine e n da s ns b du e g f b o ae r rf e ow t r h eo e ut Committee? breduction inoperative'fir from m e reductio nf2o6r. .a sc do .n s o t on 2dcolonial . on foreign sugar, the House ought to have the information he had referred to. Mr. BARELY said the duty of 245. Bd. on refined was equivalent to a duty of 18s. sd. on raw sugar. Refining in bond might be an excellent thing for the colonies in process of time; but meanwhile care must be taken of our own refiners, and they must not be exposed to the STRIKING OF JURIES IN IRELAND. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. KEOGH rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice two months ago. If he felt doubtful before as to the course he should pursue, the circumstance which had „occurred that day made him still more doubtful.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Go vernment had been in office for more than two years, and in the present session the House of Commons had as• canted to two measures of coercion against the people of Ireland. He was nut then going to make any remarks on the propriety or impropriety of the motion of which the Noble Lord had given notice; but it increased the re sponsibility of any Member who had to submit a motion respecting Ireland, that her Majesty's Government found the country in such a condition that they could not be answerable for its peace except by a temporary, though a long, suspension of the constitution of the realm.—(Hear.) He persisted in his determination to bring the motion forward, because if her Majesty's Go• vernment were able to give a satisfactory explanation of the facts he was about to submit to the House, it would go far to enlist public opinion in favour of the course they had pursued and were going to pursue, and would satisfy the minds of moderate thinking men in Ireland, whose opinions, he must say, had been strongly estranged from her Majesty's Government by reason of the course they pursued in reference to the late trials in that coun try. It might be said, that if anything had been out of the usual course, it was done against an atrocious crimi nal. But he apprehended that the Noble Lord would not say, that even the most atrocious criminal was not en titled to a fair and impartial trial. The insult that had been offered to the Roman Catholic population was ag gravated by the circumstances in which that criminal was involved, for it showed, however clear the case against him, that the Roman Catholic population of Ire land were considered as unworthy to be trusted even when acting under the solemn obligation of an oath. The mode of selecting juries was theoretically the same in Ireland as in England, the law under which they were chosen being the same, namely, the 3d and 4th of William IV. But he was prepared to prove that in every transaction connected with the case of John Mitchel, now a convict in Bermuda, from the original selection of the panel to the time of trial in the box, there had been a gross invasion of the due ad ministration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) A.nd, first of all, he begged to call the attention of the House to the fact that in Ireland the sheriff, who was appointed by the Crown, had the striking of the jury list. The practice was different in this country, and particularly in the city of London. The names of those who were qualified to act as jurors were collected in a book called the jurors' book for the city of Dublin. It so happened that the jurors' book for the present year contained 4,570 names. Of these 2,965 were Roman Catholics, and 1,635 were Protestants. There were therefore more than two Roman Catholics for every Protestant in the jurors' book. From that book it was the duty of the sheriff to select such a number of names as would be sufficient to try all the offenders during the commis sion. In this particular case the sheriffselected 150 names, which selection was made by the sheriff personally, and not by ballot; and it followed that more than 4to 1 of the jurors selected were Protestants. There was something very singular about this. By the Act of Par liament, the sheriff , when he selected the panel, was bound to sign it, and the summonser was obli g ed t o summon the jury six days before the trial. Now the trial of Mr. Mitchel took place on the 20th. Some jurors were summoned on the 11th, some on the 13th, and when those summoned on the last day came into court it was found that they were not on the panel for Mr. Mitchel's trial at all. Now it was on the 13th that Mitchel was arrested, and the inference, therefore was, that either a new panel had been substituted, or the sheriff had not signed that from which the jurors were selected.—(llear, hear.) Upon Mitchell's trial a state ment was made by counsel in open court, which he was bound to say would have its due weight in this country. It was said, openly and unreservedly, that the brother of the Attorney-General for Ireland, who acted as clerk, had tampered with the lists. The high sheriff was examined as to the preparation of the panel. His answers were anything but satisfactory. He said, to the best of his belief, it was regularly prepared, that it was prepared before the 13th, and that it was all prepared in one day. But the under-sheriff, in his examination, contradicted all this. That gentleman said that he prepared the lists, and that its preparation occupied him two days. Two gentle men were selected to inquire whether the juro rs were fairly c h osen or no t. They decided that they were , and the sheriff f ur th e r stated that they were selected for t hei r superi,e. wealth and respectability. Well, what followed? It turned out that of the whole 150 on the panel oiily 28 were Roman Catholics ; that, in the first 78 names only four were of that faith, and that all the rest were put at the bottom of the lists.