The Sun. — London, England, 1834-02-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 25. Lord KENYON presented a petition from the Cal. vinistic Methodists of Denbigh, praying for the introduc tion of a measure to enforce the better observance of the Sabbath. The noble lord, while be admitted that the Sabbath ought to he kept as a holy day, begged it to be clearly understand that he wished all those who bad no opportunity of enjoying themselves but on that day, to participate as well in innocent recrea tion as in religious duties. The noble lord also presented a petition from Whitchurch, praying that no inroads might be made in the church establishment. Lord DACRE presented a petition from the general body of Protestant Dissenters residing in the cities of Lon don and Westminster, praying for relief. The noble lord also presented similar petitions from Brompton, Royston, Cambridge, and Hertford. _ . Lord YARBOROUGH presented a petition from the Agricultural Society of Crowle, Isle of Axholn, praying for a repeal of the malt tax, and also an alteration of the Beer Act. Lord SEFTON presented petitions from the Dissenters of Toxteth-park, tear Liverpool, complaining of the want of registration, the celebration of marriage, and the denial of the rights of buri 1 by their own ministers. COUNTY RATE. The Duke of RICHMOND, io moving for the appoint ment of a select committee to inquire into the charge• of the county rates in England and Wales, observed that for the last few years the county rates in England had greatly increased, not only in consequence of the various enactments that had taken place, but on account of other circumstances which he did not consider it necessary now to state to the house. His Majesty's government had for some time past turned their attention to this local taxation, and it appeared to them that a committee should be appointed, in order to inquire into all the particulars and details on which to found a report, which would have the effect of limiting the evil complained of, if it did no more. He would not now enter into the particulars relating to any one county, nor would be make any at tack upon any, but be would merely call the attention of the house to the fact, that in the county of Middlesex, in the year 1822, the county-rate amounted to 39 8371. In 1832 it amounted to 77,8721. This, as the house would perceive, was a great increase, but took place in consequence of the erection of additional buildings in the county. He did not wish for one moment to cast reflections upon the officers of the county, in consequence of this increase, all that he wanted was to convince the House that inquiry was necessary.—(Hear.) The debt of the county of Mid dlesex was at this moment 244,9851. An increase had also taken place in the county rates of Leicester and Nottingham. He thought, therefore, their lordships would at once accede to his motion for the appointment of a select committee. Lord WYNFORD thanked the noble duke for bringing this question under the consideration of their lordships. With respect to the county of Middlesex, he had no doubt whatever that the cause of the increase in the county rates was that to which the noble duke had attributed them. In addition to which, the acts of par liament that had been passed had added burdens to the county rate which ought never to have been placed upon it. In his (Lord W.'s) opinion, there was no rate that pressed with greater force upon the inhabitants than it did. The motion was then agreed to, the committee appointed, and ordered to meet on Thursday next. Lord POLTIMORE presented a petition from the Dis sent. rs of the parish of St. Mary, in the county of Devon, praying for relief. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Turn pike Continuation Bill was read a third time and passed. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented two peti tions from the Dissenters of Warminster, praying for relief from the disabilities under which they 14boured. The noble marquis concurred moat heartily with the prayer of the petition, especially that part whirl) claimed the removal of the disabilities under which they laboured with respect to the marriage law, the noble marquis con sidering that they were justly entitled to the removal of the disabilities in 0-at respect. Lord DURHAM presented several petitions from Wick ham, Windham, Northallerton, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, praying for tEe removal of the disabilities under which the dissenters laboured, and fur an entire separation of church and state. Mr. Tylpr, from the Imperial Gas Light Company, presrnted an account of tbr Contingency Fund. Tbeir Lordships then adjourned to Thursday next. R 0 USE OF COMMONS, FEB. 25. The SPEAKER took the Chair at ten minutes past five o'clock. Sir GEORGE STAUNTON brought up the report of the committee on the Stoke Bridge petition, and obtained lease to bring in a bill. • Mr. C. WOOD moved for a new writ for the borough of Malton for the election of a burgess in the room of C. C. Pepys. Esq., who had accepted the office of his Majesty's Solicitor-General. The Marquis of CHANDOS begged to ask the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the ap pointment of an hoe. member of that house to the bench was likely to take place, or if it had been entirely su perseded. Lord ALTHORP considered the question was entirely improper, and declined answering it. Sir W. HORNE said he would be quite willing to an swer any question, if it were consistent with his duty or his honour. The question put by the noble marquis did not fall within his limits, and therefore lie should decline answering it.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Marquis of CHANDOS understood that two judges were in future to go the northern district ; yet, in the county which he represented, he was given to under stand only one was to preside. Such would cause very great inconvenience and delay. Lord ALTHORP, in reply, said that he imagined go vernment would take into consideration the best means for preventing any inconvenience arising from what the noble lord bad alluded to. Lord ALTHORP said, that it was his intention to move to bring in a bill to repeal that part of the Stamp Act which prohibits the stamps to newspapers convicted of libel under certain circumstances.—(Cheers.) Mr. R. WASON moved for a return of t} e names of the c hairmen presiding at the different quarter sessions in E ng :4nd and Wales, distinguishing those called to the bar, and the professions of the remainder, if any. Mr. O'DWYER begged to expre-s his gratification at the notice of motion given by the noble lord (Althorp) for the repeal of that very obnoxious portion of the Stamp Act. Mr. R. WAGON moved for a return of the number of coins sold by the trustees of the British museum fur the year ending in December, 1833. Mr. TOOKE moved for certain returns from the Court of Requests at Westminster. Mr. HUTT wished to know if it was the intention of Government to bring forward a measure in the course of this session, affecting Joint Stock Companies similar to the one that was introduced last year. Lord ALTHORP could not pledge himself to the bringing forward of any measure similar to the one in troduced last year, if it should be thought necessary to bring in one at all. Colonel CONOLLY gave notice, that in the event of Carrickfergus being disfranchised, he would move that the franchise be given to Lipperton and Strabane. Mr. P. THOMSON wished to know whether the ban. member opposite, who had given notice of a motion for to-night respecting the port of London, would have any obj , ction to i.ostpone the making of that motion on being informed that the subject h,d been under the con• sideration of his Majesty's Government, and that a measure was likely to