The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

---- IS. clair- Lir co lessed five ssue isitor 1 me cor. mself. dker- ii►IPI U 1 %L PAR,LIANIENT. &OUSE OF LORI)S,JuIy 4. ROYA I. ASSENT. The Royal Assent was given to day,shortly 13 , :fore 4 o'clock, by Commission, to the following Bills : —The Sugar Duties Hill, the Vinegar Dinka Bill, the lave Tra , J.e Treat'es Bill, the Gold an d Silver Wares Bill, Forestalli n g Abolition Bill, the Night Poaching Bill, the A , saillts ( Ireland) Bill, the Limitation of Actions (Ireland) Bill, the Leeds and Bradford Rail way I iil the Manchester and Rossendale Railway Bill , th, York and Scarborough Junction Railway the East ern C ount i es and Peterborough Railway Bill, B Salishury and South-Western Branch Railway Bill, the Whitehaven and Marvport Railway Bill, the Chaster and hHolyhead Railway Bill, the Edinburgh and Glasgow Extension e Beaty Bill, t h e Shoreham and Chichester Railway Bill, mall Devon Railway Bill, the South- Ea=tern Railway and Folkestone Harbour Bill, the Stratford Railway and Har bour Bill, the Eilinbur , h Glasg ow , and Stnrnawav Railway 1 11 ‘, ' 1 . 1 : the Preston and Wyro Railway Bill, Warehouiing the Coventry Ili cr Works the Sheffield Gas Bill, the Manchester Bill, the Manchester Police Bill, the Manchester Magistrates Bill, the Manchester Infirmary Bill, the Man- Chester Imp rovement Bill, the Nottingham Canal Bill, the British Society Incorporation Bill, Southampton Imprnye liiient Bin, Canterbury Improvement Bill, Liverpool Fire Bill, Canterbur y Bill, Way na Iron C my Bill, the British .;,°ll van t , - 0 Bill. European Life Assurane,! Company's "ill, and rario-us turnpike, drainage, estate, naturalisation, and other The Commissioners were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord C hancellor, and Lord Wharncliffe. After the Commi-sion their Lordships resumed the argu ments in the ease of the Queen v. O'Connell and others. Th e r Lordshi ps re-assembled for Parliamentary business at ttive 'clock, wh en the L oan Cita scr.f.Loit. took his seat en the woolsa k The resleyani'll"P of LONDON presented petitions from various ' — aptist, Independent, and Church of England Con reiiations GALL Dissenters' Chapels Bill, Blue e r t lr,ofOWAY presented a petition from Olney, the same effect. The Noble Earl also moved the yo':I:doa nemetit . of the third rea di ng. of the Brothels Bill until Prelate. week, consequence of the absence of a Right Rev. The E gergrai arl of AIOUNTCASHEL presented petitions from against Presbyterian congregations in the north of Ireland Ka N t ie s s t the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. L or , s i Tß , Zrs from the Commons brought up certain Bills. 'me in f o lIP SELL presented two petitions from Aberdee d n, Bill, and ou r of the Presbyterian Mixed Marriages (Irelao ) Lo the other rip,, "D against p the en Dissenters' Chapels Bill. in ,ivour r "— ALE rested a petition from Yorkshire of pretection to agriculture. MOROCCO. to P T u h t e Earl of MI NTo gave nwice of his intention to-morrow wha question to the Government, with a view of ascertain of AL,. Pther they had adopted any measures to send to the coast i nter f'eco a naval force sufficient for the protection of British "h• Perh a p s some member of the Government would “ i„n,_ierntioin eth Nobl e L or d at the head of the Admiralty of his n to put the question. The m WAR IN AFRIC arquis of CLANRICARDE gave notce of his in- ern merit, fl ov tl " to put a question te some Member of t her Majesty's part of On Mond a y, as to t h e war pending in the western Africa. Lord t W BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH. rni;R HA _ . NCLIFFE brought up the report of the Gmn • " aPPOinteri to inquir e w ith res p ec t t o thi s Bill. The C I , olmttt us ee rep or t e d t h at i t was a measure for w hi c h i t was ual to have the consent of the Crown before they proceede Lord C AMPBELL presented a petition from Glasgow against the Dissenters' Chapel Bill. The Bi s h op of LLANDAFF presented similar petitions, the : ,s"°The LORD CHANCELLOR, on the appli c atio n o rs - 1 1 of Lo n d on , fixed t h e cons id erat i on o f t h e L ords ' Amend ..." to the Dissenters' Chapel B 11, for Monday week. THE STATE TRIALS. Minste T h Earl of RADNOR presente d a petition from West e "et eise her pr, praying that the House would address the Queen, to r rofi tive on behalf of Mr. O'Connell and others. ,t„ PO ST - OFFICE.