—(Hear, hear.) But it would be said that this was accidental, and that the sheriff's impartiality was not impugned. He would, however, state a fact which would prove that the arrangement could not have been accidental, or as some alleged alphabetical. There were two jurors in Dublin, named Moore, both resident in the same street, carrying on the same business, and being of equal respectability. One was a Protestant, the other was a Catholic. The name of the Protestant Moore was 12th on the list, that of the Roman Catholic Moore was placed No.' 12 2 . How differently were not things conducted in England? On the trial of Frost, it having been noticed that a panel was arranged alphabe tically, objection was taken to it, not as being evidence of partiality, but as being unusual. Lord Campbell, who appeared fur the Crown, acquiesced in the objocton, and the names were put into a ballot box and drawn by I lot. Very different was the conduct of the Irish Attor ney-General upon the trial of Mr. Mitchel, Unlike Lord Campbell, he made no attempt to restore the ba lance. On the contrary, having and exercising the right of peremptory ceallenge, he challenged, out of 71 jurors who attended, no less than 39, of whom 18 were Roman Catholics, and they were the only Roman Catholics who answered to their names. Let him observe, in passing, that this right of peremptory challenge was a very arbitrary one. It was condemned by Sir Michael O'Loghlen in evidence before the House of Lords in 1839. That cele brated lawyer even declared that he did not believe it was the law of the land; and certainly, in no case in modern times had the privilege ever been exercised to the same extent as in the case of Mitchel. The conduct of the Irish Attorney-General was, indeed, only equal to taking up the panel and selecting his ownjury. What reason—what excuse—could be assign for such a pro ceeding? When out of office there was nothing that the present Government so much impressed on the public as the importance of a fair and impartial administration of justice in Ireland. In 1836 Sir M. O'Loghlen, when Attorney-General in Ireland, impressed upon the Crown solicitors the importance of not pressing this prerogative of peremptory challenge, and stated to them that such practice was not pursued in England. The present Lord Chancellor Brady gave similar direc tions. He even went so far as to say that the Crown had not the right of peremptory challenge. The Hon. and Learned Member proceeded to quote from the evi dence of Sir M. O'Loghlen and Judge Perri❑ before a Committee of the House of Lords, in which both autho rities strongly disapproved of the indiscriminate exercise of the right of challenge by the Crown. He (Mr. Keogh) was not anxious that partisans on any side should be chosen, but he asked the Government to give one sufficient reason why those eighteen Roman Catho lics had been set aside. He had made every inquiry, and he was prepared to state that ten out of the eighteen were totally unconnected with political associations of any kind.—(Cheers.) He now came to the most serious part of the case. If there had been only one trial it would have been bad enough, but it happened that there had been four juries struck before that to which he had been alluding. Two were the juries for trying Messrs. O'Brien and Meagher, and two were struck to try Mitchel for sedition, but that charge was abandoned when the conviction for felony was obtained. In the case of Mr. O'Brien, of the twelve jurors struck off by the Crown ten were Roman Catholics, all men of the highest respect. ability, and not one of them connected with any poli tical association. He would contrast this with what had taken place at Mr. O'Connell's trial in 1844, a case which had so much excited the anger of Hon. and Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the trial ten RoMan Ca. tholics , were struck from the jury list by the Crown, but of those, eight were admitted to be members of the Re peal Association, the Bluth had signed the requisition for the monster meeting at Tara, and the tenth was struck off without knowledge of his religion to make up the necessary legal number.—(Hear, hear.) Now, there was no reason why the Noble Lord at the head of the Government should not look at these matters in the same light in 1848 as he had done in 1844.—(Hear, hear.) In that year (1844) the Noble Lord said, that the conduct of the Government in striking of the ten Roman Catholics was such as to deprive the legal pro ceedings of all moral weight or value.—(Hear, hear.) When a motion was then made hostile to the Govern ment, the Noble Lord paired in favour of it, although he had not heard the case or the justification. Why was not the Noble Lord then in his place ?