The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MilliCH 6. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at half past three o'clock. The doors of the Gallery were not opened, but we understood that the Earl of Malmesbury and Lord Foley took the oaths and their seats ; after which the House adjourned during pleasure. The Lonu CHANCELLOR resumed his seat at five o'clock. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. The Duke of GORDON presented several petitions from the counties of Ross, Aberdeen, and Roxburgh, praying for protection to the Established Church. SCHOOLS IN IRELAND. The Earl of RODEN said he rose to put the ques tion to the Noble Duke (Wellington), of which he had given notice a few days ago. It was, whether it was the in tention of the Government to propose any estimate during the present Session of Parliament, for the purpose of support ing the national schools in Ireland. The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was the intention of the Government to propose such an estimate in the other House, and it was intended that it should be greater this year than last, because of the necessity for new buildings. THE UNIVERSITIES. The EARL OF RADNOR then rose to bring forward his motion respecting the ()Tithe necessarily taken by stu dents at the Universities.—(Loud Cheers.) He said that it would be in their Lordships' recollection, that, during the last session of Parliament, a Bill was brought up from the other House, having for its ob ject to admit persons into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, without taking the oaths now necessary. That Bill was thrown out, but during the discussion upon it one of the Rev. Prelates then present (Exeter) had taken occasion to say that none of those who had passed through the Universities had been perjured but himself ( Earl of Radnor). That certainly gave him little uneasiness ; but from the whole of the discus sion upon that occasion he, having been entrusted with the conduct of the Bill, had been induced to look pretty closely into the matter. He must also confess that the more lie looked into the matter the more he was inclined to press a review of all the oaths taken at those institutions upon the House. Now he found that the only way in which. he had been perjured was, that he had not attended certain lectures of which he had not only never been informed by either his public or pri vate tutor, but he believed for certain that none such were even delivered now ; yet every one entering the Universities swore that lie would attend them.--( Laughter.) In so far was he perjured, but in so far also was every one who had passed through the University.—( Hear) The responsibility, he con tended, rested not upon the boys who took the oaths, but upon the authorities who forced them to take them, without at any time attempting to make them aware of their nature. Though he said so, he had not the slightest wish that they should be continued, because they stated quibbles, which he did not at all consider necessary that young minds should be acquainted with. The first part was unobjectionable, but with the second he could not agree. It stated that those only were perjured who refused to submit to the punishment which the University thought due to the offence. Now that, in his opi nion, went at once to put a stop to all the value of an oath. A witness in a Court of Justice was sworn to speak the truth, but according to the interpre tation put upon the matter by the learned Universities then, if that person was willing to stand in the pillory for a time, then he was relieved of his oath—( Hear, hear. ) In his opinion the adoption of such a course would have the effect of setting aside the value of any oaths whatever. There was a further matter on which persons were declar e d t o b e per jured, where they took oaths and incurred some incapacity from taking office, unless they removed that incapacity by dispensa tion. Now, with respect to where dispensation should be granted and where it should not, certain statutes existed, and the manner in which these statutes were framed he (Lord Radnor) considered to be an intolerable abuse ; for it was stated that they had committed the crime of perjury who allowed any of those statutes to fall into desuetude. His only object in bringing forward the present motion, was to show what oaths were taken in the Universities, and what rules were laid down with respect to residence.—( Hear.) He should also move for a copy of the Epinomis. He thought that some alterations ought to be made in the oaths that were required to be taken ; he was thankful to the Noble Duke opposite (Wellington) for having done all in his power to make the alterations, but he believed that he had found the persons he had . to deal with were not quite so pliant as some Noble Dukes in that House.—( A laugh.) With respect to the University of Cambridge the only return he required was the oath administered to persons upon matricula tion. He wished this return, because he thought it absurd to call upon boys of 15 or 16 to pledge themselves to support an in stitution for the rest of their lives. The Noble Lord then concluded by moving for the returns of which he had given notice. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, the Noble Lard hav ing been kind enough to communicate to him the motion which he intended to make upon the subject he had now brought under their Lordships' consideration, he had considered it his duty to consult those who were most interested in these en spiries, and had obtained the full consent of those persons to produce the papers which were the subject of the Noble Lord's motion. When the noble Lord had received the information that there was no objection to the production of those papers, he ought to have informed him (the Duke of Wellington) that it was his intention to make the statements he had thought proper to make that evening.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had stated that he was anxious to awaken the public mind to the state of the question, in order that if it were at all possible the University of Oxford might be influenced by the expres sion of public opinion. Public opinion could not be usefully nor fairly influenced by a one-sided discussion, but by hearing what could be said on both sides, and by affording the oppor tunity of answering any charges that might be advanced. He was not prepared now to follow the Noble Lord through his speech, for the Noble Lord had not done him or the University the justice to intimate that it was his intention to make such a speech. He had not the slightest objection to the returns being made. The Bishop of LL ANDAFF bad been long connected with the University of Oxford, and having taken an active part in its concerns, rose for the purpose of answering some of the statements made by the Noble Lord who brought forward this motion. He wished the Noble Lord had abstained from the observations which he made on the character of those who were, like himself, honourable men. The Noble Lord ob jected to the Administration of an oath to young men, who perhaps did not comprehend what the duties were which it imposed, and which pledged them to acts which they were not expected to perform. The oath was a short one.—(The Right Rev. Prelate here read the form of the oath binding those who took it to observe the statutes and customs of the University.) —At the same time this oath was taken, a copy of the statutes of the University was put into the hand of the individual taking it. It appeared to him that even a very superficial knowledge of these statutes ought to preclude such an objection as that brought against them by the Noble Lord. There was a sta tute expressly stating the nature and measure of the obliga tion incurred by the oath. The interpretation put upon it by this statute was that the measure of the obligation im posed was not in the conscience of the person who took the oath, but in the authority by which it had been imposed. This was the doctrine of Paley, and of the most able mo ralists. It was by Bishop Saunderson himself that this in terpretation was inserted in the statutes twenty years after they passed, and for the very purpose of obviating such objec tions as that now advanced by th e N o bl e L or d . Thi s inter pretation was familiarly and generally known for a long series ,f years, though there might occ as i ona ll y h ave b een some culpable neglect in not explaining it.--(Hear, from the Op position benches.) For himself, he always considered it a sacred duty to explain it, and took care, in every case, to ex pound the sense of the oath to those to whom it was adminis tered. The Noble Lord complained that the practice was f t. - ciliar and genera; of dispensing with attendance at lectures. 