be brought in, calculated to meet the object of the motion ? Mr. YOUNG could have no objection to place the subject in tt.e hands of Government, on his being in• formed that it was about to bring forward a measure to a °Tord the relief to the port of London from that oppression which' his motion was intended to do. Mr. SHEIL, having learned that the motion he was now about to make would not be opposed, moved, without eOrninent, for copies of all communications which had taken place between the commissioners of stamps for Ireland and the k overnment. CORPOhATION OF DUBLIN. Mr. O'CONNELL thnught as he had introduced during the last session a bill for the improvement of thecorporation of the city of Dublin, something would have been done since to render it unnecessary for him to trouble the house on the present occasion, " sed D.ta shier visum." Since last Reston be bad bad. be pleasure of laying before hia con stituents a draft. of a bill he had obtained leave to bring in then, but in consequence of the lateness or the period he postponed it to this. It was a great satis factioa to him that this bill Vid been highly approved by his constituents, as he bad taken every °ppm tunity of laying it before them at meetings, and through the inerburn of the newspapers. Fortified by these two circumstances, the leave io b.ing it in in the first place, and the project being approved, he should not apprehend any opposition to it, unless what might arise in the shape o f prism:lßl objection, for he found that on many occasions discussions depended not so much on the merits of what was proposed, an vo the 'demerits of him who proposed it. He was eon• vinced that the project he was about to propose for , the reform of the corporation of Dublin was one which ought to succeed, unless it was put aside by those flimsy excuses and pretences occasionally resorted to to inter rupt the progress of good measures. Notwithstanding the benefit the measure he had in view would confer, he felt himself bound to say he did not hope for success if opposed by his Majesty's ministers. In the King's speech an allusion was made to corporate abuses. In a reformed Parliament it was most reasonable to expect the most necessary branches of reform, which those charges required.—(Hear, hear, hear.) There were two divisions of the empire which laboured under corporate abuses--Ireland and Scotland; but in Scotland they were free from the worst species of abuse which prevailed in Ireland. If there was monopoly in Scotland, it was the monopoly of residents. There might he a difference in political sentiments, but there was none of that base religious animosity which prevailed!in Ireland.—(Hear.) In Ireland the abuses of the Scotch Corporation existed, inflamed to the highest degree by being admixed with the worst of cala mities—religiousdiasension, the ascendancy of one persuasion over another, and the unjust degradation of one reli gion.—(Hear.) Of all the corporations of Inland, this evil existed to the fullest extent in Dublin. That city was from its peculiar situation so circumstanced as to make those evils most frightful. B e ing the metropolis, it contained the courts of j us tice. The sheriffs were ap pointed by a monopolizing corporation ; they were of an exclusively religious persuasion, and those men to whom it fell to summon juries, were such as were capable of mixing up the worst of passions with the duty which should of all others be the most free from any bias. Such was the situation of Ireland, and such em phatically was the situation of Dublin.—(Hear, hear.) Scotland had obtained a corporate reform. They gave a com plete corporate reform to the Scotch Burghs; and Edin burgh, which was a close town, had been thrown open-- that Edinburgh, which had been hitherto' restricted, was now identified with the population. Why had not Ireland such justice done to her, and, above all, why had not Dublin its justice ?—( Hear, hear.) The claims of Dublin, beyond any comparison, required a speedy reform. Such reform ought to have taken place the moment the pres; nt administration came into office. The corporation of Edinburgh did not depend on acts of Parliament, but upon charters. Dublin had several charters; but although the corporation of Dublin had several charters as ingredients, it stood not upon charters alone—it had been regulated by acts of parliament, and by more than one. The corporation of Dublin was in all respects the creature of the legislature. It had been formed by acts of parliament; it had been altered by acts of parliament ; and it was emphaticaly a subject of legislation.—(Hear.) Whenever the House might legislate for Dublin, it must legislate for it alone. If the house meant to do justice to Dublin, it would have to legislate for it, on his plan, namely, by a specific act for Dublin alone. It must proceed by parliamentary legislation for it solely, and not adopt any general enactment. It could have nothing to create, but much to alter. The Corporation of Dublin contained within itselt all necessary ingredients, a Lord Mayor, an upper house of 24 Aldermen, and a representative house of 141 Common Council. It bad, therefore, all the forms and features of an excellent corporation, and all that it was necessary to do, therefore, was to restore to the inhabitants at large their rights of electing the Common Councilmen; their rights of representation in the election of Aldermen, and when the house bad done those two things, they would have done every thing necessary for the corporation of Dublin. He was not coming before the house to ask furs bill to subvert the present corporation and to make another ; he asked not for improvements in the corporation on any notions of his own, nor for any novel experiments, but merely to realize to the people of Dublin the promi-es which the corporation at present held out to them ; and to make that in reality a benefit to the citiz-ns is hick was in itself a mere form, mock-ry, and great op pression. If tl a house would favour him with a hearing, he would feel gratified ; although he knew the subject could not be of much interest to many present, how often had be been told, when he brought forward measures, that if be would bring forward some prac tical ones which would be useful, he would cer tainly carry the house with him.—(Hear.) He could now easily feel from the manner in whict the house listened to him, or rather did not listen to him at all, how futile and insincere those declarations were. If other wise, why did not honourable members give a proof of it? Here was a practical measure of the greatest im portance, and it would be idle to talk about what might be done in future, if a second session of the reformed parliament were to pass away without a bill on this subject tieing brought in, printed, and in the bands of every mem ber.—(Hear, bear.) He brought forward the sub ject in despair ; but he felt it was his duty to bring it forward, and he complied therewith. He had the strongest case ever presented for a reform of the corpora tion of Dublin. It was impossible to deny it. He would go through some of the details. What would be the value of doing so? The decision of the house would show what the value was considered there. Hitherto he had said the frame of the corporation of Dublin was popular ; it was a skeleton, perfect in itself, requiring only to be properly filled up, but rendered destructive by that which surrounded it. It was quite plain that the Dutliu citizens were originally considered synonymous with a cor peration—how were they situated now ? These facts must be admitted, first, that no person could get admis sion into the corporation by any matter of right, there being no such thing as right pervading it.— The first feature to which he should call their attention was the monopoly of the corporation.