—(Hear.) He had been there that evening to propose his third Coercion Bill against Ireland.—(Cheers.) Ho would again be in his place to proceed with a Bill, although when two years and a half in office he had declared that he merely occupied Ireland without governing it ; and yet when the subject under discussion was a direct insult to the Catholic people of Ireland, it was not deemed of suffi cieut importance to detain the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department also gave his opinion on that occasion in concurrence with that of the Noble Lord. But that was not all. Various Members of the Government had, in 1841, expressed strong opinions in Dublin relative to the striking of Mr. O'Connell's jury. Without twenty_ four hours' delay, a meeting was called in Dublin to pro test against the conduct of the then Attorney General, and among the foremost names to the requisition were those of the present Master of the Mint and the present Attorney-General.—(Loud cheers.) There was also the name of Mr. Redington, the present Under Secre tary for Ireland—he was glad to see his Right Honour able Friend the Chief Secretary repudiated the connexion. (Loud cheers and laughter.) The Honourable and Learned Member quoted the speech of the Right Hon. the Member for Dungarvon, on the occasion alluded to, exhorting the people to memorialise the Queen and both Houses of Parliament against what the speaker styled the unconstitutional and illegal con duct of the Government. Mr. Wyse, the late Secretary to the Board of Control, also spoke, and asked what would be said in England if persons were struck off the jury because of their religious opinions ?—(Hear, hear.) But Mr. Redington, the Roman Catholic Secretary for Ireland—he felt that it would be quite unworthy of the faith he professed, making it a matter of faith—(Hear, and a laugh)—that the course Ministers were adopting would bring neither credit to the Crown, nor safety to the State.—(Hear, bear.) There was yet another name he must mention, as that of a gentleman who was present at the same meeting—the present Attorney-General for Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) This law officer of the Crown, who had been conducting all these prosecutions, he signed his name to the requisition calling the meeting, and joined in the protest against the course the Go vernment had adopted. He might also refer, as contrasting with the conduct of the Government now, to the name of the present Chief-Governor of Ireland.— (Hear.) When the motion brought forward by Lord Normanby in the House of Lords condemning the con duct of the Government of the Right Hon. Baronet in striking Roman Catholics off the jury was negatived, and a protest on five points was entered on the journals of the House against that decision, the second nave to that protest, and for all the reasons, was " Clarendon."— (Cheers.) But he had grounds far stronger and more urgent than the conduct of the members of the present Government when in opposition in favour of this motion. Was there nothing in the present condition of Ireland to warn the House against inducing, by any act of theirs, a belief in the minds of the people of that country that the law of England had been given to them, not as a blessing and a boon, not as a law to be administered im partially and fairly to all, but as a means of oppression, and for the purpose of obtaining verdicts by fraud and connivance —(hear, hear)—to prevent men accused of political offences from being tried fairly by juries impartially chosen, and to enable the pro secutor, while protesting against partisanship in favour of the prisoners, to choose a jury of men whose opinions are known to be adverse to him ? This was the course pursued in regard to the jury which tried Mr. Mitchel. It was said that the object was to have men of respecta bility and wealth. Why, he had looked at the list of the jury by which the prisoner was tried, and found that some of them had been bankrupt or insolvent within a few years previous. And yet these were men selected for their wealth and respectability, while other men, who were men of undoubted wealth and respectability, were rejected. The Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite had obtained their places by the cry that they would never consent to any measure of coercion for Ireland, unless accompanied by great and sweeping remedial measures. —(Hear.) Whatever excuse there might have been in 1846 for postponing such measures, there was none in 1847. When the Noble Lord was in opposition his advent to power was to bring plenty to the Irish people. New measures were to be be brought forward — waste lands were to be cultivated—the question of the Roman Catholic clergy was to be settled, with out which settlement they were told there was to be no peace for Ireland. But the present Ministry came in, and 1846 was allowed to pass without any such mea sures ; 1847 was equally barren ; and when the session of 1847-8 came last November, it brought with it—a Coercion Bill.