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

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 howerer, been thrown 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 glad to see that the Government was determined to put down the seditious and treasonable practices of the Irish 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 law the remedy proposed might:be. lie hoped, more over, that the details of the measure would be as concise as possible, and that Government would ask for a 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 Lordships' House. The Marquis 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 standing 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 manitestation 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 bo received, The 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. The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before Four o'clock. NEW Al E IIBER. Earl GnosTEicon. took the oaths and his seat for the city of Chester. SECOND READINGS. The following Bills were read a second time : Jessop's Estate. Marlborough College Chapel. BOARD OF ORDNANCE. Captain PECdELL presented a petition from a Mr. Mclntyre, of Fort William, praying for compensation for having given certain information to the Board of Ordnance, by which the Crown was enabled to recover a large quantity of barrack stores that had been em bezzled. TURNPIKE TRUSTS. Mr. FREWEN presented a petition from a parish in Kent, praying that the House should take into consider ation the present state of turnpike trusts. NORTH CHESHIRE ELECTION. The . Select Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition complaining of the undue election and return of Mr. Legh for North Cheshire, were sworn at the table. The following are the Members forming the Select Com mittee:—Viscount Courtenay (Chairman), Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir De Lacy Evans, Colonel Boldero, and Mr. R, D. Mangles. The Committee will proceed with their labours at eleven o'clock to-morrow. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from Man chester in favour of a reform of the House of Commons. THE STATE OF IRELAND. MOST IMPORTANT NOTICE OF MOTION. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—Mr. Speaker, I rise tog7ve notice that I shall to-morrow, at twelve o'clock, ask leave to bring in a Bill to empower the Lord-Lieutenant or other Governor or Governors of Ireland to apprehend and detain till the Ist of March. 1849, such persons as may be suspected of conspiring against her Majesty's person and Government.—(The deepest silence reigned throughout the House whilst the Noble Lord gave notice of the above motion. At its close the House cheered.) SAVINGS' BANKS IN FRANCE. Lord DRUMLANRIG inquired if the Government had made any direct appeal to the French Government, with respect to the money which some of the artisans who had been expelled from France had deposited in these banks, but had been unable to get returned before their expulsion? Sir G. GREY stated that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had had several communications with the French Government en the matter, but that, in his absence, he could not exactly state how the matter stood. RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THE RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS. In reply to an HON. ME3IIIER, Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that the Commissioners of Railways, under Mr. Gladstone's Act, were autho rised to inquire into the infringement of any acting rail way companies. The principle on which they acted was, on receiving a complaint, to send an inspector down to investigate it; and in the event of any valid grounds existing for doing so, to proceed in the, ordinary course of law against the co-npariy. VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. Mr. HUME asked, pursuant to notice, whether the colonists at the Cape and Van Dieznen's Land, and in other colonies, were to have a Representative Assembly granted to them, upon the subject of which they had frequently petitioned? Mr. HAWES said that a Bill was in preparation upon the subject; but no opportunity had as yet been afforded to introduce it to the notice of the House. THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER. Mr. HORSMAN wished to ask the Noble Lord (John Russell) whether it was true that an Order in Council bad been issued, enabling the Bishop of Gloucester to sell to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a certain estate ; and if it was, he was desirous of knowing whether the Noble Lord would have any objections to postpone the issuing of that Order in Council until the evidence, now being given before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the subject, was before the House. Lord J. RUSSELL would make inquiries on the subject. HIGHWAY BILL. In answer to a question from Sir. J. DUCKWORTIL Sir G. GREY said he was afraid he should not be able to get through with the Highways Bill this session. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. Mr. C. ANSTEY gave notice that in Committee on the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill he should move that the city of London be inserted in the schedule. UNITED STATES POST. Mr. HUME said some time ago he asked a question respecting a correspondence between the United States Minister in England and the Post-office authorities, re lative to the postal rates between England and America. It appeared by the papers received by the recent packet that the United States had since adupted a retaliatory rate which was likely to be highly injurious to the com mercial interests of this country, and he wished to know whether there was any objection to lay the correspon dence on the table? Lord PALMERSTON said he would anwser the question on Monday. NEW SOUTH WALES. Mr. HAWES, i n answer to a quest i on f rom an li on . Gentleman, stated that he was not prepared to say when the dispatch of the Governor of New South Wales, re lative to conferring