—[There was a great deal of noise, at this period, in the body of the house, and the Speaker called order repeatedly.] Mr. O'Connell then resumed—lt would be presump tuous in him to expect attention from a certain party. The first feature of the corporate monopoly existed in their self election, for no man could become a meinb •r except at the will of the corporation. If they thought proper w refuse the freedom to any person, no tribunal on earth could compel them, and if they wished to confer it, there was no power to prevent them. The criminal from the dock—the lowest wretch in the land was equally eligible with the highest and most distin• guished in the land. This was the first feature, and in its own nature it was totally an exclusive corporation, with the power of having as many Members as it thought fit, or as few as it chose. Ought such a state of things to exist? What was its result? Tbat the entire number connected with the corporation in a po pulation of 300,000 did not exceed 1,900, and these 1,900 individuals had the rights of the entire city vested in them, and they were the sole electors to all the corporate offices. They elected the common council, the aldermen, the sheriffs, the mayor—the sheriffs of the capital of Ireland, where the courts of justice sat. What was its next fea ture? Its religious bigotry. In the year 1793, forty-one years ago, the Legislature passed an act enabling Roman Catho lics to be members of the corporation of the city of Dublin ; that was, to be freemen, and to have the rights of fran chise vested in them. From that year, to the year 1834, would any Hon. Member wish to know how many Roman Catholics had been admitted to the freedom ? —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He would not talk of their having been made masters or wardens of guilds ; he would not talk of their having been made Com mon Councilmen, a Sheriff, or Mayor, but how many did they think had obtained the gift of their freedom ? Not one.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") For 41 years that Roman Catholics had been eligible, not one had been admitted to the freedom of the city. The house would plainly see what a feature of monopoly that was. First of all, it was an exclusive monopoly in the bands of the Protestants—it was a total exclusion of the entire Roman Catholic body of the city of Dublin from corporate offices. Was there not a man in 41 years professing the Roman Catholic religion, fit to be a member of the corporation ? There was among the Roman Catholic body as much industry, property, loyalty, good conduct, and every thing that could elevate man among his species, as in any other class of the community , ; but every qualification had been superseded by that corn poration, and morality and integrity bad been saer;ficed by the sectarian feeling of that bady.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The house should recollect that no man could com pel his admission into this body, and was he (Mr. O'C.) to be told that he should not take the first step to remedy that evil ? It was an exclusive mo nopoly among Protestants, it was a religious monopoly, which conferred the appointment of sheriffs to the three highest courts of justice in the kingdom.—(Hear.) The appointment of sheriffs in the city of Dublin o as vested in about 1,900 persons, who alone had the right to the appointment, and the rest of the population, amounting to 298,000, had no voice in their elec tion. That was the sort of justice practically administered in Ireland. Those sheriffs nominated the Jury, and he bad known instances in which a large ; amount of property had been decided by juries selected by those sheriffs, not on the merits, but because the party was :be favourite of the exclusives. Those who were acquainted with Ireland well knew that in every county there was an immense quantity of local taxation without representation, for the sheriffs had the appointment of grand jurors, and the grand jurors had I the power of taxation. li e would show how that system 11 had worked. In the year 1791, the grand Jurors of the .1 city of Dublin taxed to the amount of 2,8901. ; in lBg7, to the amount of 25,4261. in 1829, to 27,3031.; lin 11430, to 28,3061. ; in 1831, to 29,663/. ; and in 1832 (the last return) to 32,151/.—(Hear, bear.) To that enormous extent did the lilal taxation extend, inflicted by about 1,900 persons, many of whom were no , even housekeepers, and who taxed the other 300,000 of the inhabitants. He asked, was this system to con tinue, and whether they were to go on for better or worse? He wanted a practical proof that the Government would do somethng for Ireland. Previous to the Eman cipation Bill, there was scarcely a Catholic among the grand jurors, but from that time to the ap pointment of the committee of last year, instead of the exclusive system having been abolished, there had been 316 grand jurors appointed. of whom only seven were Roman Catholics. He asked whether it could be pre tended that was a fair proportion for Catholic property ? The principal merchants and commercial men, of whom many were of great wealth, were Catholics. Since the period of 1829, out of the 316 grand jurors, who were made up of aldermen, common councilmen, and commoners, how many, he would ask, did the list actually consist of? Why only of 115, and that was managed by the same men serving upon the grand juries constantly—a number of the aldermen having served, some thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen times.— The house would see what a system of taxation that was. They had the taxing of 318,000 of a population, and that without control. The same men were also upon the city grand jury, and from the same ranks was the county grand jury made up. Was such a system as that to be contiuued ? It would be so, unless the house gave him leave to bring in his bill. It might. and it would be said, for it was the only pretence upon which leave to bring in the bill could be refused, that the com missioner!' appointed to inquire into these corporations hail not yet made their report.—(Hear.) But let the house look to the time that was likely to be spent before that report was laid upon the table. The hon. gentle man who was at the head of that commission (Mr. Ser geant Perrin) than whom there was not a better common lawyer, bad written to him (Mr. O'Connell) a letter which he had only received that morning, in which he stated that he bad accepted retainers for a Circuit. That of course meant that he should be engaged in every cause. He could not possibly be in that house before April, and it would take a considerable time to consider of and make up the report; then where was there time to pass the Bill through that house without considering the other? That corporation also had the supply of the water to the whole city of Dublin, which was secured to them by several acts of Parliament. It was thought that the Legis'ature, in giving them such a power, would at any rate have fixed a maximum of rates—they had done so, certainly, to the houses of the gentry ; but to the manufacturer, the distiller, and the brewer, the corporation bad the power to charge what they liked.