—(Hear.) And when his lion. Friends opposite, who are connected with Ireland—and why they were on that side he knew not—complained of this for feiture of Ministerial pledges, they were told " Wait till we meet in February, and you shall have all you ask." though he might have an opinion that when 5,000,0004 There was the Bill for the sale of i p n r c o u m m is b e e d red me e a s s t u a r te e s s .. was alr e a dy in the market, and no 0 H: e e p l l r i ;a o d p they o n r o t y t h t a : d k a e s a n s a a n a y Pi° p art of in theseop opposing that measure, pur chasers to be found, it could be but of little service sud denly to throw 10,000,000/. more into it. Another of the remedial measures was that for improving the law of landlord and tenant. But the present Government did not take that measure into account as one of remedy when the Protection for Life Bill was brought in by the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), for at that time the Honourable Member for Falkirk shire had at least as good a Bill before the House. Then they had been told that the grand jury system was a great pest, and must be reformed. Now that they had arrived at almost the close of the session he might be allowed to ask where was the grand jury law ? —(Hear, hear.) What then were the great remedial measures Ministers had in their minds in 1846? It had been said—and in the leading journal of this country —that the people of Ireland indulged in extravagant ex pectations ? (Hear, hear.) Who had encouraged them to those expectations? When the Noble Lord was out of office nothing but large and comprehensive schemes would be of service to Ireland. Where were those schemes now? When in 1845 the party opposite t o a Bs t 418ta:ayecc afterog theur failed in forming an Administration, the Noble Lord stated that he had hoped to form a great and com prehensive Bills comprehensive peace in Ireland had he then come into office, Coercion i d y o o t grettod he had not succeeded in forming an Administra tion.ahne d might it n what scheme nt w ht one session and another promised within twelve hours scheme he cherished the hope of carrying in January, 1846?—(Hear, hear.) He asked was not this the time, a time when they were proposing measures of coercion, that they should, if they could not bring forward large and comprehensive remedies, they should at least in quire into well-founded complaints? At a time when republics were being formed out of the fragments of ancient monarchies, when war was raging in the south, and peace was scarcely established in the north of Europe, might it not be prudent to do something to rally round the British constitution the affections of all her Majesty's subjects? Ho asked that House to give to his countrymen the principle of the British constitu enmettwfloaunnedation of lasting constitu tion, and not its cold and cheerless image. Let them do this and the loyalty and valour of the Irish people might bo depended on in all circumstances and in all dangers, as in times past. This was the spirit iu which he was anxious they should conciliate the affections of the Irish people.—(" Oh," and hear, from the Ministerial benches.) The sneer from Hon. Gentleme❑ on the other side well became men who, when out of office, found their profit in encouraging or conniving at every species of agitation.—(Cheers, and counter cheers.) He called upon them to show that all their promises were not mere pretences, but that they ' were really anxious for the welfare of Ireland, by agree ing to his motion, viz.:—That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the law and practice of strik ing juries in criminal cases in Ireland, and especially into the facts connected with the striking of the juries in the late cases of " The Queen against William Smith O'Brien, M.P," " The Queen against Thomas Mea gher," and " The Queen against John Mitchel." Mr. ANSTEY seconded the metion. Sir G. GREY—I thought the Hon. Gentleman pro mised at the commencement of his speech that he would keep entirely to the point of his motion, and show the House that whatever might b e th e t o ne f his speeches made elsewhere—(Hear, hear)—that to-night; at least, he would show that he could keep within the bounds of toleration, and that, influenced only by a pure love of justice and a desire to promote its due administration — (Cheers, and counter cheers)—he would abstain from every topic not necessarily connected with the point he had to establish.—(Hear, bear.) How he had kept that promise, at least in the latter part of his speech, the House is in a position to judge.—(Hear, and " Oh.") I do not complain of the tone he has adopted, for I do not expect from the Honourable Gentleman, so long as I am a member of a Government which does not recog nize his merits, anything but violent party speeches directed against us—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh,") —most unfairly impugning our conduct since we have been in office, forgetful altogether how the Govern. rnent were engaged in endeavouring to mitigate the distress of that country, the severest, perhaps, that any country ever suffered—(Cheers)—and postponing the discussion of political rights to the higher duty of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and rescuing from starvation and death thousands of the Hon. Mem ber's countrymen, while he was holding up to them the phantom of repeal.