a new constitution on that colony, would be laid before the House. ODE POLI-R . In reply to question from Sir DE LACEY EVANS, Sir G. GREY said there was no vote in the estimates connected with the police-rate, because the police-rate was charged on the Consolidated Fund. The Hon. Ba ronet was in error in supposing that the rate was to be increased. It was not an augmentation that was corn plained of, but that there was no diminution in the rate. CORN-LAWS. Mr. STUART wished to ask the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in point of fact the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown had been taken upon the question of the remission of duty on corn imported before the let of March, and s i nc e appropriated for home consumption. Th e ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his opinion had po L in y t. not been taken upon the ITALY. In answer to a question of Mr. ANSTEy, as to whether the Government had any objection to lay the Italian correspondence before the House, Lord PALMERSTON said, having looked over the correspondence, be found so much of it of a confidential nature as to the nature of the transactions in that quar ter of the world, and considering that it was not un likely that her Majesty's Government might be in vited to interfere as mediators, ho did not think that t he production of the correspondence would either benefit her Majesty's service, or tend to advance the interests of the country. AMERICAN MAIL PACKETS. Mr. M. GIBSON said, he hoped the Government THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EV would consider that the establishment of an American line of packets would be of great advantage to the trade of this country. He understood that the pre sent cause of complaint was that a duty was levied upon all letters brought by American packets, and he could assure the Government that any such distinction made between letters brought by those packets and by English packets would have a prejudicial effect upon both countries. THE LAND SCHEME. Mr. F. O'CONNOR claimed the indulgence of the House while he made a few observations with respect to certain aspersions which had been cast upon his character as to the application of the funds of the National Land Company. He begged to state that after a most rigid investigation of the whole accounts by an accountant appointed by the Committee, the Chairman reported to the Committee this day that so far from Mr. O'Connor hating absorbed the funds, there was now due to him the sum of 3,2001., as well as remuneration for his services for three years and a half.—(Cries of " Order, order.") The SPEAKER informed Mr. O'Connor that he was out of order to refer to the proceedings of a Committee which had not reported to the House Mr. O'CONNOR said what he wished to complain of was that the Chairman had made no report of the matter to the House. (The Hon. Member sat down amidst cries of " Order.") SUGAR DUTIES. On the motion for going into Committee on the Sugar Duties, Lord G. BENTINCK earnestly pressed upon the at tention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of withdrawing this Bill, and of going into a Committee of the whole House, for the pur pose of asking for new resolutions. As yet they had heard no satisfactory answer from the Hon. Gentleman as to how they purpose to deal with those difficulties to which he had referred on former occasions. An attempt had been made to explain away the acts of the Council of Jamaica, but in truth no proper explana tion had been given. lie therefore contended, as the matter stood, that it would be absurd to pass a Bill which would not be found practical. No doubt the Hon. Member for Westbury would get up and say that the 9th and 10th Viltoria did not confer upon the colonial legislature any power to remove prohi bitory duties. Now he (Lord G. Bentinck) thought that the Acts had been passed in a very opposite spirit. In that spirit four of the colonies had acted for the Queen in Council, and the Legislature had confirmed what they had done, though it was set up now that the authors of the Bill never pretended that it gave any such power. In 1846 the Member for the University of Cam bridge (Mr. Goulburn) stated that the Act intended to leave the colonies entirely at liberty to frame their own laws with regard to the trade of these colonies. The Noble Lord cited the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to show that the Government introduced the Bill in the spirit he had stated.—(Hear, hear.) How, he would ask, could it be pretended to be the in tention of the Act to prevent the British colonies from repealing prohibitions and restrictions, and yet that was the only ground on which it could be said the Act of 1845 overrode the Act of the Colonial Legislature. The Act of 1846 expressly empowered the colonial le gislative authorities, with the consent of her Majesty in Council, to repeal any customs duty, so far as the same might affect them. I❑ this case the only informality was, that the Act of the Colonial Legislature had not been laid before Parliament within thirty days after it received the assent of the Crown, if Parliament should be sitting, or, if not sitting, within thirty days after its next meeting. But this was the laches of Ministers themselves, who, though Parliament met in November, and continued sitting more than thirty days, neglected to lay the Act of the Colonial Legislature, which had received the royal assent in August, 1847, ou the table of the House until April, 1848.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, the Colonial Legislature, acting in the spirit of the Imperial Legislature, had passed an Act admitting foreign refined sugar at a duty of 20s. per cwt. Trinidad admitted sugar, refined or not refined, at ss. the cwt., and St. Lucia at 16s. Bd. Then he contended that, under the present resolutions, no sugar coming from those colonies could be admitted into this country con sistently with truth at the 13s. duty.