1 the lapse of years, and with the change of circumstances, the mode of conducting the studies might have been altered, and with an alteration of practice an alteration in rules might become necessary. He certainly agreed with the Noble Lord, that it might be better to repeal such statutes as that of which he complained, when they fell into desuetude. All he was now contending for was the moral character of the act of taking the oaths. He was sure their Lordships would feel that they had not met to deliberate on the best mode of con ducting the Universities, but rather to inquire if in those esta blishments there had been any dereliction of those duties which they were bound by oath to observe. The Noble Earl had quoted from a pamphlet, which lie (the Bishop of Llandaff) had never heard of before, what the duties were that were con- Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 6. sidered indispensable. Now the Epi;o nTis;iateci the students . were bound not to take a degree without the performance of certain exercises, or obtaining a dispensation for the non-per formance of them.' Those rules were drawn up by the con gregation, which is the recognized authority, and who have full power to declare what is and what is not dispensable. This was done to check the too great facility for procuring dispensa tions, and the rules were agreed upon after mature delibera tion. To procure a dispensation it was necessary to procure the certificate of the Chancellor of the University, and this had certainly become a matter of course; but now the signature of the Chancellor was not so easily procured, owing to the better regulations adopted. He was fully impressed with the neces sity of implanting in young minds the proper nature and ob servance of an oath. He admitted, at the same time, that it would be better if the oath were altogether repealed, so as to do that by a positive law which was now done by dispensation. Lord BROUGHAM must express his great objection to any rules or practices that had a tendency to make people take oaths. It had been said that the Universities had been held up as encouraging a disregard to oaths, and that this was very hard. But whose fault was it that the Universities were so held up ? Certainly, not the fault of his Noble Friend (Earl Radnor), and it was to vindicate his Noble Friend that he chiefly rose. His Noble Friend had not charged the Univer sities with encouraging perjury ; but his Noble Friend felt that he had himself been charged in the last Session with something like perjury, although any one who knew his Noble Friend would k now h ow groun dl ess such a charge must be. His Noble Friend upon that occasion said it was not lie was perjured, but it was the system of oaths at the Universities that gave the appearance of perjury, when, in fact, there was none committed. Indeed, the whole anomaly was so striking, that the Noble Duke, who was Chancellor of one of the Uni verrities, could not explain it. The Duke of WELLINGTON—N o t without preparation. Lord BROUGHAM—His Noble Friend was necessarily drawn to the conclusion that oaths were lightly dealt with at the Universities, and this was the only charge he had made, and the correctness of the charge was admitted even by the Right Rev. Prelate who had just spoken. It was those who suffered the statutes of the Universsties to go into disuetude that were properly censurable. If it was impossible to obey the existing statutes they ought to be repealed. This would be infinitely better th an t o su ff e r them to go i nto disuse while a standing law ; and he believed that every man would agree with him in the opinion he had come to as to the result of this debate, that all statutes that are no longer applicable to the purposes for which they were framed, as well as all oaths of a similar characteK, should not be allowed to exist Was; it not absurd to have a penalty of sixpence for breaking one oath, and eightpence for breaking another. A youth is told " You may bind your:ielf to this statute, for if you break it or not it is only eight-penny-worth."—(A laugh.) He was always of opinion that voluntary oaths taken before Magis trates had a very bad effect in the practice. It induced a levity, and tended to remove that solemn impression which the obligation of an oath should always leave upon the mind. It gave a sort of habit of fencing with those great and serious occasions. Boys were told that oaths were a mere form, and that they only suffered a penalty of eightpence if they violated them. The Bishop of LLANDAFF—They take a serious oath to obey the authorities of the University. Lord BROUO HAM—Yes, but they also swear to obey the statutes, or to pay Bd. for not obeying them. The oath had all the appearance of being broken although in fact it was not so. It would be an excellent thing to get rid of all useless as: zl unnecessary oaths. The Marquis of CAMDEN complained that the Noble Lo:'d who brought forward the motion did not give him, as Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, any intimation of his intention to introduce the subject. The Earl of RADNOR should certainly have made the same communication to the Noble Marquis that he did to the Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had he been in the House on the day he gave his notice. The Right Rev. Prelate who had spoken in defence of the Universities agreed in almost the whole of his (Earl Radnor's) statements. With respect to the Noble Duke's complaint against him for want of candour the fact was this, when he gave his notice of motion to the clerk at the table to enter in the notice-book, he said he would pro bably have occasion to alter it in some degree, and he told the same to the Noble Duke. The Noble Duke said that he should send a copy of the notice to the Universities, but it was clear that whether the Universities agreed or not, he (Earl Radnor) would bring on his motion ; and the Noble Duke must know that it was usual to introduce a motion by some explanation of its object, at least, when the Noble Duke and himself were Members together of the other House that was the practice there. He had not made any attack on the Universities, and therefore the Noble Duke needed no preparation to defend them. The Noble Duke himself had, he believed, taken an oath within the last twelve months to obey all the statutes of the University of Oxford, and the Noble Duke knew best whe ther it would be possible for him to do so. The Bishop of G LOUCESTER rose to repel the charge made against the University of Cambridge by the Noble Earl. The Noble Earl had stigmatised as wicked the oaths that youths were called upon to take on matriculation at Cambridge. Now the oath was binding the party taking it not to impugn but to defend by his counsel and suffrage the institution of which he became a member, and he believed for centuries past there were but five members who had taken this oath who had not strictly adhered to it, and ,he thought it was going too far to say the University acted wickedly in proposing such an oath. If it could be demonstrated that any particular oaths were unnecessary, they ought undoubtedly to be repealed, and he should be happy to aid in their removal from the sta tutes of the University of Cambridge. The Earl of RADNOR said that his reason fat alluding so particularly to this oath of matriculation at Cambridge was that he happened to have a son there at present, a boy of six teen years of age, and from him he received a copy of the oath. Now he really thought it highly improper, and he would repeat wicked, that a boy of that age should be sworn to protect the University by his counsel and suffrage for the whole of his life. The motion was then put by the LORD CHANCELLOR, and agreed to. Mr. Holmes presented at the Bar the report of the Com missioners of the Port of Arundel. The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to four o'clock. Some petitions were presented, and reports brought up ; but from the noise that prevailed in the body of the House, and the low tone in which the Hon. Members spoke, we could not catch their purport. Mr. HUME brought up the report of the Committee on the Islington Market (as we understood) and the Grand Junc tion Water Works, and obtained leave to bring in Bills. Mr. RUTH YEN brought up the Report of the Committee on the Oil Gas (Dublin) Lighting, and obtained leave to bring in a Bill. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Mr. ANGERSTEIN presented petitions from Woolwich and Greenwich, against the operation of the Weights and Measures Bill, introduced last Session. Mr. B A R N - A RD presented a petition to the same effect, and Complained of the hardship to which the public were subjected by some of the clauses of the Bill. Lord EBRINGTON expressed his intention of introducing some alterations and amendments in the Bill. Mr. ROEBUCK trusted the Noble Lord would obtain the assistance of some persons who were informed upon the sub ject. A more flimsy and inefficient measure had never ema nated from that House.-4 Hear, and a laugh.) After a few words from Mr. POTTER, complaining of some of the provisions of the Bill, Lord - EBRINGTON expressed his intention to remedy the defects complained of. TAX ON STEAM CARRIAGES. An HoN. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn), pre sented a petition from Ayr, praying for a reduction of the duty upon steam-carriages. Mr. WALLACE had been requested to support the prayer of the petition. He complained that the tax pressed very unfairly upon steam-carriages which went upon rail-roads, as compared with those which ran upon common roads. The petitioners were very anxious, - not that the steam carriages which ran upon common roads should be subjected to the high duty, but that those which ran upon rail.roads should have the duty lowered to that imposed upon the more favoured class. Doctor BOWRING observed that the present was one of many instances in which a tax interfered with its own produc tiveness. In the year year 1822, the amount of duty paid by steam carriages, was 523,000/. In 1829, it amounted to 680,000/. ; and in 1833, it had come down to 660,000/. For the last 13 years, the increase of duty had not been more than 13 per cent., whilst the increase of the trade of the country had been more than 50 per cent. In 1822, the imposts were 30 millions ; and in 1832, they were forty-four and a half millions, and the exports in the former year were fifty-two millions, whilst in the latter year they rose to eighty millions. A diminution in the duty would be greatly beneficial to the revenue of the country; and this was not his own opinion only, but that of the large constituency which he represented. Mr. H UME said be was sorry the Chancellor of the Ex chequer was not in his place, as amongst the changes that must soon take place, this was one most loudly called for—( Hear, hear.) He did not think the time was far distant when these taxes would be removed. He was happy to see the subject brought forward, as he hoped the House of Com mons was sufficiently convinced to wish to put an end to this system. Mr. EWART said, that as one of a very small minority which had attempted to stop this system of taxation, be felt great pleasure in supporting the present petition. He consi dered that in a commercial community it was their duty to re move every tax upon the fountain of wealth, and not merely upon the reservoir itself, but upon the springs that supplied it. 'I hi petition was laid on the table. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Mr. S. MACKENZIE presented two petitions from Scot land, in favour of the Established Church of that country. CHURCH OF IRELAND. Mr. WARD said, that having given notice of a motion upon the important subject of the Irish Church, and as it would suit the convenience of the House, another motion on the same subject having been proposed to be brought forward by the Noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, having been advised, that without any compromise ho might postpone his motion, he begged leave to withdraw it, in order that he might have the pleasure of seconding the Noble Lord (Rus sell's) motion.—(Hear, hear.) THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 1835. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Mr. ORD gave notice that when the Ho;." Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Gisborne) brought forward his motion res pecting bribery at elections, he (Mr. 0.) would move that the word "intimidation "be inserted. (So we understood.) COLLECTION OF TITHES IN ARMAGH. Mr. DOBBIN rose to move for certain papers relating to several transactions in the towns of Keady and Armagh, in the county of Armagh, on the collection of tithes. Sir H. HA RDINGE said the papers for which the Hon. Member had moved, were documents containing accounts of certain transactions which took place in the county of Armagh, but as the Government were now pursuing the enquiry, it would be impossible at the present moment that they could be produced. Mr. DOBBIN, in reply, said the circumstances to which he had alluded had occurred several months since.—( Several voices, " Read.") The Hon. Member then read his motion that there be laid before the House an investigation of the circum stances which took place at Deady, in the county of Armagh, between the police and the people in the collection of the tithes, in which one person was killed, with a copy of the coro ner's inquest held afterwards. Also a copy of the proceedings which took place at Armagh on the 16th 'January, relative to the collection of tithes, on which occasion 14 houses were burned, and many lives injured by a body of Orangemen. Sir HENRY HARDINGE said he must request that the Hon. Member would give a regular notice of the motion then before the House, and he could only assure him that if he would follow that course, he should have no objection to furnish those papers which the Government might think necessary, but if the Government was always called upon to produce the correspondence in every transaction of this kind, there would be no end to these explanations. He should feel obliged by the Honourable Member allowing a sufficient time as would enable him to collect the facts from Ireland, and to ascertain whether the enquiry into these transactions were concluded, as he knew on the last oc casion of his hearing they were not. Mr. LITTLETON said with reference to the statement of the Hon. Member forArmagh it contained three motions for tran sactions performed at various towns ; the first had reference to a circumstance which took place during the time that he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and certainly he (Mr. Littleton) should not have had the slightest objection to produce the paper moved for. Mr. DOBBIN said he was present during the whole time that these enquiries were under course of investigation, and he could assure the Right Hon. Gentl eman t h ey were all finished before he left. The SPEAKER asked the Hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Dobbin) to whom he had given in his notice of motion ? He (the Speaker) said the Hon. Member must give notice of the motion which he proposed to make. It was desirable for the convenience of the House that such a course should be observed, and unless some circumstances connected with the case were stated which would justify the House in suspending the rule, notice must be given. Mr. DOBBIN said, he would now withdraw his motion. He then gave notice that on Thursday next he would bring the subject before the House. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. Mr. C. F ERG US ON presented a petition from the parish of Kilmabreck, near Kircudbright, which he had the honour to represent. The petition was signed by the majority of the adult population of the parish. It had 400 signatures, 350 of whom were of the poorer class. It prayed the House to take into its consideration such measures as in its wisdom would be deemed most conducive to afford moral and religious in struction to the people. Ile trusted that the peti tion would net be the less entitled to the attention of the House, because it emanated from persons of the class he had described. The petitioners stated they were fully impressed with the propriety of supplying such reli gious instruction to the poor as was consistent with the purity of Christian doctrine. The question was one of the greatest importance, not only to the people of Scotland, but to the people of England, and without entering into a dis cussion of the measures which the Right Hon. Baronet in tended to propose, in order to attain this desirable object, he ( Mr. F.) was of opinion that the means of religious instruc tion ought to be afforded to the poor and as the petitioners stated, that they should not be refused access to the places where their religious ceremonies were performed. He ( Mr. F.) would not then state what his opinion was as to the mea sures which were to be adopted for this purpose ; but'the House must deem it to be a question of great importance, and one in which the interests of the public were very deeply involved. The petitioners, as he stated, were the majority of the male adult population of the parish, and were, as he was, sincerely attached to the doctrines of the Church established in Scotland. He repeated that he would not point out the means as to how the wishes of the petitioners should he carried into effect, but he hoped the attention of the'House would be given to so interesting a subject. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. CARLOW POLICE. Mr. O'DWYER presented a petition from Bryan Honesty of Carlow, which stated that on Saturday night, the 24th of January last, after his family went to bed, the police, ac companied by a driver named Finn, belonging to a Member of this House, (Mr. Kavanagh) tapped at his door, and said that the parish priest wanted to see him (Hen nessey), when Finn ordered the petitioner to be instantly seized. He was dragged out of his bed, was put in irons, imprisoned in the guard-house, and was obliged to remain that night and the folowing Sunday handcuffed. The petitioner allegcs that he was arrested without any summons having been previously served upon him, or any warrant having been issued for his apprehension. He alleges also that a person offered to go security for him, but on inquiring of the magistrate, who was a Mr. Doyle, what bail was requisite, he was grossly insulted by that gentleman, and was threatened to be sent to the county gaol. In conclusion the petitioner alleges that he cannot expect justice from the Bench of Magistrates, as Mr. Doyle is one of them, and only another presides. Mr. O'Dwyer said he had another petition to present from Robert Butler, and Judith, his wife, both belonging to the same county. Colonel BRUEN remarked that the petition had no signa ture attached to it—nothing but a mark. Mr. O'DWYER.