—(Hear, hear.) Government was called on to interfere; —they would not. The Court of Chancery was applied to, to allow the re monstrance to lie;—it would not. The matter was laid before the House of Lords, and it was ordered to lie. What was the consequence ? Why, the corporation of Dublin actually levied 45,000/. more than they were entitled to do. The city of Dublin was under the operation of two acts :—there was first the Act of Settlement, the 17th and 18th Charles 11., cap. 22. The Cromwellian adven turers wishing to contract the corporation, passed an act for the purpose of putting it under their regulation, and empower the Lord Lieutenant to regulate the corpo ration for twelve months. How were the gui.ds represented The different trades required a separate representation, yet the shoemakers bad three attorneys to represent them, and all the attorneys were regulated, in like manner, by attorneys, attorneys' clerks, and half-pay officers. Would such abuses be allowed to exist one twelve months longer? Would another year pass over and the citizens of Dublin be submittea to a body that bad the exclusive power of taxing them as they chose? Would that first article of life, water, be even exposed to a tax, and the people prohibited from enjiiOng even that luxury which nature supplies them ?—(Hear, hear.) When he told them of the disaffection of the people of Ireland, of the disfavour the govern ment of the country was in, and of the species of antipathy that existed between both countries, were they to prevent him from putting an end to this most monstrous monopoly ? A more plundering corpora tion never existed, and he called upon them to say whether they would not therefore adopt a measure to prevent it. If it had been in this country as in Scotland, the institute ns of tile country would never have permitted mischiefs to such an extent to exist for so long a period. —(Hear, bear.) In England the corporations, were scatutable, but this corporation was entirely legislative, and was a creature of the legislature. Now three words as to his plan of amelioration. He would return the same number of mayor, aliierraten, and common councilmen. I here were 25 aldermen, one of them being mayor. He should propose to divide the city of Dublin into eight districts or burghs, as in Scotland, and for each of these tai elect three aldermen. He should number the burghs 1 to 8, and each of them, beginning at No. 1, should in rotation elect the tt ayor—the latter to be elected from among the common council by the ten pound householders of the d strict, and not by the other aldermen from among themselves as heretofore. That the aldermen should be elected for six years only, so as to prevet t their coot t for the future from becoming the haughty oligarchy which it bad hitherto been. This new made of election would have the beneficial effect of identifying the people of Dub. In with their corporation. The police, ton, be would have put on an efficient and less expensive footing. At present it was not only inefficient, but the expense of keeping it up came upon the people as an altogether separate item of taxation. The taxes he would have consolidated, which t onsolidation be had calculated would effect a saving to the people of Dublin of not less than 50,0001. a year. Mr. LITTLETON—No; 25,000/. Mr. O'CONNELL be.ieved 50,0001. would be nearer the mark. However, the saving of 25,000/., which the right hon. secretary admitted, was well worth effecting. He trusted that the house would allow him to introduce his bill, which was quite ready in all its details, and he should therefore conclude by moving, " That leave be given to bring in a bill for amending the corporation of Dublin." Mr. RUTHVEN seconded the motion. Mr. LITTLETON thought that the motion had been brought forward at an improper time, and he should feel it his duty to oppose the introduction of the bill, and he trusted that in so doing he should not be accused of any wish to suffer abuse to go unpunished. Such was far from his desires, and be confidently appealed to the house whether any measures of the present government were open to any such charge ?—(Hear, bear.) His only mo tive for opposing the motion was that he thought it un timely. Last session the hon. and learned gentleman had made a similar motion, which had been so far acceded to as that leave was given him to introduce a bill, the details and information which it was naturally supposed the hon. and learned member would bring forward on the occasion, being likely, it was thought, materially to assist the com missioners of ibquiry on this subject, and, therefore, leave was given him to introduce his bill, with the understand ing that he was to proceed no further with it on that occasion. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, had brought forward no bill at all. The reasons which had weighed with the house last session for supporting the mo tion, were no longer in force, as the commissioners had now almost prepared their report. He (Mr. Littleton) did not think a separate bill necessary for the Dublin corporation, and in this opinion he was supported by Mr. Sergeant Perrin, who cot sidered that a single bill on this subject would be sufficient. It was, however, most deirable, in deed almost indispensable, that the house should have the benefit of the inquiry of the commissioners, before they proceeded with any bill they might be desirous of intro• ducing on this important subject. With reference to the consolidation of taxation proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, there could be no doubt of the advantages of such a plan, which would effect a saving of 25,000/. a year to the city of Dublin. Mr. O'CONNELL greatly regretted to find that any delay was to take place in this very important reform. With reference to Mr. Sergeant Perrin's opinion, on which the right hon. secretary so relied, with all respect for that learned and excellent sergeant, he (Mr. O'Connell) should not alter his view of the case in consequence of that opi nion. He still thought, that as the corporation of Dub lin was in quite a different position from other Irish or English corporations, it required a different remedy. Mr. BARRON expressed his full conviction that the report of the commissioners would be perfectly satisfactory to the people of Ireland. With this feeling in his init,d, he should prefer having one general plan fur Ireland. He did nut see why Dublin should have i s particular bill any more than Watez ford or any other town. Mr. O'CONNELI, said a few words in explanation. Mr. WALLACE hoped his hon. and learned friend would not press the motion to a division. Mr. HUME was of opinion that ministers should not oppose the introduction of this bill. Mr. Perriti's report would certainly be of the grea•est po , sible value, as, if there was one man more fit than another to report on the subject, be was that man.—( Hear, hear.) There seemed to be a doubt whether government intended to originate any similar mea,ure. If they did mean to do so, let the right hon. secretary for Ireland state as much. It they had not such an intention, it would be very hard to refuse entertaining that brought forward by his friend the hon. and learned member for Dublin.—(Hear, bear.) If, on the other hand, government had some measure in con templation, he would advise his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his motion, lest it might have the appearance of a vexatious opposition. Lord ALTHORP, as we could understand him (there being some noise on his rising), ktimated that it was the intention of government to originate such a measure, otherwise they never would have approved of, or appointed the commission of inquiry.—(Hear.) He did not deny that the reform of corporations was necessary ; but it was also necessary to have before them whatever informa tion could be collected. Would the house allow the in troduction of a bill before the report of the committee was returned ? If they allowed a separate bill in one instance the same might perhaps be asked for in all. Dlr. O'CONNELL on hearing this, begged leave of the house to withdraw his motion, at the same time ob serving that with regard to the corporation - - Dublin and Waterford, one was by charter, and the other was by statute.