—(Hear, hear,) Then as to the injury to the British refiner by the admission of refined sugar from Holland, it was complained by the refiners that this measure of relief had already raised the price of Dutch refined sugar from 2s. to 3s. a cwt., and re duced the value of British refined sugar to the same amount. When it was known on Monday last that Dutch refined sugar could come into this country, a complete stagnation came over the sugar trade here. Let the House consider what was the position of the British refiner. A large quantity of sugar had come in from Java and elsewhere, which, owing to the state of the Jaw, could not be refined here, but might be taken to Amsterdam, there refined, and then brought back here with the Dutch bounty, on it to compete against the sugar refined in this country. What chance had the British refiner under such circumstances ?—(Hear, hear.) 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 one coulil believe that Government knew what they were doing when they framed the resolutions the House had 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 Y But if Ministers refused to take that course, he was prepared to unmask a new battery against them— (Hear, hear, and laughter)—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 37 per cent. of the value 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 11.3 a. 4d., whereas it ought to be 11.35. 7d. In the next item, single refined sugar, in the first four columns there was no mistake, he supposed, because those ' columns referred to old duties, and required no calcula tion, but in the fifth column, the duty for the year 1852-3, the amount stated was 15s. 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. Thea on white clayed sugar for 1852-3, the duty stated in the schedule was 13s. 3d. instead of 13s. sd. ; for 1853-4 it was 12s. sd. while it ought to be 12s. 10d. In the duty on molasses in the first column for 1848.9 that which was charged ss. 7d. ought to be ss. 10id. 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. 43. instead of 4s. 6d.-; for the fifth 4s. Id. instead of 4s. 43. ; for the sixth, 1853-4, it was 3s. 11d. instead of 4s. lid. -(Hear, hear.) On double refined sugar in the 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 clued, 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.-(Hear, and a laugh.) ss. 11(1. 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. I Id., and, in the sixth column, 4s. 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 I would answer them on e b y one as they arose in Com mittee. Mr. GOULBURN thought that, before they went into Committee, it was absol ute l y yto know the plan the Government meant to propose, because, if it should involve ani increase of duties it might be necessary to go into a Co e m . m e i x t i t s e t e in o g f the whole House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the only alterations intended were a re d uct i on of certain duties respecting refined colonial sugar, and the correction of some inaccuracies respecting foreign refined sugar. Mr. DISRAELI considered thestatement wedsuch of the Noble Lord exceedingly clear. It ag glomeration of error in thisßill,that wheithroeuat ev llyd i i n d eia no , t think they should go into Committee their want of confidence in an Administration mistakes.— strati ntht could produce a measure so saturated w (A laugh.) Mr. CARDWELL also pressed forexplan t a h t e io in explanation, the ground that if they were dissatisfied with 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 I m p er i al Legislature. If the Noble Lord had ' givenhave a found a ddee per that the headingconsideration f these the scalessubject e fh colonial o w l e o n u i a l d l duties was perfectly accurate. After a few words from Mr. HERRIES the House went into Committee. On the Ist clause being proposed, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Bill was not open to the charges of inaccuracy which the Noble Lord so lavishly directed against it. As to what the law was he had never entertained the least doubt; but 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 chairman of 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 t which m t i h s s e i o sugar e o of at a t n h y e p i st o r w t particular a t c e o 0 1 o f n d y a t w y a , s a n e u d t i t t h l ed at 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 object 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 distinctien was mad's), 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 im• 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, and it was necessary that it should be so to allow them to send their sugar here 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.—(llear, 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. CARDWELL 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 CHAN CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, 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 (Mr. Barkly), who had expressed his belief that these du ties were not fairly in proportion with the duties levied OR muscovado sugar. If 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 West 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 witted 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 here 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 Is. a cwt. —(Hear, hear.) The only party who could complain was the West India producer; and, from the information he bad received from a variety of sources, he was in clined to believe that the proceeds of the foreign suear refined in bond paying 20s. duty would b e 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 be 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. Gd. 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 19s. 6d. 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 18s. Mr. GLADSTONE contended that the Government ' had no right to lay down the principle that sugars should only be regarded accordini , 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 bad 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 Vict., c. 