—OPENING LETTERS. ;errorsine Earl of RADNOR then rose for the purpose of moving ommittee of their Lordships upon the subject of opening by the Government and the Post-office. Nith standing what had taken place in the other House of otw Par liament, he felt bound to bring forward the subject, which inereased in imp or t ance every day. A Committee of their kiordships' Huse would have more weight than one th House of Commons, because their L o rd s hips e x am i ne d ne e sses upo n oat h , which they did not in the House of Com !Monsbli Puc t hought that th e i r letters were held slued, but the re toelation made in that House had opened the eyes of the public what was going on. From that revelation it appeared that 1 . twas the p ract i ce on certain occasions is the Secretary of A ate'ssoffic e to open letters. It seemed doubtful from the ejedicis, whether there was sufficient authority to justify this pro ng• It had been stated to be one of the original objects :a the establishment of the Post-office, but though it ass mentioned in the preamble of the ordinance, it ~, :e not stated as the main object. The Act of e 7,! e en Anne had been referred to, but there was nothing d th e .._r,in that or any of the subsequent Acts, which authorise I°, ',;_cretary tmf State to detain and open letters. Although .i'ss:droitted that such a power was assumed, that was a totally ar,mu .rent thine. Stat e to s from authority being given to the Secretary of whe re the issue his warrant. He would like to kno,v to b e to": aothority was to be found. He believed it was not e t. list 'nee ti l d o , j , 4 any statute, and the Post-office had not been in He h a d disigs e nough to bring it under the common ; - 11, and sm , '' lst ice of the - PP l aing that the Secretary of State was a had decided ths.lite, aee for the whole country. Lord Campbell of try , that was not the case, except in the instance he mi l s ," aad one of his rounds, for stating that was, that °lit ' -ifmnothteaud,inhineister an oath, and therefore could not com p° wer had he to issu e was to warrant a'jns ? tice It nf was the said that whathe possessed it by usage. The Noble Lord then read a judgment of the Earl of Ist ansfie a l r d' u s on of showing that thepoint, for the purpose thoifs usage did not apply. The No le Lord then quoted the opinion of Lord Camden as to th e seiz ure of papers. He said ' letters were the dearest pro would men P osse ssed, and so far from enduring seizure they Wo uld scarcely bear inspection. He did not deny that cases Night arise in which thspowr would be necessary for the fos,f,ertyi.of the state. But to anticipate such a case was, he thought, better 4 ' ,1 proceeding. If te litheo were exercised, it was it was done on direct responsibility of the Minister who might apply to Parliament openly for an indem ni) ; but he did not think that any case could justify the d taming of letters of foreigners. H . e thought it was a breach °{ has - ,it l'ty against which his mind, and he believed that of te e public, quite ' revolted. What had they to do with the in rnal affairs ofother countries? If a foreigner came to this so .. untry and did net violate its laws, he thought he ought to h ave the benefit of the Constitution. He again bore testimony to th e high moral character of Mr. Mazzini, ' \ :, 11 ", he admitted, was an enthusiast in the cause of "nertv, but stated that he was priticiplily occupied in literary pursuits. W as th e dissemination of liberal o p i nions a cri me in England ? Himself a descendant of o pinion s who lied to England for refuge. With respect t o M. Stolztnann, his letters were never opened till the arrival Of the Emperor of Russia. Was there an y yngor, he would ask, of any of th e P o l es assass i na ti ng e !stEmperor ? M r . M azz i n i had been very active in ablishing schools for the education of the poor Italian whom, n dou)t their Lordshi priest saw wandering "Stu, the streets of the Metropolis. The priest attached to the tioartlinian Embassy raised a cry against him because there was ,reli,gious instruction. Bet if that were even so, it was Thee' than that they should be left to run about the streets. The e greatest moral evil would be produced by this practice. 