—Surely that will be no objection to the receiving of it. In reply to a question from the SPEAKER, Mr. O'DWYER stated that it was only the marks of the petitioners that were attached to the petition. Colonel BRUEN hoped, as the petition contained allega tions of a serious nature, that its authenticity should be known before it was received. He did not believe the truth of the charges that it contained. Mr. O'DWYER-The petition came in the regular way of transmission to him, and in consequence of what had just been said by the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Bruen) he was bound to say that the statements of it were confirmed by a most respectable gentleman, in whom he placed every reliance. For his own part, he firmly believed its accuracy. _ _ . Colonel BRUEN made a few observations in reply, the purport of which we could not hear. The SPEAKER.--The question for the House was, if an individual could not write, was he precluded from petitioning for the redress of any grievance that he might complain of? The question was not as to the conduct of the parties com plained of in the petition, but as to the propriety of receiving the petition. Mr. ROEBUCK remarked, that the petition was as much signed in the hand-writing of the petitioners, as any other the House ever received ; the House had no means of ascertaining the authenticity of any signature attached to a petition. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL concurred with the Hon. Gen tleman ; a petition was as much signed by having a mark, as by the manuscript of a petitioner. In a court of equity, they were equally entitled to respect. Mr. E W ART observed, that what had been stated by the Hon. Gentleman who presented the petition was quite suffi cient to confirm the signatures attached to it, and it would be found very difficult to obtain better proof on the matter. On the question being put, that the petition do lie on the table, Mr. KAVANAGH entered some objections against it on the ground of some defects, omissions, and other circumstances connected, with the marks and signatures attached to it. Mr. O'DWYER said that he had fully expected that the Hon. Member who spoke last was about to propose a Com mittee of that House to investigate the matter. That would have been the proper and manly way to meet the charge, and to do justice to the petitioners. He could affirm, that every assertion made in that petition was substantially correct; and he would add, that the House was bound to believe those allegations until they had been disproved. Mr. KAVANAG H rose, and was about to address the House, when the Speaker reminded him that he had only then the right to explain. Upon which the Hon. Member stated that he had nothing more to say on the subject.—(A laugh.) Mr. O'DWYER said he had now a petition to present from Thomas Butler and Judith his wife, of the county Carlow, complaining that on the night of the 24th of January last, after they had retired to rest, a party of police, accompanied by the under agent of Thomas Kavanagh, Esq.—( A laugh)— called at their house, dragged them out of bed and conveyed them to Borris, where they were kept in confinement the re mainder of the night and the whole of the following day (Sunday)—that Judith, one of the petitioners, was the mother of seven children, one of whom was dangerously ill, and that she prayed to be left with him that night, and would be ready to answer any charge that might be brought against her the following day, but in vain, as she was compelled to accompany her husband, and for what crime they are still "ignorant. The Rev. John Walsh enquired of the police sergeant by what authority he had arrested the petitioners, and he replied that it was on the warrant of Mr. Doyle, and Hawkshawe, the chief of police—that this magis trate Doyle was an overseer and under agent to Mr. Kavanagh with a salary of 801. or 1001. a year. He (Mr. O'D.) would not go into a detail of all the circumstances, but they were of such a nature as to challenge the immediate• inquiry of the Irish Government.—( Hear.) With respect to Mr. Doyle, the magistrate complained of, he (Mr. O'Dwyer) would mention a circumstance which had been communicated to him by a gentleman to whom be was satisfied the House would give implicit credit—that gentleman was Mr. Vigors, who, in the last Parliament, represented the town of Carlow. —( Hear.) The circumstance which had been witnessed by Mr. Vigors was, that two persons had been brought before the Magistrates (one of whom was Mr. Doyle) 'on a charge of inciting a tumult, and the party complained against had been fined 20s. A summons had also been issued against a person in the employment of Mr. Kavanagh, who was proved to have committed a violent assault by striking another with a stone on the head, and he would beg of the House to mark the difference between the penalty inflicted in the two cases. In one, a person, charged with exciting a riot, was fined 205., and in the other a person who had actually committed an as sault, was fined only ss. and Mr. Doyle, the magistrate, who adjudicated on the case, had the indecency on the bench to pay the fine of this latter oknder. He would beseech the House to ask of itself what justice could the people expect from a bench partly constituted of a magistrate who was capable of acting in the manner in which he had acted ? He (Mr. O'D.) would call on the Right Hon. the Secretary for Ire -I.nd, if he could obtain his attention for a moment, to investi gate this matter, and if the allegations were true, to remove this Magistrate from the Commission of the Peace. A man capable of such indecent conduct, if true, was not fit to hold the Commission of the Peace. Mr. KAVANAGH said that the charge made by the Hon. Member was perfectly false. Colonel BRUEN said he for one was far from hushing an enquiry, and like the Hon. Member for Drogheda he challenged investigation. He was sure that upon a proper and full investigation, the charges would be found to be wholly and absolutely unfounded. He must at the same time say that the proper tribunal to try such charges was not in that House. Mr. Doyle lie knew to be incapable of acting other Wise than as became a magistrate and a gentleman, and whilst in his name he challenged investigation, he must still say that the proper court would be the proper tribunal before which such enquiry ought to be instituted. Sir. H. HARDINGE said that if the Hon. and Learned Member for Drogheda had informed him that he intended to present a petition calling in question the character of a magistrate, he would have been prepared to inform him of the course which the Government intended to pursue. As, however, his attention had been called to the case, he would refer it to Dublin, and would make all necessary inquiry, and he had no doubt, after what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Carlow, that the Magistrate who was charged would be able to give a very satisfactory explanation. Mr. O'CONNELL said that would depend altogether upon the persons of whom the inquiry was made.—(Loud cries of " Hear," from the Irish Members.) If the cause were referred for inquiry to persons who participated in the sentiments of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir H. H.) himself he had not the least doubt but that the facts would be proved. He had received information of the charges in such a state as to be capable of demonstration by legal evidence. Sir H. HARDINGE said that if the Noble and Learned Member chose, the enquiry might be made in the usual course, and not through the Government. Mr. O'DW YE R said that if the Government would sup ply the parties with money, there would be no objection to go to the courts of law.