—(Hear, hear, and interruption.) Her Majesty's Government, so long as they held office, will not be deterred from discharging their duty to the country, and taking those measures on their own re sponsibility which the law authorises them to take, or asking for additional powers to maintain the peace of Ireland, or any part of the empire, by any taunts of the Hon. Gentleman—(Oh, oh, and cheers)—who, in 1841, was an ardent repealer and an humble worshipper of the late Mr. O'Connell, and who at that time spoke of the Government of Lord Melbourne as the most paternal Government that had ever existed, lauding it with all the eloquence which he has to-night displayed—who in 1844 wrote a pamphlet equally laudatory of Earl de Grey, and who, since he has taken his seat in this House, and while a petition was pending against his return, gave the present Government no reason to sup pose that he would be found among their opponents, if they would use their influence to defeat the petition. Mr. KEOGH—I assert in the most distinct terms that that is untrue.—(Hear, and order.) Sir G. GREY—Then I must have been misinformed. Mr. KEOGH—I repudiate all the assertions of the Right Hon. Baronet, except as regards the pamphlet, and I will explain when he has done.—(Hear.) Sir G. GREY—I apprehend, not all ; for I find that, in 1841, at a dinner given to the Hon. Member for Mayo, Mr. Dillon Browne, to congratulate him on his return, Mr. Keogh was present, when Mr. Browne made an eloquent speech.—(Mr. Keogh here made an observation which was not heard in the gallery.) Perhaps it was not the same Mr. Keogh, but it was a Mr. William Keogh; and I find by the report that when Mr. Browne spoke in favour of repeal, the whole assembly rose and shouted " Dillon Browne and repeal."—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Oh, oh.") Mr. D. Browne subsequently proposed Mr. O'Connell's health, to which Mr. W. Keogh responded in a speech with which, as the House has already had a very long one from that Honourable and Learned Gentleman, I will not now trouble it. But in that speech he not only spoke in terms of the most un qualified approbation of Mr. O'Connell, but declared that they were fighting for the constitutional liberties of England under that Hon. and Learned Gentleman and the paternal Government of Lord Melbourne.—(Cheers and laughter.) All I will further say upon the subject is, that her Majesty's Government will not be deterred by that Hon. Member's taunts from proposing such mea sures as they may deem essential for the welfare and security of Ireland. The Right Hon. Gentleman pro ceeded to observe, that he entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Athlone, as to the necessity of a fair and impartial administration of justice; and he believed that nothing had been done by the sheriff inconsistent with that opinion, with law, or with custom. The Hon. Gentle man said that the conduct of the sheriff must be im puted to the Government, because he was appointed by the Government. But the Honourable Gentleman would have shown more regard for that fair adminis tration of justice for which he professed so great an ad miration if he had explained that the Government se lected the sheriff from only three names which were sub mitted to it by the Chief Justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had impugned the conduct of the sheriff, but failed altogether in establishing the charge against him of unfairly and partially selecting from the list in order to obtain a conviction against Mitchel. The Hon. Gentleman passed over much too lightly the challenge to the array which took place in open court. The sheriff did nothing in the case which he was not fully authorised to do by law. He was bound to return a cer tain number out of the list, and he did so in the ordinary course, which the Hon. Member himself in a degree admitted by taking exception to the alphabetical arrange ment adopted in the case of Frost. As for the charge that Roman Catholics had been struck off because they were so, he Pegged altogether to deny it. The Attorney- General in his instructions to Mr. Ketnmish, the Crown Solicitor, required him not to set aside any per.on on the ground of his religion; but he at the same time observed that the instructions of Sir Michael O'Loghlen not to set aside persons upon the ground of their poli tical opinions, although applicable to and to be observed in the case of ordinary trials, was not applicable to and ought not to be observed in this. The Attorney-General said—" It is not and never was my wish or intention that any persons should be set aside on account of their religious opinions; but respecting their political opinions, I do not think that the instructions given by previous law officers were ever intended to apply to the present case, where the party is to be tried for a political of fence which is openly countenanced by a political assn . ciation, or that we should not set aside all persons whom, upon inquiry, we found to entertain the political opinions of that association, as well as all others who from the nature of their occupation were likely to be deterred from a fair discharge of their duty." Now that was his answer to the charge brought against the Roman Catholic Attorney. General of Ireland; and he asked the Hon. Gentleman opposite whether he dissented from the sentiments expressed in that letter by the Attorney- General, or whether, if ho held that office himself, he would not have acted in a similar manner. He intro duced the name of Mr. Campbell. Now, Mr. Campbell was a grocer, and he believed he had been set aside wholly on the last ground alluded to in the Attorney- General's letter—namely. that his trade would have been in danger of being ruined had he been nominated on the jury. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, he asked the House whether those charges were well well founded. With regard to Mr. Kelly, he had been struck off because he was a magistrate. But, without further remark, he would read a letter from the Attorne y to the Lord-Lieutenant respecting the forma tion of the jury lists.—(The Right Hon. Gentleman then read a very long letter from Mr. Monahan, stating that he did not believe that a single person had been struck off from the lists on account of his religious opi nions, and that he, as a Roman Catholic, would be no party to such a course. He explained that Mr. Fitn gerald had been left in, being a Roman Catholic, but under au erroneous impression as to his political senti ments, as he went to a repeal meeting soon after, and took credit for the part he acted on the jury.) The Hon. Geetteman and himself were now before the House, and ho would leave the case to their decision.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had taunted his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) for having left the House when he was about to bring on his present motion. His Noble Friend was engaged in his very important duties elsewhere, and he (Sir G. Grey) must tell the Hon. Member that his Noble Friend's character was before the country, and was very well able to sustain anything the Hon. Member could say against it. Mr. KEOGH, in explanation, said that he had been charged by the Right Hon. Baronet with having offered to give his support to the Government, if the Govern•. ment would withdraw the petition against his return. Sir G. GREY said what ho said was that the Hon. Member had not given the Government reason to sup pose he would vote against them if the petition was with drawn. Mr. KEOGH—Then that charge was refined away by the means of two negatives. He had next been charged with having been a rep ea l er . H e never was a repealer —he had ten expressed his sentiments most strongly against a repeal of the legislative union ; and the Hon. Member for Dundalk would bear him out in his assertion. Mr. HAWES said that a very unexpected, a very un justifiable attack had been made upon him by the Hon. Member. He gave that attack a most entire and com plete repudiation. He had been no party in any way, direct or indirect, to any petition against the Hon. and Learned Member ; he had not the slightest knowledge of any such petition being on foot.—(Hear, hear.) Mr ANS TEY supported the amendment amid conti nuous cries of " Oh, oh," upon which, at length, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman moved that the House do now adjourn—a motion which, as at once putting a stop to the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself, created a general laugh throughout the House. Mr. REYNOLDS thanked the Honourable and Learned Member for the opportunity he had thus un expectedly afforded him—(Laughter)—of addressing the House. He bad been appealed to as to the character of the Catholics who had been excluded from the juries on the trials of Messrs. Mitchel, Meagher, and O'B r i en . He had no hesitation in saying that he kuew these gen tlemen to be men of the highest personal character, and he had as little hesitation in expressing the opinion that their exclusion had been the result of foul play on the part of some of the local authorities. He regarded the discredit which had been cast upon the honour and oaths of the Roman Catholics as even more in jurious than any coercion Bill, or than the wholesale po litical prosecutions which were being instituted. The Honourable and Learned Member for Athlone seemed very indignant at the suggestion of his having been a repealer. It was questionable whether he would be a whit less respectable than he was were ho a repealer now ; but certain it was that at a public dinner at Clare morris, in October, 1840, the Honourable and Learned Member had declared his breast to be full of the subject which bad engrossed for thirty years the efforts " of the great man of the world, Daniel O'Connell." Ile had also the pamphlet of which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had acknowledged the authorship, published in 1844, and entitled " Ireland under Earl de Grey." In that pamphlet he had deli berately approved of the packing of a jury to try the man who had been his political leader and liberator; for Daniel O'Connell was then under trial. He had declared that every impartial person must feel confidence in their verdict; and yet that Terciiet had been set aside by the House of Lords. Tho irnpanelling of that jury was the most unprecedented act of political corruption ever witnessed in Ireland.—(Question, question.) lie should support the present motion if it went to a division. Mr. HUDSON wished to know the authority on. which the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone bad charged the Government with influencing the election committee for that borough. This was a great consti tutional question; and it was due to the House that the grounds should be stated an which the charge was made. Sir G. GREY was very happy to satisfy the curiosity of his Hon. Friend. The Government bad no power of causing petitions to be withdrawn; but it was no au usual thing for arrangements to be made in the way of conversation amongst individual Members. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman having denied the statement, he was bound to accept the denial. Sir W. SOMERVILLE (being loudly called for) said he must protest against the idea that any one who gave his support, or his money, to a candidate at an election, was bound by all the opinions of that candidate. He did not consider that by countenancing a repeal candidate he was furthering repeal; he might be influenced by far other considerations.--(Hear, hear.) No Member in the House had suffered more than himself by his oppe,ition to repeal.—(Hear, hear.) If he chose he could give a satisfactory answer to the question of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman about the cheque; but, upon prin ciple, and out of respect to the House and his own inde pendence, he should decline to do so.—(Cheers.) Mr. ANSTEY rose, but was met with cries of " Spoke." The SPEAKER said ho could not again address the House unless he meant to withdraw the motion. Mr. BRO MERTON—I shall certainly oppose the withdrawal of the motio❑ for adjournment.—(Cries of " Divide.") Sir G. GREY hoped tha House would allow the divi sion to take place ou the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone. After a desultory conversation, Mr. BANKES said he hoped that, before the di►ision, the Hon. Secretary for Ireland would answer the ques tion whether he, as a member of the Government, had drawn cheques to defray the expense of supporting an election petition.—(No, no.) He disputed the Right of the Hon. Gentleman, in the important official situation he held, to act so as to support principles of which the Government were daily expressing their aversion. Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped his Right Hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) would not add anything to the answer he had already given, and which was just what honour and principle dictated. The idea that he had disbursed the funds of the Government could never have entered any one's head; and he was perfectly right in refusing to be catechised on the manner in which he had applied his own private funds.—(Cheers.) He hoped the motion for adjournment would not now be pressed; but considering the late hour, and that the House met again at noon, it would be better to adjourn the debate, rather than get rid of the question by ad journing the House. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said his Right Hon. Friend had correctly described his motives. He had under stood the lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite to charge him with giving money as a private individual; and on that account, thinking that the Hon. Gentleman had no right to put the question, he had declined to answer it. As to whether, in his public capacity as Secretary of Ireland, he had furthered the election of a Member of that House, he begged to meet it with a dis tinct denial.—(Cheers.) Mr. MONSELL advocated the adjournment of the debate. Tne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped that the House would divide, as at the present period of the session it would be most inconvenient to have an ad journed debate on a motion for going into Committee of Supply. The House divided on the question of the adjournment of the House, when there appeared— For the adjournment... Against it Majority —l33 On our re-entrance to the gallery, Mr. ANSTEY was addressing the House, and com plained of a misquotation of a speech of the lion. Mem ber for Athlone, on the part of the Right lion. Baronet (Sir G. Grey). There was no parity between the con duct pursued by the late Government in the case of Mr. O'Connell anti that pursued by the present Govern ment with respect to the late trials, because the late Go vernment were right, supposing that all the persons whom they struck off were repealers, but there was no reason for supposing with respect to four Roman Catho lics who were struck off in the recent trial of Mr. Mitchel that they were repealers. The Hon. Member continued to address the (louse in the midst of loud vociferations and groans from all parts of the House. Mr. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. ANSTEY seconded the motion. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but were speedily re -admitted. Mr. SADLIER was appealing to the Government to consent to an adjournment. • Sir G. GREY reluctantly assented, and the debate was adjourned until Monday next. RATING OF STOCK IN TRADE. Mr. C. LEWIS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to continue, for a time to be limited, the exemption of in habitants from liability to be rated as such in respect of stock in trade or other property to the relief of the poor. THE OMITTED LETTER. Lord G. BENTINCK moved an address, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine forthwith to transmit to her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies copies of the omitted correspondence between the Provincial Secretary of Canada and the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade, and to direct that the same may be laid before this House. Mr. B. HAWES objected to the use of the word " correspondence." The only matter omitted was one letter. Lord G. BENTINCK defended the expression. Sir G. GREY thought the wording of the motion very unusual, and suggested the motion should be postponed, in order to be re-worded. Lord G. BENTINCK said he would make a formal motion on going int. Supply.