—Leave was gran ed to withdraw the motion. DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I rise, Sir, to bring forward a motion for the relief of Dissenters, in relation to their martiages. It is well known to every hon. gentleman in this house that it is a subject on which the dissenting community have for a long time evinced the greatest anxiety. It is a subject on which they complain of the violence done to their feelings, to be compelled to go be fore the ministers of the church from which they dissent, and submit to modes and forms which they do not ac knowledge.—(Heir, hear.) It is equally painful to the ministers of the Established Church, within whose func tions it came to perform the martiaee ceremony for Die. centers, to witness the cold disregard of the rites which they were called upon to perform. It will, therefore, give me the greatest pleasure if this measure which I am to bring be fore the house be considered what I believe it to be—one which, at the same time that it commits no injury, nor infringes on any of the rights of the established church, protects from violence the religious feelings and opinions of the dissenting community. With this view I shall tres pass on the attention of the brine whilst I propose a plan which, if it do not obviate all difficulties, and meet every objection, will at least be allowed to afford some substan tial relief to the dissenting body. Two modes present themselves to me, by which this relief could be afforded ; first, by making marriage a civil contract, and afterwards let the religious ceremonial take place; or, secondly, by arrangingthat the marl iagesof dissenting ministers be made legal. The first of these mcdes,l must admit, has the advantage of simplicity, andcould be effected by the removal of the technicalities which now encumber the contract ; but then lam inclined to think that such a proposal would be repugnant to the feelings of the people of this coun try.—(Hear, hear.) The second mode, that of enabling dissenting ministers to perform the ceremony, is that t o which I hold, and on which my proposed plan is founded. This plan does not contemplate the licensing of all dissenting chapels. It proposes that where twenty householders apply by way of memorial or petition to have be forwarded any particulartnthe Q chapel bmadrai licensed, tsyebrebtl ng g t h mini e Sessionse. p p c b a e t o license, ee s n h s a e l , when shall c n h ed. apel, that B By provided , thpi s shall ubml b i : aitn p ys laced in a conspicuous part of the t aiiventostethrse would b privilege e b enabled to perform th e ceremony ; b ut they s h ou ld b e o required to specify the marriages they performed. The measure proposes that the marriages should take place either by bans or license. If by bans, the regular no tice is required to he given to the clergyman of the esta blished church in the parish ; or if the parties live in two parishes, to the clergy of both. If then the parties wish to be married by a dissenting minister, they ask from the clergyman of the established church a certificate to show that the bans have been published, which certificate be enters in a book kept for that purpose. The dissenting minister then gives a notice which he also enters in a record. There is one difficulty in the way of this pro ceeding, but it is not an insuperable one. In granting the proposed relief, it may be said that a certain compensation was lost, but that would be obviated by the dissenting mini ster keeping a constant register, of which he should transmit copies, together with the fees. This mode would render the regist y mote correct, as there would be in the first place the registry of the bans, and then the record kept in the dissenters' chapel. As matters are now, the re cords are irregularly kept; but with the fee attached to the registry, they would become more regular. There is artuth,t.- d.ffteulty. It may be s•id that the registers of the church must be more regular, as there is not that fiuctua ion or abandonment to which dissenting chapels are liable. This objection I would meet by vesting a power in the Quarter Session : if a chapel became untie quented, to prevent the license, and have the register trans mitted to the diocese.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the other mode by license, it should go on as now, by appli cation to the surrogate. Except in a . ew forms, there is no great difficulty in the measure. These are the chief provisions of the measure I intend proposing to the house. There may at first sight appear some difficulty in the measure, but, wi' h a spirit of conciliation, they may easily be obviated. With a disposition to wave objections, and give up scruples on both sites, the measure is one that may be rendered satistactory.—(Hear.) I trust the house will exhibit such a disposition, as the measure is one which, whilst it preserves to the est iblished church its just rights and privileges, is still calculated not to wound the consciences either of Catholic or Protestant Dissenter, and of a nature to put an end to grievances which parti cularly affect London and Manchester, as in both places ,t is known that many unhappy consequences ensue nom the invalidity of marriages performed by Roman Ca• iholic priests, of which either party may take advantage. Having thus explained the object of the bill, 1 shall not pies. longer on the attention of the house.—(Hear.) Mr. HUME contended that the marriage ceremony ought to be considered as a civil contract. The imperfec two in the recori s of births and marriages was not to be wondered at, inasmuch as no simple plan %%as adopted. In other countries their modes were simple, and why not borrow an example from these? Why not have the mar riage contract entered into before a civil magistrate. The proposed plan was too complex.—(hear.) What was the use of the certificates ? Would it not be much better to simplify the whole? It was on the whole but a partial asure. Why not adoptsorne gelietal and more compre hensive system of a civil record? But still he would not throw any obstacle in the way. Sir R. INGLIS was also of opinion that the measure was too complex. . Dr. LUSiIL\ GTON thought that if the general prin ciple could be carried into effect it would be most advisa ble, most simple and efficient. After publicity had been gained the contract could be entered into by a civil cere mony, leaving the parties at any subsequent period to comply with those other ceremonies which their con sciences might require. —(Hear, hear.) But he thought this counity had not yet arrived at that state which would warrant such a measure. There was too great a variety of contending opinions on the nature of the contract. Wh itever might be the judgment of that house, it would be d.fficult to carry the general principle into universal effect without violating the feelings of those persons who ad hered rigidly to the forms and practices of the established church. If the measure proposed would have the effect of removing from the dissenters the restrictions which pressed painfully upon them, without at the same time encroaching on Lny of the privileges of the established caurch, the house would be bound to accept the advant ages proposed by the measure. As, on the one hand, no person of the established church who was nut very scrupulous could urge any sound reason against it ; so, tn the other, no well-judging dissenter would hesitate to comply with the preliminaries. Tire publicity made compulsory by the measure was mostnecessary and desirable, to check clan destine marriages and all their consequent misery. Ha ad mitted there were some d.fficulties, but they were such as could be surmounted. He agreed is ith his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, that it would be better if the en tireway of principle this the greatcould bdffi eiacdaoly of italucing popu lar coin ptted, but there sto od in the pliance.