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Ho nourable Baronet must be sufficiently acquainted with the practice of law to know that a_ party without money would not be in the most favourable position. He had received that day a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman, giving an account of a transaction that had lately occurred, in which another Magis trate went forth at the head of the military and the police. The SPEAKER called the Hon. Member to order, and he sat down. Sir H. II A RDING E repeated, that he had no doubt, after what had been stated, that the explanation which would be given would be satisfactory. Col. EVANS said he doubted this. He had been lately in Ireland, and would venture to state that there were men there in the Commission, who were unfit to hold that office. Mr. F. SHAW said that when serious charges of this kind were brought against men holding public of fices, some person should be made responsible for them. There was no name to this petition but simply a mark—there was nothing to show that the document had been read to the person so putting his mark. He knew the gentleman against whom these. charges were brought, and he did not believe that there could be found a .worthier or a better man. At all events, much recrimination had been resorted to on one side and the other. He had no objection to a proper investi gation, but he objected to bringing forward unauthorized do cuments of this kind, which attacked the character of in dividuals. The petitions (as we understood) were laid on the table. Mr. BAINES brought up a report, but we were unable to ascertain to what it referred. MALT TAX. Sir W. GEARY presented a petition from Kent, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax. Mr. WAKLE Y presented a petition in favour of William Nixon, as we understood, convicted during the last Assizes, and sentenced to transportation for life. Mr. POTTER presented a petition from a town in the county of Lancaster, for the repeal of the malt tax. Mr. CLTIZTEIS said as he saw the Noble Marquis, the Member for Buckinghamshire now in his place, he should take the liberty of asking whether it.was his intention to bring on his bill for the repeal of the malt tax, on the day for which he had given notice ? The Marquis of CHANDOS begged to assure the Hon. Member and the House, that it was his decided intention to bring forward that Bill on the day appointed. Mr. O'CONNELL said he was asked, nay, indeed com manded by some of his constituents to enquire of the Go vernment whether his Majesty's Ministers could announce any change in their arrangements with respect to the Malt Tax. Ile could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that it was in obedience to these commands he now put the question. He should not be surprised if he declined to answer it. Sir ROBERT PE EL said he thought nothing could be more unfair than to endeavour to anticipate the state ments of the Government,' nor could any thing be more unfair than to give answers which relate to transactions con templated in ministerial arrangements. He could assure the Hon. and Learned Member, that this was the only considera tion which weighed with him on declining to answer the inquiry he had made, as nothing could be more likely to embarrass their proceedings, and he hoped, therefore, the Hon. and Learned Member would not interpret it in any other sense. Mr. O'CONNELL said he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the Right Honourable Bart.—( Hear, hear.) He had made his inquiry solely in compliance with the com mand of several highly respectable constituents. He certainly did not anticipate its being answered. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Colonel EVANS inquired of the Right Hon. Baronet when it was his intention to bring forward his financial statement ? Sir ROBERT PEEL said he thought that it would be a most inconvenient course, to introduce the financial statements of the country before the estimates were passed, and the amount of revenue, and the general demands for the public service, were satisfactorily ascertained. This was the ancient course, and he thought by far the most convenient. Mr. HUME could not concur with the expressions of the Right Honourable Bal onet ; on the contrary, he could not but think that it would be infinitely better for the public service that the House should be in possession of what was necessary for the demands of the Government, as they would then know what proportion was to be voted for. It was a practice to which he had always objected, to vote the money without knowing to what purpose it was to be applied. He thought the House ought to be acquainted with the state of the revenue, as they might then be able to pass a vote for the actual sum required. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Government did not intend to postpone their measures, but the course he had stated was the adopted, as well as the most convenient, custom. The Hon. Gentleman was sometimes most impatient for the estimates being laid before the House. Mr. HUME said he was not so now. NEWSPAPERS. _ _ _ An HoN. MEMBER wished to ask the Solicitor-General whether it was the intention of Government to enforce the pe nalties on different papers fined under the present Act ? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, in answer to the question which had been put to him by the Hon. Member, he had intended to give notice of motion on Monday last ; and he did not know whether he might do so now--(hear, hear) — to bring in a bill to repeal the Act to which the Hon. Mem ber had alluded. FRENCH LITERATURE. Dr. BOWRING wished to know from the Right Hon. Baronet, whether there were any negotiations pending between this Government and the French Government on the subject of facilitating the interchange of French and English litera ture. Sir R. PEEL replied that he was aware there were some negotiations going on about political matters ; but he was not aware there was anything at present pending about literary matters. THE POOR LAWS. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Colonel William Napier, complaining of cruelty on the part of the parish officers of Freshford to the paupers of that parish. The Hon. Member proceeded to relate some of the particulars as given in evidence before the Commis. sioners, who had instituted an enquiry into the transaction ; but Mr. Secretary GOULBURN suggested to the Hon. Gen tleman that it was quite unnecessary to take up the time of the House in repeating that evidence, as it was the intention of Government to make the case a matter of judicial enquiry.— ( Hear, hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK would ask the Right Hon. Secretary, whether he meant to say that he would direct a prosecution to be instituted at once? Mr. GOULBURN said that he would propose to call upon the parish to prosecute, because, if the parish autho rities exercised proper vigilance, such circumstances could not take place. But if it were found that the parish did not take up the case in a proper manner, a prosecution should then be instituted at the expense of the Crown.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. ROEBUCK did not t hi n k i t necess ary, after the obser vation of the Right Hon. Secretary, to say more on the subject, except that he hoped that the prosecution would not be left to the parish. He had also heard of similar circumstances which bad been encouraged and perpetrated by parochial authorities, at the head of whom was a Christian minister. Major BE AUC LERC said the House, and the whole country must, he thought, now be thoroughly convinced that the new Poor Law Bill would not work--(" No, no," from many Hon. Members)—and that it was a complete failure. He could assure the House, that in the county which he had the honour to represent, it was found totally ineffective, and productive of great evil and hardship. Col. WOOD said the gentlemen who advocated this Bill last session would recollect he had warned them against the effects of that measure, and this petition completely verified the alar m which l ie and other Members had expressed respecting the consequences of that Bill.—(" No, no.") Hon. Members said no, but he said yes ; and he thought that such atrocities ought to call forth the sympathies of every Englishman.—( Hear.) He had foreseen and foretold these evils, and the probability of such cases of hardships as the petition described. And how could it be otherwise when all power was taken out of the hands of the parochial authorities, and every case referred to the Central Board ? He proposed a system last session which would be better, by binding the power and superintendence of the parochial authorities, and of persons appointed by the govern ment. Hear, hear, hear.) This proposition, however, would not he listened to by the House which seemed to be infatuated in favour of their favourite measure.--( Hear. ) His clauses were rejected in the Committee—in fact they had been put down by general clamour. —( Loud cries of "hear, hear.") The moment the magistrates' name was mentioned, their interference was scouted—the clauses were hardly listened to, and the Bill passed without almost any mo dification.—( Hear.) Such modifications as were introduced, were brought in with very great difficulty. He was glad that the Hon. Member for Bath had brought the matter under the consideration of the House. It was gratifying that the Central Board was only a temporary one, and, he trusted, that some mole would be devised by which the severities to which the poor were exposed would be obviated. He would not prolong the discussion by any further observations, but he was satisfied that before the Bill could be permanently placed upon the Statute Book, some mode of alleviating the ills of the poor must be devised.--(" Cries of Hear, hear, hear.") Mr. GOULBURN wished to set the Hon. and Gallant Member right with respect to a fact.