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. a p Mr. c i 6 a t A i o i l l3 of iV this L L deemed subject t h it necessary tthe Committee to d have some knowledge of the conditions and circumstances under which Government proposed that refining in bond was to be carr i e d on; and of th i s information they were destitute. In t h e propose d re d uction of duty f rom 19 s . 6d. to 18s. e veryt hi ng depended on the accuracy of the cal of this country, owing to the intimate way in which the culators ; f or i f, unfortunately, a mistake were made, the consequ ences would be most ruinous to the ref i ners , question was mi xe d 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 i stood the impression amongst practical men, as to the 265. Sd. and 245. Bd. on foreign sugar, to be, that the al teration would oper a t e unfavourbly towards , our own trade. Not only ought the Committee to be in posses sion of the calculations whence these results were 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 salculations before the Committee? The reduction on 1 colonial refined sugar would be inoperative for a consi derable time; and before the reduction from 26.. Bd. to 245. Bd. on foreign sugar, the House ought to have the information he had referred to. Mr. BARFLY said the duty of 245. Sd. on refined was • in bond might be an excellent . thing for the • colonies in ' • but meanwhile care must be taken of 1 equivalent to a duty of 18s. sd. on raw sugar. Refining process of time, • our own refiners, and they must not be exposed to the competition of the Dutch refiners. It had been stro n g l y that the Dutch bounty was no advantage to th e refiners of that country; but he knew that in foreign argued countries the British refiner was every year more unable to enter into competition with his Dutch rivals a remarkable fact, that since the pit - Lt was had been made known, son , - ..eratiens proposed ,ry of M`Q ueen and Co. This could not been stimulated to s• -• capitalist i n t h e Ci ty h a d great injury on t h e B ritish refiners as well eze col on i sts . Dutch refine aoscribe 70,000/ . f or resuscitating et o l n r. J. WILSON said th a tt s duty of 245. Bd. on refineed but inflict q w u a e s st e i g on ni w yn a l s e s n i t m t p o ly a w d h o e ty th o er f 20s. 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 sug ar , an d the result oftheir inquiries refined of the sugar, bu t y of said 6 to d be uthis j r o i yese dby foreign was, s. 8. and e that the d u ti es w hi ch they proposed to fix on 245. Bd. were exactly e qu i va l ent to the duty of 20s. on the raw Dutch refiner s h a d been imported into discussion ; but he consid ere d t h at it was quite beside the question before th e C omm i ttee. The bounty, so-called in Hol land, was merely is. drawback, and only applied to the sugar refined for home consumption.-(Hear.) beets reached ; That point had l ong ago b and hence the Dutch re 4 :iners 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 lion. 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 tion 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 Havannah 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• tion of 2s. 6d. a cwt., besides their bounty, which he must still regard as a bounty. He had in his hand 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. Bd. 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 moe 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 21. 105. He be lieved that 255. was considered the outside difference, and for himself ho 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 item;l6s was sub stituted for 17s. 4d., and corresponding chances 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 the motion 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 Alonday. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had given notice of a measure of great importance for to-morrow (Satur day), with which he should feel it necessary to proceed without fail or delay.- (Hear, hear.) STRIKING OF JURIES IN IR2LAND. 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• sented to two measures of coercion against the people of Ireland. He was not 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, be must say, had been strongly estranged from her Majesty's Government by reason of the eourse they pursued in reference to the late trials in that coon 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.) And, 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 sheriff selected 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 obliged to 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 wero 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.--(Hear, hear.) Upon Mitchell's trial a state ment was made by counsel in open court, which he was bound to say would have its duo 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 jurors were fairly chosen or not. They decided that they were, and the sheriff further stated that they were selected for their superior w ea lth an d res p ect ability. Well, what followed? • It turned out th a t of the whole 150 on the panel only 28 wore 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 wero 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. 122. How differently were not things conducted in England? On the trial of Frost, it having been noticed that a panel was arranged alphabes tically, objection was taken to it, not as being evidence of partiality, but as being unusual. Lord Campbell, who appeared for the Crown, acquiesced in the objecton, and the names were put into a ballot box and drawn by lot. Very different was the conduct of the Irish Attor ney-General upon the trial of Mr. Mitchel. Unlike ENING, Lord Campbell, he made no ail-- lance. On the cone. of perem”‘ ..-apt to restore the ba -ay, having and exercising the right ~ory challenge, 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 own jury. What reason—what excuse—could he 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 Perrin 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 bean 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, butthat 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 o!' the Re peal Association, the ninth 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.