—(Hear, hear.) W i th regard to the objectionco n cerning the irregularity o f reg i s tries, even in the re g istries of births these irregularities were known to exist, and m any baptisms remained unrecorded long after the p ro p er t ime bad gone by. Th e hon. baronet (the me mber for the University of Oxford) complained that the-measure was a complex one. For his (Dr. Lushington's) pa, t, be did not see one atom of complexity.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more simple, more plain, more intel ligible. Dissenters wished to be married in their own c h a p e ls. / The bans were to be published as usual ; there would be no chauge, but if the bill should pass into an act, it would empower the dissenter to go to the minister of the church where the bans had been published, and say, give and a certificate of such publi cation. T..at being obtained, he would then get married in the chapel named in the declarati.,n. Where was the difficulty in this—where the complexity? Looking to the history of the marnage contract, the principle con. tended fur was the same as that acknowledged in the ancient system. In 1756 ninety-nine cases out of a hun dred were made by a promise between two individuals, wbich was perfectly binding. Then came Lord Hardwick's act, intended for the suppression of clandestine marriages, but fraught whh other evils, and one of these was the wholesale violation of conscience which it created. It pressed most severely on the dissenter, imposing upon him the necessity of submitting to a form io marriage of which he disapproved, and compelled him to go under its yoke. The house should adopt any measure which would be likely to meet general assent, and relieve the dissenter from this galling position.—(Hear.) Every individual who revered the ceremony, and who would not wish to see it desecrated by having it imposed upon those who in conscience were opposed to it, was bound to support the measure sub mitted by his noble friend.—(Hear, hear.) He would say but one word more, and that was to assure the house that he would not support this measure if he thought it would be of violence to the consciences of the clergy of the church established. As far as regarded them they were only required to publish the bans, not knowing whether the parties who applied belonged to the establishment or a dissenting congregation. They then had but to grant the certificate of publication, and surely there was nothing in either of these duties to vio late the most delicate conscience. —(Hear, hear.) In an swer to the hon. member for Westminster be would say again, that he should have no objection to dispense with the publication of the bans if possible; but it seemed to him absolutely necessary to have this provision complied with, as there was no other way to avoid and obviate the evil consequence of clandestine engagements but by such publicity. When this matter came under further discus. sion he hoped it would receive all the improvement of which it was susceptible, and then he trusted it would be hailed by the dissenters as a real relief, whilst the members of the church of England would consider it as rather aid ing than infringing their real interests. Sir GEORGE GREY thought there ought to be some decided improvement in the system of registration of births, mat riiges, and deaths. The dissenters felt the present system to be a heavy burden upon their con sciences, and he knew that several bad in consequence not been baptised at all, whilst others were not baptised till a mature age, thus rendering the evidence of their birth of a very doubtful nature. This country was, in point of fact, behind every other in that respect.—(Hear.) He regarded the bill of the noble lord below him with gleat satisfaction as the first step towards the concession of the just claims of dissenters.—(Hear.) He said the first step, and be thought the noble lord would agree with him that concession ought not to stop here. He laid an emphasis on just claims because be thought that many claims put forward by dissenters, at the present d were very unjust. Asa member of the established church he would consent to nothing that would injure that church, but he thought the hest way to prevent unjust claims was to accede to those which were just. Mr. ESTCOURT was anxious to guard himself from being considered to sanction the noble lord's measure in its present state, but sincerely hoped that on further in vestigation it would be found such as he could conscien tiously support. Mr. BUCKINGHAM contended, that if the prevention of clandestine marriages amongst the dissenters were an object, it would he far better attained by publishing the bans in the congregation to which the individuals be longed than as at present at the parish church.—(Hear.) Mr. EWART regretted to say that he did not consider this measure sufficiently impartial—that it did not fully redress practical grievances. As far as it went he ap proved of it, but nothing less than a general system of satisfyregistration sen of te b rs ir . ths, marriages, and deaths would ever registry was very much felt in Ireland. Mr. FAITHFUL said the measure of the nob'e lord was too minute, and, if be might be allowed the word, too contemptible to thank him for. So far from consider ing it as a boon, be would only treat it as a flagrant in. justice. The rights of Dissenters had long been withheld from them. This bill not only did nut restore them, but it did not restore any part of them. When, however, it was brought bofore the house be would give it all the attention in his power. After a few words in reply from Lord J. RUSSELL, who pledged himself to remove any objection to the bill in a future stage, leive was given to bring in the bill. LAND ALLOTMENTS FOR LABOURERS. Mr. PRYAIE, alter a few observations which we were unable to hear. remarked, that ea the poor law system was to begin de novo, the object he had in view was to make it compulsory on parishes to purchase and enclose a certain quantity of land, to be let at a moderate rent, for the benefit of the labourers. Among other cases in which a step of that kind had been attended with great public advantage, the hon. gentleman instanced that of Saffron Walden, in Essex, where a number of the labourers hav ing had such allotments of land as he alluded to given to them, on a subsequent occasion, when there were riots in the parish, ranged themselves under the orders of the magistrates, and materially contributed to the restoration of tranquillity. He was convinced that an acquiescence in his plan, while it created greater independence on the part of the labourers, and reduced the poor rates, would be prouuctive of advantages to the landlord in other shapes, much greater than those landlords would enjoy if the allot. ments were made to themselves. There would be no real vio ation of property whatever, although there might ap pear to be so; for the landlord, while he got twenty shil hove an acre for the land, would save a like sum in poor rates, making in the whole forty shillings an acre. He knew an instance, before he had the honour of being a member of that house, of the introduction of this plan into a parish in Huntingdonshire; and the consequence was, the labourers of that parish all became pro-perous and happy. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution That the committee on every Enclosure Bill shall, in their report, certify whether a portion of land, as near to the village as conveniently may be, and not less titan in the proportion of one acre to every 25 inhabitants according to the last population cen sus, has been by such bill directed to be allotted out of the commonable lands or waste grounds to the incumbent of the living and the parish officers for the time b ing, and the owners of 100 acres of land in such palish, as trus tees, in trust to let the same in small portions, at low rents, to all labourers resident in the parish who may be desirous of hiring the saute, such rents to be paid to the pariah officers for the time being, in aid of the poor rates ; or whether there be any special reason why such allotment cannot conveniently or properly be made in that particular instance." Mr. RICHARD POTTER seconded the motion of the hon and learned member for Cambridge, and felt con vinced that the plan would, if carried, produce the most beneficial effects to agricultural labourers. In his opi nion it would have a tendency to raise their moral characters by giving them an interest in the soil which at present they did not possess. It was difficult, if not impossible, for a labourer to rent the smallest portion of land : be knew many instances of the great advantage to labourers occupying a small quantity of land. He only wished the hon. gentleman had gone a little further, and proposed that, in every future Enclosure Bill, a portion should be set out for the exercise and amusement of the people: at present every place was closed against them. Mr. GISBORNE would divide the house on the subject. Mr. TOWER contended, as we understood, that the motion - was not sufficiently comprehensive to effect the object which the hon. gentleman had in view. Mr. PR ME replied. The house then divided -31 For the motion P 26 1)5 THE PILOT NEWSPAPER. On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. 0 , DNVYER stating that tme accusa tion which he was about to prefer, was one of a most ser ious nature ; namely , that in a trial between the crown and a subject, a jury had been em paunelled for the express purpose of procuring iaernsracioanny evidentlygoßill. convic tion. The trial arose out of an a o ll f eg A ed pri l l ile t l about the period at which tile Irish Coercion Bill passed thApril—the written, alleged r w eceived libelei vhiveod,,ousustgeip,,heu ought to loys t hu h i el : adav P soes ne t Pilot newspaper. teo n irn e se w dt hts the e a t f p 2 e ll.l r dm . v written ern mweans u t .ni instituted tou g r t r e e t di a l a t ta e g x ar, c il tesegtueidetnhte, libel, and under circumstance tve v e r f a t h,eprosecu tionje w s proprietor ho paper. The pannel was returned in a manner worthy of the worst day s o f ascen d ancy i n that country, and under a jury . law whi c h h a d b een condemned by the government itself ; but of 174 names first on the pannel, there were only seven Roman Catholics and an equal num ber of Prote,tants unconnected with party in that country ; and, therefore, he considered he was fully jus tified in asserting that corruption had prevailed. It was a strange circumstance, if only cursorily looked at, that the Tories, who generally opposed the government, were chosen to do their work, in this instance, and fur what reason? Because the government was going in direct opposition to the people. These men, who acquitted the libeller of the Marquis of Wellesley—the first viceroy Ireland ever had who had ventured to grapple with the ascendancy party— were ready enough to bring in a verdict of guilty against Mr. Barrett, as virtuous a man, and as ezemp , ary a citi zen as ever lived. They found him guilty, and " encum bered" their verdict with a recommendation to mercy. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to pay a fine of 1001., and to enter into heavy sureties That was It ish mercy.—(Hear and a laugh.) That wat the mercy of the present liberty-loving Government. , In ttie reigns of George 111. and George IV., under Tory Governments (lie spoke of a period of sixty-eight years), there bad been forty prosecutions in Great Britain for poll', tical libels ; since 1830 to the present day, a three years, the Whigs being during the time in poseferr, there had been thirteen prosecutions, in Ireland alone , . i i ) i p r o t l i i a ti i c d a I libels.—( Hear, ea b r y , he a r.) Whig Thirteen Gove liberty-loving Whigs had done this, and, in the dale of Mr. Barrett, had not merely imprisoned and fi ned k i ,, o , and required him to find sureties, but had actually ta .' ~ his bread away.—(Hear, hear.) He charged the Govern- f. ment with nullifying the Jury 3„That i' ration in certain cases, and should therefore M ove.-- 0 the : the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury o obits .r.. trial of Richard Barrett is calculated to affect the P. ,_ confidence in the pure administration of justice in Ire.lanulii and this house therefore entertains the hope that, in_ r ll o. +,. sec s;ig o i n a d ly ed su t ppor;ed. n. future political prosecutions, Roman Catholics and 1' rota testants will be allowed indiscriminately to serve 0 juro , ~ in Ireland ." 0, V An How. 1111C31111E11, whose name we could not learn, • tea • k Mr. LITTLETON had been greatly disappoin , ~, • never had he heard a case so unnecessarily introduced,hie , • What were the - siniP case? prnromseecouttiienThoi On the 11th of May, a ccord eb i y ng Pr t eolienen( tif:iinte.egtia)t.e°dPtb t i o el ro m 4g an sra d nfo t d h rp e tan d ne e e f l e p, n aa d nn a ed n i . h ' f s ,a, ry agent intrgi pi.assedT strike the jury, when, on the mere application of de verser, duty and solely for his convenience , the fared until the 15th. On that day the Crown been shown to the traverser throughout this roceedl: and he defied, the hon. mover to state an instance in whir : . n . , ' an obj coon had been made by the traverser, and not g a o l . lowed by she Crown. It was the duty of the Crown xi licitor to strike off names from the grand panel dour t°,.. 4 48 by 12 ; and if he had struck off Roman Catholics, it i was not because they were of that religion, but for vote; other reasons—reasons which be (Mr. Littleton) darereasvatve !..,, were substantial and valid ones. Hondenied that t in he ia, the ", overheassembled, the slightest ground for censure Aird. the jury seas struck under the "Id system, but that the partY . was not made for this case -- Hear ) (-- other indi- .. Crown solicitor ; and it must be recollecte , on his defence had just the same chance as any bad greatest r rid od t7 tv e: e t n a sni t i be thees,r obtained t g y b l thes vidual.—(Hear, hear.) He very much doubted wha t _oi. been st a ted by the hon. and learned mover, as W tbef . tr ii prosecutions in a period of 68 years. He thought t hat t il . he rectillected , impression erroneous, especially when und e r the Government immediately preceding Lord Grey ° I ; no less than five prosecu t ions for libels upon it had he e d instituted Littleton ia b tr y hg Sur argument reitJtai if sodee ever e rr S et r a t i a o r n e e tt. was The on e b w o uh n i . o l a , nedwa'(!ic:lleelbidroaceeritettr wry) gentleman said, that if ever there was a libel which shoo' not member being pen of a who, hive gone unnoticed, this was the one. DroW be 0 .1 ,f . thKtehrgamrtaarlitdhpoaungehi ;, prosecution, this was the libel, because it came born th e ~,: then took such me c w o a n i t i r s olled opportunity of effecting his ends within tin supported tueni--• efainnPsgaoar‘lb:talenoefoinodflohroewwrnstahrod had the ma freeb Yaar:dlll'.ll- '1 sistent with the peace and security of any well regulated • - t t i a b te w ekhr i e n n e e an( e rl ita i a e d b vn e e b t i s yl whollyu thelThe irbi stated'yise pe oplen:sCilegislature o n L .Are that el e society. —( Cheers.) — ( h e was ers . the Why, hostility safetyo f England either fortowards life r lreland,p tfoundao property, earut t ydl the ,dahetaei entertained e l was no l n eg a I°l3ger .' d w e i s l e o rv t e r d ied to th be e s c t a i u g s m e at b izj so would any jury in this country. He repelled the at' tack which had been made upon them, and he did 0 1,• because they were educated, Moral, and honourable Wea r IC bees of society ; and he had no hesitation in saying , th e t t l ) had he been upon that jury , he should ful l y and cordial , / ~ have concurred in the verdict which they fo und it digit ii them, t LL if shaeidhatdhabtetetnwornigthhtish jounr.ygbenetwleotild° r,11: duty in this instance to record.