—( Hear, hear.) He did not mean to offer any opinion upon the matter before the House, nor did he wish to prolong the discussion. The cruelties complained of had been carried on in the workhouse of a parish for which the Commissioners had issued no rules or regulations.—( Hear.) Therefore that parish was in the state in which it would, have been if no such Bill had passed.—(Loud cries of "hear, hear.") With respect to the power of interference on the part of magistrates, he would remind the Hon. and Gallant Mem ber, that in the Act which passed last session there was a clause reserving to magistrates every power and authority which they had heretofore exercised until the new orders had been issued.—( Renewed cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") He thought it only just to make that statement, without giving any opinion upon the improvement which the Bill had effected ; but he thought it right to vindicate the commis sioners from having had any thing to do with the severeties which had been practiced. Colonel WOOD explained. Mr. ROEBUCK said the petition alleged that' the over seers were guilty of gross misconduct for three years. Colonel WOOD said that the pecuniary allowance of the poor was reduced to eighteen pence, and that previous to the Act of last Session, two magistrates had the power to take it away entirely. Mr. PO ULETT SCR OPE said he did not rise to make a speech against the Poor Law Amendment Bill of last Session, but he would state what was the real state of the law and the case, to prevent any misunderstanding from going abroad on the question, and if possible to prevent any similar occur rence to that now complained of from taking place. With regard to the parish of Freshford, it was equally true that the disorders mentioned existed there before the passing of the new Act, and the Commissioners were not responsible. Other parties were responsible. Besides the overseers, the magis gistrates were also. Before and after the Act any single Ma- gistrate had the power of putting an end to such irregularities as those now complained of. It was perfectly true that by the Act of last Session, Magistrates were prevented from giving poor-house relief. But there was an Act, the 30th of Geo. 111., chapter 49, which was not repealed by the Act of last Session, and which empowered any one Magistrate to visit a work-house, and if he found any irregularity in it, if he found poor persons not sufficiently relieved, badly clad, or diseased, he might certify the same to some neighbouring Magistrate, and make in conjunction with him regulations so as to amply remedy such abuses. He thought, therefore, that it was com petent for the Magistrates to inspect the Freshfield work houses, and if abuses were found in them to put a stop to them summarily. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) would not limit his inquiry to the overseers alone, but would call upon the Magistrates to show why they had neglected their duty. If at the Quarter Sessions there was power to prosecute his Gallant Friend (Colonel Napier) would have had, he was sure, recourse to that tribunal, and would have found in that. way a speedy remedy to the abuses of the Freshfield workhouses. He threw out his suggestions of local tribunals for the consideration of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. BENETT asked if under the old or new law those houses were really workhouses ? If not, no appeal could be made to the Magistrates, and neither they nor the overseers were to blame. Mr. ROEBUCK, in explanation, said that the houses be longed to the parish, and the paupers were sent to them by the parish officers. They had been treated as poor-houses both by the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners. He had intended to say a few words in vindication of the Com missioners, but he would abstain from doing so on the present occasion. He was however bound in justice to assert that the poor were in a better situation under the new law than they had been in under the old. Assistance was more promply ex tended to them by the Commissioners than ever it had been by the Magistrates ; and, therefore, he believed that non's but those who - had never read the Poor Law Act, and knew nothing about its provisions decried it. Mr. MiL ES, as one of the representatives of the county of Somerset, rose for the purpose of speaking in vindication of the Magistrates of that county ; and he thought that the Hon. Member for Bath might have spared the observations which he had made respecting the Rev. Mr. Joyce (we believe), than whom a more honourable and upright man did not exist. Mr. ROEBUCK—It was stated in the petition that Col. Napier had applied to the magistrates, but that they declined to interfere, alleging that the new law had divested them of the powers which they exercised under the old law. Mr. MILES contended that the magistrates were deprived by the new law of the powers which they had under the old law. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. SUPPLY. On the motion of Sir R. PEEL, that the report of the Com mittee of Supply be brought up, Lord J. RUSSELL wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it was his intention when the House next went into a Committee of Supply to ask for votes (as we understood) for the army and navy establishment for the ensuing year ? Sir R. PEEL, in answer to the question which the Noble Lord has put to me I beg to say that it is my intention to ask for the usual votes for the army and navy establishments. The navy estimates were intended to be brought forward on Monday next, the day fixed for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply ; but as these estimates are not yet printed, and cannot be ready for circulation by that day, I pur pose postponing them until the Friday following this day week. Mr. G. T. YOUNG wished to know when the Hon. Members might expect to receive these estimates ? Sir R. PEEL, the instant they are ready they shall be cir culated. Mr. HUME thought that they should not be called upon to vote those supplies until they had seen and examined the estimates. He had not yet read them, and as other Honour able Gentlemen were in the same situation, how was it pos sible for them to be expected to vote away the public money 1 Sir R. PEEL—It is on that very account that I have post poned their being brought forward until Friday. I felt that Monday was too early a day. Mr. HUME thought that as the estimates were not yet in the hands of the Hon. Members they should not be brought on before Monday week.—( Cries of hear from the Members on the Opposition side of the House.) Mr. BERNAL then brought up the report of the Corn mittee, which was received and ordered to be read. Mr. HUME wished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, with respect to the recommendation of a Committee (of which he had been a member) that had sat on the subject of reducing the income of the Speaker, and the salary of his Secretary, and suggest ing that an alteration should be made in the practice of pro viding a service of plate for each new Speaker. In the case of Ambassadors, it had been fixed that the plate should pass with the office—and as the Committee were of opinion that the same principle should be applied, in the case of the Speaker—he wished to know if it was the intention of the Right Honourable Baronet to carry that recommendation into effect ? Sir R. PEEL—On the appointment of the present Speaker I of course made the necessary reference to the report to which the Hon. Member for Middlesex refers. I read the suggestions contained in it with the attention which they de serve, and thinking them in every way good I can assure the House that it is the intention of the Government to adopt them as far as may be convenient.—( Hear, hear.) It will not only be an advantage to the Speaker himself, but an eco nomical arrangement in a public point of view that a proper service of plate should now be provided for the use of the Speaker, and that the same should from time to time be handed over by each Speaker to his successor in the Chair of this House. The arrangement will effect a considerable an nual saving. I stated to the Right Hon. Gentleman himself the course which the Government intend adopting, and I can only add that not only in this instance but in every other re spect it is my determination to adhere to the recommendation of the Committee, and act upon the principle which they have laid down in their report.