—(Haar, 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.) lie had been there that evening to propose his third Coercion Bill against Ireland.—(Cheers.) He 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, hear.) 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, be 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 name 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." Well, they had a sample of these promised measures. There was the Bill for the sale of incumbered estates. He had not taken any part in opposing that measure, though he might have ate opinion that when 5,000,0001 of property was already in the market, and no 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 leadingjournal 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 failed in forming an Administration, the Noble Lord stated that he had hoped to form a great and com prehensive scheme to lay the foundation of lasting peace in Ireland had he then come into office, and it was on that account only that he re gretted he had not succeeded in forming an Administra tion. Surely then in 1848, after two Coercion Bills in one session and another promised within twelve hours, he might ask what was the great and comprehensive 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? He asked that House to give to his countrymen the principle of the British constitu tion, and not its cold and cheerless image. Let them 6 , 3) this and the loyalty and valour of the Irish peopkf • might be depended on in all circumstances aa d in all dangers, as in times past. This v vas the spirit in which h e was anxious they should cone& lite the affections of th e I r ish people.—(" Oh," and h ear, from the Ministerial benches.) The sneer from I lon. Gentlemen on the other side well became men , who, when out of office, found their profit in ericouragin g or conniving at every species of agitation.—(Cheers, and counter cheers.) He called upon them to show the it all their promises were not mere pretences, but that they J U Itt .22, 1848. 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 motion. 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 be the tone of 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, hear.) 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. ment 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. KEOGEI—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 lion. 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, becauae 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 end partially selecting from the list in order to obtain a conviction sigainst 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 we,s 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 begged altogether to deny it. The Attorney- General in his instructions to Mr. Kemmish, the Crown Solicitor, required him not to set aside any person on the ground of his religion; but he at the same time observed that the instructions of tsiir Michael O'Loghlen not to set aside persons upon the ground of their poli tical opinions, although applicabbi 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 ins ide 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 countena need by a political assoe ciation, or that we should not see aside all persons whom, upon inquiry, we found to entertain the political opinions of that association, as w ell as all others who from the nature of their occupation were likely to be deterred from a fair discharge of their d uty." Now that was Ma answer to the charge brought against the Roman Catholic Attorney-General of Ire land; and he asked the Hon. Gentleman opposite whetlie u. he dissented from the sentiments expressed in that loiter by the Attorney- General, or whether, if he held. that office himself, he would not have acted in a sieeilar manner. He intro duced the name of Mr. Campbtsid, Now, Mr. Campbell was a grocer, and he believed he had been set aside wholly on the last ground ally,, ded to in the Attorney- General's letter—namely. that his trade would have been in danger of being ruined had lee been nominated on the jury. Taking all these circum stances into consideration, he asked the House whether these 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 theAttorneye General to the Lord-Lieutena at 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 ex plained that Mr. Fitt gerald had been left in, being a Roman C at h o li c, b ut under an erroneous impression as to his political senti ments, as he went to a repeal meeting soon atter, and took credit for the part he acted on the jury.) The Hone 'Gentleman and himself were now before the House, and he 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. fir. KEOGH, in explanation, said that he had been charged by the Right lion. Baronet with having offered to give his support to the Govt rnment, if the Govern : ment would withdraw the petition against his return. Sir G. GREY said what he 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 repealer. He never was a repealer —he had often expressed his sentiments most strongly igainst a repeal of the legislative union ; and the Hun. :Hember for Dundalk would bear him out in his assertion. Mr. HAWES said that a very unexpected, a very un- j ustifiable attack had been made upon him by the Hon. I Member. He gave that attack a most entire and corn ' p late repudiation. He had been no party in any way, d irect or indirect, to any petition. against the Hon. and I , earned Member ; he had not the slightest knowledge of a ny such petition being on foot.--(Hear, hear.) Mr ANS FEY supported the amendment amid Conti .m 1 ous cries of " Oh, o h," upon which, at length, thelion. ' and Learned Gentleman moved that the House do now adjourn —a motion which, as at once putting astepto the speech of the H o n. 