—(oh.) The CiIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they simply wanted the thing to be done properly. Motion postponed until the first Supply night. OTHER CORRESPONDENCE. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK then moved an address for copies of any correspondence, petitions, or memo rials, relative to the repeal of the navigation-lewd, which may have been sent home by the gorernor of Now Brunswick. Mr. HAWES said the usual way of wording the mo tion was "copies or extracts." Lord GEORGE BENTINCK bad no confidence in Colonial-office extracts.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. C. Anstey.) Mr. HAWES did not want the Noble Lord's con fidence. He only wanted the usual forms attended to. The motion, as amended by Mr. Hawes, was then put and agreed to. On Mr. PARKER bringing up a Bill, and moving that it be read a first time, Lord G. BENTINCK said—Oh, no; after this I shall object to doing anything more. Sir G. GREY —It is only a first reading. Lord G. BENTINCK—I object, air. The House adjourned at a Quarter after Two. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, JULY 21. STOCK Excitmtort.—There is a very dull demand for shares to-day, and but very little business doing. The sales are—Caledonian, 2:l l 4Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths, 1 dis.—Ditto, 10/. Shares, Preference, Ils. 3d. p.—London and North-Western, 127—Ditto, Quarters, New, 1 3 / 4 p.— Midland Stock, New Halves, 5% dis.—North Staffordshire. 2% dis. — South-Eastern and Dover, No. 2, Yorb ; Newcastle, and Berwick (N. and B. Extension), No. 2, ix p MANCHESTER, JuLy 21. STOCK EXCHA.NGE.—Th e sales are—Birkenhead, Lanca shire, and Cheshire Junction, 31/. Shares, 7 7-16 Lancashire and Yorkshire (Manchester and Leeds), Fifths, 1 1-16 dis.—Ditto (late West Riding Union) Fifths, 3 13 - 16 dis.—Ditto, 10/. Preference, 6 per cent., % p.—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Preference, 10 1 ,i—North Stafford shire, 2 9-16 dis. —Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, 17 , 4 dis.—Shrewsbury and Birmingham (B), 3 7-16 dis.— York, Newcastle, and tierwick (G. N. E. Purlaase), 1 9-16 p. BIRMINGHAM, JULY 21. STOCK EXCHANGE.—Notwithstanding the unfavourable news from Ireland, and consequent depression of the Consol and Share Market in London, there has been a good deal of business done to-day; and, considering all things, at not discouraging prices. The sales are—Chester and Holyhead, 20 dis. —North Staffordshire, 2% dis.—Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, 18 dis. —Shrewsbury and Birmingham (A), 51. 3s. 9d. dis. ex int.—Shropshire Union, 568. 3d. c. dia. ex int.—South Staffordshire, dig. ateerus. The lady of Lieutenant Brenton von Donor, of her Ma• jestv's ship President, of a daughter. On the 13th inst., at Hayston-lodge, Pembrokeshire, the lady of Ilonton Rhys, Esq., of a son and heir. On the 18th inst., at houndshill, Worcestershire, the wife of E P. Shirley, Esq., of a daughter. On the 19th inst., at Glocester-road, Regent's -park, the wife of J. G. Barton, Esq., of a daughter. On the 19th inst., at Hanover -villas, Notting-hill, Mrs. G. G. Stone, of a son. On the 9th inst., at Belle Vue-house. Notting-hill, the wife of C. H. Barnes, Esq., of a son. MARRIED. On the 18th i ns t. , at Bathwick Church, Bath, the Rev. George E. Murray, rector of Southfleet, Kent, eldest son of the Lord Bishop of Rochester, to Penelope Frances Elizabeth Pemberton, youngest daughter of Brigadier-General Austin, x.c.T.s. On the 19th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, T Dowling, Esq., eldest son of the late Captain Dowling, Bar rackmaster of St. James's, to Charlotte Bazett, second daughter of J. H. Dunn, Esq., of Hertford-street, Park-lane. On the 20th inst., at St. Marylebone Church, Robert L. Day, Captain 85th (King's) Light Infantry, second son of C. Day, Esq., of Bevis-hill, Southampton, to Louisa, youngest daughter of J. Reid, Esq., of Cornwall-terrace. Regent's -park. DIED. On the 15th inst., at Elm's• hall, Colne-Engaine, Eases. Mr. J. B. Brown, aged 37. On the 15th inst., Mr. Silas K. Cook, of Rotherhithar Surrey, aged 58. On the 17th inst., T. Kennedy, Esq., of High-streets Camden -town, aged 86. On the 18th inst., at East Parade, Leeds, the Rev. R. W Hamilton, LL.D., aged 64. On the 18th inst., at Bircingham, aged 38, Ann, the wife of Mr. Benjamin Hall. On the 18th inst., at Raniegate, Harriette Sarah, the wife of H. J. Sawyer, Esq.. of the Middle Temple, aged 26. On the 19th inst.. in Sloane-street, Chelsea, Mrs. Dorothy Fuge, relict of the late Mr. J. liuge, upwards of 55 years as inhabitant of the above street, aged 7L London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Offiee, No. 112 , Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in b ths mut/ • riLiddlealz, Saturday, July 22, 1848. 1