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME said there was one other point connected with this subject on which he desired information, and that related to the Chaplain of the House. Hitherto the practice had been to provide for the Speaker's Chaplain by giving him a Church sinecure, but this was considered by the Committee as a highly objectionable arrangement. They recommended that a stated salary should be given to the Clergyman who officiated in that House, and what he wished to know was whether the Right Hon. Baronet meant to abide by their recommendation in this instance as in all the other cases. Sir R. PEEL—When the appqintment of the next Chap lain takes place it is intended that the recommendation of the Committee in this respect shall also be followed. Suspending the present nomination would render a new arrangement ne cessary, and that is deemed unadvis able under existing cir cumstances. The SPEAKER should leave all matters connected with the office which he had the honour to fill at the discretion of the House. Mr. HUME hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite would not bring forward the estimates before Monday week, as it would not (so we understood the Hon. Member) be con venient for him to be in his place on Friday. Sir R. PEE L—My private feeling in this, as in all other cases, must give way to my sense of public duty. This day week I hope to be able to bring forward the Navy Estimates, and Hon. Members will have plenty of opportunity to examine them before that day. Mr. HUMS said that when the question of voting those estimates came before the House, he should, if no other Hon. Gentleman did so, feel it his duty to submit that the estimates for six months only should be voted. He should take this course in order to see what sort the measures were which the Right Hon. Baronet intended to bring forward..—( Cries from a few Members on the Opposition side of the House of " Three mouths, three months.") The report was then read by the Clerk, and, together with items mentioned in it, agreed to. CHESTER CRIMINALS EXECUTION BILL. On the motion for further considering the report of the Committee on this Bill, Mr. JE RVIS made some observations, but as the Hon. Gentleman spoke from one of the back seats under the Gallery on the Opposition side of the House not even the substance of his remarks were heard. The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said that although a doubt certainly existed as to the party by whom execution was to be done under the existing law, an arrangement had been made by his Noble Friend the Chief Baron of the Ex chequer, with the officers of Chester, by which business in such cases would be done as heretofore. After some observations from Lord GROSVENOR and Mr. WILBRAHAM, which were inaudible, Mr. JERVIS moved, as an amendment on one of the clauses, that the words " the Sheriffs shall be liable to execute" in stead of " shall execute." The amendment having been concurred in the report was (as we understood) agreed to. ORANGE SOCIETIES. Mr. SHE IL rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to move that there be laid before the House a copy of a letter written by Lord Manners, at the time Lord Chan cellor of Ireland, to Johnson, Esq., a Justice of the Peace, relative to the legality of Orange Societies ; to gether with copies of the opinions of the Irish Attorney and Solicitor General, given between the years 1825 and 1827, on the same subject. Also copies of the addresses pre sented to his Majesty from the Trinity College District Orange Lodge, and from other Lodges of the same decription established in the city of Dublin and the county of Down, together with the answers given thereto by the Right Hon. Gentleman the secretary for the Home Department. And, lastly, copies of the address from the Birmingham Political Union, alluded to on a former night, and the answer for warded to the parties from whom that address had been re ceived. On Wednesday last a question was raised in that House as to the legality of Orange societies, and it was on that occasion suggested that no competent aut h or i ty h a d ever yet decided that such associations were illegal. But what did he find in a debate that took place on this very subject in the year 1813, when the question was brought forward by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall? Why, that the Right Hon. Gentleman expressly declared that such societies were con trary to the spirit and intent of the Act of the 39th Geo. 111., c. 79, which was passed in the year 1799; and in his opinion both Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh concurred. It was on that occasion the prevailing sentiment of the House that Orange societies tended much to interrupt the peace and harmony of Ireland; but what was the result when the sub ject was again brought before Parliamen, in 1827, by Mr. Brownlow ? Why, that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the pre sent Secretary for the Home Department, in proof of the illegality of these societies, referred to the opinion of Lord Plunkett, the then Irish Attorney-General. He knew it might be said that Lord Plunkett had peculiar predilections on such a question ; but the Solicitor-General, Mr. Joy, now Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer, was not open to the same observation, and he sustained the opal's" Lord Plunkett had given.—( Hear.) Not only ivas that, ea,. Ilion decisive as to the illegality of Orange societies , but the Right Hon. Gentleman, in confirmation of it, referred to lar letter of Lord Manners to Mr. Johnson, in which a sirei3 doctrine was laid down.—[ the Hon. and Learned Gentletali, read a copy of this letter, and it appeared from it that not M did Lord Manners differ from r. Johnson with respe ct ! construction of the Act, but that his Lordship declared ca " ase his opinion that Orange processions were illegal, be Orange nand Orange societies were in contravention of the law ] Such the sentiments of the highest legal authorities in Irela nd ' yet, in the face of this document, they were told that no ••c potent tribunal had ever decided that these associations wet illegal. This letter and the other papers for which he Ole. it move would, he thought, set the matter at rest, and little,,,, was that he sought for their production. In the observatT-: he might make he would studiously abstain from utteringrtf„ thing that could be offensive to the feelings of any one 'al, heard him ; but he relied on a simple statement of facts, his b i s though he would candidly acknowledge that the object e., 1 ,, fa motion was to fix upon the present Government the c'".v d, of having given countenance to Orange Societies in in order to perpetuate their factious ascendancy, and proelssl their baneful effects in that country.—( Hear.) The adclr.e.% which had been presented to his Majesty from these soctr., were extremely numerous, but he had made a selection' r'su'e them. in order to save the time of the House, for the purP a ° ., i . of illustrating the feelings by which such bodies were „', mated, and throwing a stronger light upon the conduct of Government respecting them.—( Hear.) [The / 10 e . ,, P f ril Learned Gentleman here read from the Dublin Evening long reports of the proceedings of the Orange lodges 1 u t ' ,. whence the addresses he alluded to had emanated, conitr:li), ing on them as he proceeded.] These addresses avo came from Orange lodges, and he contended that th 6 cbs_tl tes tion made as to their being not the addresses of those b"o but of the individuals who signed them, was an unsubstantce. distinction, and one that led, so far as political effect wa s C ie corned, to the same identical political results.—( Hear.) ' 1 ,4 Hon. and Learned Gentleman next adverted to the gr i a . . o aggregate meeting of the Orange Societies which took Pit in December last at Merchants' Hall, Dubliti, at nt t ' e the Lord Mayor of that city was present, and read to ; r, Houses the verses recited on that occasion by the Rey- n ,, M'Crea, which, he said, though contemptible in point o f c . o .cli position, sufficiently evinced the odious sentiments by O i l , all Orangemen were animated. Hon. Gentlemen sitting' u s the other side of the House were members of Orange Ledg , e t ; and he called upon them now to declare whether the sentime .10 embodied in the verses which Mr. AP Crea had delivererl4o r 0 ' the occasion referred to, were not such as every membe Orange society entertained. Mr. M.Crea, too, was a elltit man.