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'Brien. He had no hesitation in saying that he knew 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 w e r e b e i ng i nstituted. 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 he 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 had engrossed for thirty years the efforts " of the great man of the world, Daniel O'Connell." He 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 Daniei O'Connell was then under trial. He had declared that every impartial person must feel confidence in their verdtct; and yet that verdict had been set aside by the House of Lords. The impineiling o - `f that jury was the most unprecedented act of political corruption ever witnessed in Ireland.—(Question, question.) He 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 had 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 en which the charge was made. Sir G. GREY was very happy to satisfy the curiosity of his Hon. Friend. The Government had no power of causing petitions to be withdrawn; but it was no un 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 h• was furthering repeal; be might bo influenced by far other considerations.—(Hear, bear.) No Member in the House had suffered more than himself by his opposition to repeal.—(Hear, hear.) If be 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 he could not again address the House unless he meant to withdraw the motion. Mr. BROTHERTON—I shall certainly oppose the withdrawal of the motion for adjournment.—(Cries of . " Divide.") Sir G. GREY hoped the House would allow the divi sion to take place on the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone. After a desultory conversation, Mr. BANKES said he hoped that, before the division, the Hon. Secretary for Ireland would answer the ques tion whether be, 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 Hon. 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 bad 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. The 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 o❑ a motion for going into Committee of Supply. Tile House divided on the question of the adjournment of the House, when there appeared— For the adjournment.... 22 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 Hon. Mem ber for Athlone, on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey). There was no parity between the con duct pursued by the late Government in the case of Mr. O'Connell and 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 House in the midst of loud vociterations 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 wero 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." Tile 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 wet::: make a formal motion on going into Supply.—(Oh.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they simply wanted the thing to be done properly. Motion postponed until the first Supply night. OT HER CORRESPONDENCE. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK then moved an address for copies of any correspondence, petitions, or memo rials, relative to th e re p ea l of the navigation-laws, which may have been sent home by the governor of New Brunswick. Mr. HAWES said the usual way of wording the mo tion was "copies or extracts." Lord GEORGE BENTINCK had 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 pat and agreed to. On Mr. PARKER bringing up a Bill, and ino•iug 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, sir. The House adjourned at a Quarter after Two. RAILWAY SHARE IVIARKETS. LIVERPOOL, JULY 21 STOCK EXCHANGE.—There is a very . dull demand for shares to-day, and but very little business doing. The sales are—Caledonian, 2 ;6.—Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths, 1 dis.—Ditto, 10/. Shares, Preference, lls. 3d. p.--London and North-Western, 1 27—Ditto, Quarters, New, 1 3 4 Midland Stock, New Halves, 594 dis.—North Staffordshire, 2% dis.—South-Eastern and Dover, No. 2, 10 1 / York, Newcastle, and Berwick (.N. and B. Extension), No. 2,1.7 i p. MANCHESTER, JULY 21. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Lanca shire, and Cheshire Junction, 31/. Shares, 7 7-16 dis.— 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, 101—North Stafford shire, 2 9-16 dis.—Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, 17 1 % dis.—Shrewsbury and Birmingham (B), 3 7-16 dia.— York, Newcastle, and - Berwick (G. N. E. Purhase), 1 9-16 p. BIRMINGIL M , JILY 21. STOCK EXCHANGE. — Notwithstanaing 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 end Birmingham (A), 5/. 3s. 9d. dis. ex int.—Shropshire Union, 5Ga. 3d. c. dis. ex int.—South Staffordshire, 3 1 / 4 dis. The lady of Lieutenant Brenton von Donop, of her Ma jestv's ship President, of a daughter. On the 13th inst., at Hayston-lodge, Pembrokeshire, the lady of Honton Ithys, 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. ALCRRIED. On the 18th inst., at I3athwick 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, K. 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. 11. 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. DIES. On the 15th inst., at Elm's. hall, Colne-Engaine, Essex, Mr. J. B. Icrown, aged 37. On the 15th inst., Mr. Silas K. Cook, of Rotherhithe, Surrey, aged 58. On the 17th inst., T. Kennedy, Esq., of High•atiqet, Camden-town, aged 86. On the 18th inst., at East Parade, Leeds, the Rev. R.' W. Hamilton, LL.D., D.D., aged 54. On the 18th inst., at Birmingham, aged 88, Ann, the wife of Mr. Benjamin Hall. On the 18th inst., at Ramsgate, Harriette Sarah, the wife of H. J. Sawyer, Esq.. of the Middle Temple, aged 2fi. • On the 19th inst., in Sloane-street, Chelsea, Mrs. Dorothy Fuge, relict of the late M r . J . F uge, upwards of 55 yearp inhabitant of the above street, aged 78. -- - London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at ' No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 :. Strand, in the Preci nc t o f t h e Savoy, in the cQuAI t7 , - 9 ! Middlesex, Saturday, July 22, 1848. ,[: {~ t 1 C 11 11