—(Hear.) v d i ltr c o. o ld n ° c t. urred in their verdict. Now, he (Mr. "°°: 1- + h ha a nell) was mile that the right hon. gentleman vvould o°' have done so, as he was suie that he was incapable ef I ti i 7,i ;) . co , feting his oath. This he would assert that no Oa° have found such a verdict in such a case without violatig ' 1, It , his oath from party principles and political motives. r was said that any honest jury would have found a gat e : menptvbhoaei ion r is d t nbey i eta c . alis t ni . nfdsr Wasii a, v, ri n 't .pi : ai uGhiintytuibi,asti Guinness e t i wnn l i% ,s , t e eeaest n insid , ) cduiacht w ientdajd e iiu i rntr e msoyni ttah t rsh h naTa e o,,d,we. u f a n, vtba m hie enfe,d e Knvh s ßooega o snunne f rnelksye s : u coi ti t t.l : etu h fridruriy?tet..ik respects.opr ape ds, .. 7t,a l : drl 14 } .:. v th er e d y ie w t e w re he b n ot s h u . c o h l m u e r:m w p er e e ac s b t a r e u d ck in off re house require stronger evidence of the efforts of the O e n l ' evidence was to be found in the striking off the l a .'- every Catholic on the list. One of them viti e A ' r. Viii- .' proper t Y Liam Morphy, a gentleman who possessed more than the entire twelve who sat upon the )01' W se h r e ' a they wished to convince the people of Ireland that a . --2. stifle 0. Isla parliament would do justice, were they to , inquir '• y which the circumstances of the case so strorire called for ? fhe names of tbe other two Catholics weeer near k, Didt,:;bof: .Ite:., Mr. John O'Brien and Mr. Stephen Grehan , all, tb r r most respectable gentlemen, and all three, he Inig` i _.,'" e- ts who had in Many instances and in many retr o , ii . dissented from his (Mr. O'Conneil's) line of p ° m ost ; Thus the Government strike off four or five of th e . ,:h e o r, respectable and independent men on the pannel, an" ' , '../ they were to be told that tbe jury had been fairlythaeo lected. Now who, he wou.d ask, was the foreman °I boo ,-,, jury? Dlr. Long, the coachmaker, a gentleart:r or o o name n,nt had of t been beG li o e v a e r r d n o tn i e b n e t f , ,, w re h i o n that hdd ta h k o e u n se..... 3 ac t ive a 0 1 ° st e t part in a not very distant election against the Govern:cite is turning them tn Perrin ou t. ai: Such u fl o a t r ‘ t v y a ,. and the whofore hmaadiusaurg.cweeoeditiler3:o: the next upon the jury ? Mr. Isaac Hynes, who acquitted the Morning Star of a most fright° 'this , ' atrocious private libel upon the Marquis Wellesley. b „f f Alr. Isaac Hynes must either have believed the tr ut oc h e v, that libel or he must have violated bis oath, and Ye „ t ; A ble t. were the first two names on this honest and lon ° "" it, jury, as it was called. There were eight others uc e for , all of them corporators. Now, he need not appe a , t hat ~, ther than to what had taken place in the course ot_..b. evening, to show the house that the corporation of V a u sid s , lin and he (Mr. O'Connell) had been uniforfnli eo , i strongly fi t !: yoppo Dublin se i d n t s o p e tt a e c hofotber. them, a n H d e i h ro a m d come ie in a° M emo . choly incident in his life to that of tbe and triumphant—namely, his return i t' n hr r iEnety°lii:/(slatutranb;Bl:lisit.leisraP‘g.tch o rf°-.e r ir a r' i;,: e bad not been an occurrence between him a nd the 7:g em; 1! thin of Dublin in which he had not beep • and yet it was out of such a corporation t ° Li P e P i u;d i thad T h h e e e r n e . f. : ' selected to try whether his letter had been a libel • .0)0 ;-: were two Scotchmen on the jury, certainly respee , ,. b , ,:, gentlemen ; but why s hould individuals unconnected tv_P r, f l the country be on such an occasion elected for su ch a P ii i t, use? -One of them, he had to remark, was a rnernb er° l P elli be (Mr. O'Connell) would fearless had been always opposed, and the huthepesa K eyant i hde i Kildare - street d a tp r h e l aeitd s e r eet r hne e a e at t ki, nifs S aa ni o i c h. wiojeontt jury l , uydr t o theyi whichor ityets he_ (Ai r . bareo' 0 11 1.0 ° . .: , . ~ selected to try this quesion, and in support of their WM4 they heard an Engiish gentleman of high character a rr t ee b i s ' , that publication • a libel. The right hon. gentleman had r"„„ f s . '...' mil inaccurately stated the tenor of it to the house; there_iyie, would correctnessn e a y sw er er kteb a . :i t i - i li e i t : • ' 'L'i ; maynonehad passage in it that resembled what the right hon. ge e P o s read te d d represented as its purport to the house. 11 .4 ,0 , a mit that there was a passage in the letter, in " w ee , should say—because if he sa id . it et o f , he could not believe it justice could be done to Ireland until she had ambers.)rt' nit '1 me boo ~ her own.—(Cheers from some of the Irish would adhere to that statement. Ireland never OUliitnegic `substantial justice done her until she recovered her f _ d° o vera l .4 deserve the title of a a l3 ..____ e t eat , ~ legislature. The learned gentleman here went throtign, bof of the topics discussed in the letter for publishing vib t .., c o e ef • ! defendant had been convicted, and contended that ,', 1 ,04 1 them could be construed into a libel, nor any thing apPr";„ the ~ to a libel. In that letter he (Mr. O'Connell) ca lled o ur. 1. , : i Whitefeet to cease from their domestic fights and brotoosps they could have justice done to themselves and their ad v ice • ~; ing them that it was only by peaceable and constitution afoot; eh • nate country. Was it libellous to give them suc h , Den- ' • He had in vain endeavoured to extract from the King by tb e ,• ' what portion of this publication was deemed libellou s lotion6l ~ Court. He had asked the judges there, by Inaki! t . g ,„ 3 o 0 . 4 ,„ 1 for an arrest of judgment, to lay down tlie ir ono- the. - ,' ~, o o f e t l h re e la p n u d hl t i h ca a t t ion the i y n hadilet what part of the publication was deemed a libel Situ ''. lie had already stated what were the two gre a l e fee. 4" b u t rill ' ',,,, domestic legislature, and to convince them that Th ey e O . ll-1 • , V by legal, peaceable, and constitutional union to sante. achieve that object. Now, though he would adlnit„,„ be o ° , l' question—namely,hinto eta°peslicr-7,,:1-o-: of t e expressions in the letter might be considered that`- the', , —(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—yet he would maintain o e hsm i was nothing in it that could be construed into a libe l * „ of ° i f .: ' fie` ; just said he had endeavoured to obtain the oPi'd°ct fIP" , ', 4 judges of the King's Bench on the point as to what P 3.• of „.! letter was libellous ; but they would give him no answe,r. d tha t ' -•.t . merely said that the jury found the publication a libe l, `r i , Kne ll . • t, ' they were satisfied with the verdict. He (Mr. o,Conne',, t naP' when he was writing that letter—(bear) —as well ai d 3 7„4 til e that it would be prosecuted if the government cou ', rio vi• • means of subjecting it to a prosecution, and with the '` o9 be •`; ledge which he possessed on the subject, a ' nd fully asOl re se re a t •, was of the extreme latitude of the law of libel, he W a9 ,os siig the time he wrote that letter that no government could I vic rioP i have the hardihood to prosecute it. Thii was l'is, c° rosP ect ' at that time. There was, besides, just at that petiou A f oe tal,' 1, of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Stanley), the then 5 -••••