—(Cries of " No, no I") He believed that he wa s, be whether he belonged to the Established Church or ne t ' 0 . would not take upon himself to say. This, too, was the Sal individual who had written to the Right Hon. Baronet 0 ,1 ) ,P, 0 , site ( Sir Robert Peel) in language which the Right Baronet had—and most properly, and much to his praise e l e . pudiated iu strong terms. The Right Hon. Baronet th cretary for Ireland was in office at the time Lord O'Nei l , .0 dismissed for hoistinc , an Orange flag, and he (Mr. Su ei o would put it to that Right Hon. Gentleman, whether it ir right of the Lord-Lieutenant to attend a dinner given Lord Mayor who had been present at a meeting where sal sentiments as those delivered by Mr. M'Crea were eaPre ss s si The Right Hon. Gentleman smiled at this ; but did the R's Hon. Gentleman recollect the conduct of Lord AagLe s iT e when invited to dine with Lord Cloncurry, while that M itc , Lord was a member of the Catholic Association ? Lord, t he glesey, on that ground, and that ground a lone, decline a the invitation, although there was no pretence for saying o°o o Catholic Association was an illegal bOdya—(l-fear.) er Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read the titles a nd et ° o parts of the addresses which he had selected for the purP ° ,..i, of his motion, and after observing on its being avowed 10 ea p, that it came from the members of an Orange lodge, he O il) , tended that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the S e cretaryO r .o Home Department, was not in his ans w e rs t o them Jus ti sie g in characte r ising them as "loy a l an d d u tif u l," and s a) ;,:e that " his Majesty had been gr ac i ous ly pl ease d to re e lio them," the Right Honourable Gentlemen at the t ,b , well knowing that they came from bodies which were Here then was an address from Trinity College, which O f ' Il i ; not for a gracious reply, but r ath e r f or th e re p ro bation 0 ' Majesty's advisers. Was it not lamentable that in the ° J e ' t institution in Ireland where Catholics and Protestants Initb they were not allowed to live in harmony and peace, re each other--( Cheers from th e Opposition)—that in a P t he a which should be sacred to the quiet pursuits of literature 19 Secretary of State for the Home Department should net ° be s not reprove the exhibiti o n o f acr i mon i ous p arty feeling',., to on the contrary, consent to retu r n an an swer w hi c h see'l? e tb e intimate an approval ? Was it fair—was it manly, f k ,, eo o Government thus to sanction a sso c i a ti ons w hi c h bat " - s, O O again and again denounced ? If th e su p port o f tlsat was necessary to the Government, let them franklY,rso fairly acknowledge their dependence upon them. 0 . Honourable and Learned Gentleman then submitted his Lion as above. Mr. GOULBURN asked whether it was fair, afte r u ti f, Hon. Gentleman had given a notice to move for the pr°.'oe tion of copies of the answers give n by t h e S ecre tary °L Home Department to certain addresses from Orang,e a other Societies—was it fair for him to move for a eoPY letter written by Lord Mann ers , f oun d e d on t h e op i n ions ° t he law officers of that day, and oth er d ocumen t s betweea,; dates of 1825 and 1827 ? Could the Hon. Gentleman e % c r s that he (Mr. Goulburn) could be prepared to answer ouli e s, or produce documents relative to such a period ? If the, A n ot Gentleman was of that opi n i on th e H ouse certainly tvet'itly expect an acquiescence in the H on . G ent l eman ' s mo tion, ' Y out any time being allowed to refer to the corresponde nce t 'w (Cheers.) With respect to that part of the Hon. Geatte man's address which related to addresses p res ented °° s e part of persons describing th emse l ves as members of _ ,e Societies, and the answers returned to those address c 'hO (Mr. Goulburn) had a l rea dy s t a t e d on a f ormer oc casion t to he had no objection to their production. He was re 3d Z e rit produce those documents, for he felt perfectly con 0 1, that there was nothing in the a n s wers returne d t o ,lass t ag` dresses calculated to uphold th ose i ns ti tut i ons , an d to was further from his intention than in the slightest deg r ' fe lt, give encouragement to exclusive societies. fie m erely ae ci in returning those answers he was fulfilling a n ordineld routine duty in formally acknowledging those as be cc a¢d acknowledge any other addresses which might be for ty .% to to the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) H e h a d no o bjecn e d the production of the answers, because he felt that he, i , i g no motive whatsoever to wish for their concealment. 1) , ° ;, 5 0 the time which he had been i n office as many as 500 ady,' n " - tbe had been received, and they had been acknowledared usual form. About twelve he a- a p pose d o f t h ese a dd r ess° "or stated as " from the undersigned members of Orange ip all ,ions." He would not und er t a k e to say t h at ' h e h a d r e as' these addresses, but was satisfied with taking their conteat,9cces nerally from the representations of those who presented the as he believed was the usual custom when a large were presented.—( Hear.) As he before stated, tWe' - go' these were from person s w h o p ro f esse d t h emse l ves to be t rt. " 5 ,01 bers of Orange institutions, and the reply was in the ~,t 1 form, stating that his Majesty 'had been pleased to r e ' l ; s 4 them in the most gracious manner. He had l o oked 1 , 0 . since this discussion had been first raised, to asccrtai ll „ w , 3 o ther he had been misled in the practice which h e had au'i be either generally or as regarded this particular society , b i1 ., 4 0 1 found upon inquiry that he had not departed from the i r t iol course. Ile found that in 1831, d ur i ng th e per i o d w hen P °)l t ,te' Unions were most num erous , th a t severa l a dd resses we r ,, e e aGlf sented to the Crown from many of thos e b o dies, e%l l- s * sel: styling themselves members of var i ous P o li t i ca l U n ions' - s e as the Bristol, the Leeds, the Sheffield, the Biamingh°,.',ls , to all of these an answer wa s g i ven i n t h e following, w°l,-isi' " I had the honour of laying your address before the re• and I have the satisfactio n t o assure yois that his Maiett'so) ceived the same in the most grac i ous manner "—(CP:tile This, then, had bee n th e practlte heretofore, . so long -s ails• , tone of the address was n o t cons id ered o b jectionab l e , a nd 'lgoe the conduct of the parties from it came was orderly. Vet doob, was some difference i n t h e two i nstances , b u t n° opted, when the addr e s ses o f th e P o li t i ca l Unions were Pre s ' par and thus graciously ans were d, i t h a d b een f orgotten that $ 0 ,0.4e clamation had been iss ue d w hi c h di st i nct l y warne d anni la ce d ; who took part in th ese un i ons o f t h e i r il legal i ty, a nd r.,, a tis6 those who still adhered t o th em i n res i stance to t he elr th° law.--( Loud cheers.) He did not refer to these factS 1° tat purpose of casting any imputation upon his predecess°r:ses' marely to show that it was not the practice to enter into a ' pr e' tion of the legality or illegality of addresses re spect e' v 's sented, but they w ere usua ll y rece i ve d w i th a gracious ae-ribr ledgment.—(He ar , h ear .) Th e Hon. Gentleman "11°,501 brought forward the motion had mixed up the simple involved in his notice many other exciting topics, and llB to the House newspap er extracts and descriptions O nta l-1 0° ' impassioned and party language. He would ask th e to the Gentleman, or (if the H on . G ent l eman was i nsen sible le for, appeal) he would ask th at H ouse, w h et h er i t was possi b the Secretary for the Home Department to take' eog nii i . a i ) s ub li .{ all the topics, and weigh all the expressions used a ": a l " meetings as preliminary to the presentation of an addr es e liag fr topics of an exciting nature were introduced at these Il le- ct irt e ' would that be a ground on which to refuse the usual u e t is o sies ?—( Cheers.) He would not longer trespass oil t 7 t e s leo ( ' of the House, but if it was intended to impute to hi t.° -. 11 1 7, g to keep up institutions calculated to create or contia9 e e s ts , or division between any classes of his Majesty's su b i% person making such an imputation did him the greate.asii, Lb° tice.—( Loud cheers.) He had himself introduced a P u l i s tel y tendency of which was in direct opposition to any suc-sls dry Lion. It was a measure from which many of his frien b y b sented, yet still he persevered in it, and judging of hirtl s it past conduct, h e f e l t sat i s fi e d t h at the House would ael - es sa . , ) from an imp u t a ti on so muc h at variance 'with it.—( C t II - Mr. FE ARGUS O'CON NOR said that the Rig" ee a tP" Gentleman h a d attempted to make an analogy be, i t s i c c i so uir Orange In s tit ut i on an d t h e P ol i t i cal Unions. Hepc I V remindin g th e H ouse t h at the former were declare d to se tt gal by proclamation. He (Mr. O'Connor), begged to f that the O range I nst i tut i on was opposed to the lawsli°,lerg; country, but th e p roc l amat i on which it was asserted re IP the other illegal, only went to the extent of forbidun.loei members from meeting in large numbers. The Ri g h t t ad il° a Gentleman h a d attempte d to defend himself, b u t he' si done so.—( , Oh !" and a laugh.) He (Mr. O'Connoro'iotiol glad his Hon. Friend had brought forward the presen t s pu r t and he trusted he would persevere in it. He trusted -her press it to a di v i s i on. The Hon. and Learned M en \ nor' c on to say, th a t h e h ad published six extracts fromtbe i persons f ormer l y i n power in Ireland, declara tory, '1 il• ll opinion resp ect i ng t h e legality of the Orange I ns titnt!c":„ be e , work had b een suppressed, 3,000 copies o f it bavis(7eurce seized; b u t, scarce as i t was, he should contrive to 140 o f copy for the Right Hon. Baronet opposite &e rn s iti oll might be able t o f orm a correct o f the conallio, a ° the Orange S oc i e ty i n I re l an d . In conclus i o n, the " p thai 1101 for rir o N on oec ttOo t , tow tertai