4 t i a Y had heard of the conscience of the State, but he thought ,;11_t_was nonsense when applied to sects and religions. But f:ii overnment ought to take care not to set the example e ss i selmutl, treachery, and forger Cheers. On one oc- d f . , 0 :1, a person from whom he received a begging letter ha d do his s eal. Was not that what the Government ha There was no more of falsehood, forgery, or treachery in the one ease than in the other. It . was so felt by . everybody. Re was 1 I this .g a' to see the manner in which the French looked on th a ti °ll "t• NI. Guizot . declared in the Chamber of Deputies thatnetters were sacred in that country. He felt ashamed Poke°fle of the Noble Lords opposite could say that. I s l e _ Hordwarmly on this subject, because lie felt warmly. ne t , their Lordships would now take the first step to pu fl s ° l f' to this practice. He asked for a Select Committee tn . 111 ( ( ! r re into the system of opening and detaining letters, a t i?d , h t , e Partieolarly into the circumstances under which _b . Ts of Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Stolzmann had been open s , h i .e Duke of WELLINGTON fully admitted that this re. into at ion had at last assumed a shape that should be in d rit iu l d w hen ,i,lut. the la w and the practice should be inquire to. fr aud tne Noble Lord attributed to the Government treachery, that it ; bo ' and faleity—(Cries of Hear, hear)—it was time t l t "be inquired into. But he thought they_ should u then Z? into a rovinms inquiry of the description pointed out 1 teh l' ic Lord's snpeech, to inquire whether this man's or the 'Noble man's, letters had been opened. A grea , t part of the la w, 4) "-I a speech was direeLed entirely to the repeal of the . s„,„' rid ma intained that it should be immediately and totally est e l t etl . The Noble Lord might be ,leasta'ning that opinion ; ,man it was an opon i quite justified in hhe would not find yto agree with him ' ; that the same time, he must say that, if he thought in the tons was exercised, or ever had been exercised, to. his manner referred to by the Noble Lord in some parts p r i va ' gPeeeh—that was to say, that it was applied f or th e tpeo Purposes arid for private interests, stet not fo r "Y th at r P n 'e of promoting the public benefit—he should Publi c o ouri. f f o e s er t r hl ewd i tthb slawfr.,, ought to , be_ repealed and , p h u e t h a ro n ad e e n a d t ground s f, s ,k ...beers. ) out. tue .aw goo icaowt:tirntitutt,e-eo-rue:iitie.itPtltoblie interest, and the exercise of the power it he used on no other grounds than those o He had no objection to the appointment of a e o inquire into the law and the practice under the th at 'lt he objected to the appointment of a Committee,. the l etter s °lmi.se to inquire into the circumstances of opening h tw, s- particular individuals. He believed the letters of the op en 'othviduals alluded to were opened ; but the law was who to them—(Cries of " Oh, oh !")—and the person e le ss 11e could OPened theta was guilty of a misdemeanor,t ma -1 w ould not follow Lord into his arguments as to CT,..Power of the Secretary of State to issue general warrants. eSecretary of State was in this instance the officer of the w as reign —the officer of the Government. The Post-office see _ one of the departments of the Government, and the of „ re tary nf State had a right to send an order to the officer t s , thats dpartment, which he was bound to obey. The Ac '' lett ers earliam ent was precise in that particular—it enacted that efiie were to be delivered as they were put into the post- Warre' except in certain cases, one of which was where t o b , ,nt for the detaining and opening such letters was issued , 3 tile Secretary of State. There could be no doubt about the Ja w 1 Ziabl: . was true, there was no express authority by law to ftite the Secretary of State to issue the warrant—( Hears at!2—but lo t had the authority, acting as an officer of her m s , J 'tY's G overnment, to call upon the Post-master mutt earrY into execution: The quest ion amid , always turn upon that particular instance, 1 ,: he would say, on the part of his Right Hon. Friend, that ail s , a member of her Majesty's Gov, rnment, was willing to haacre the responsibility with his Right Hon. Friend. No act beent been performed by his Right Hon. Friend but what had re .,. Performed for the purpose of promoting the public lute ...'l The Noble Lord had talked of the exempt ion of foreigners, ra had talked of a breach of hospitality ; but if foreigners, I',.,iniciled here, acted in a manner contrary to the interests of lkeountry, were they not guilty of a breach of hospitality ? allow' arm h e Was it fit that the Secretary of State should 0.. aets to be done which might inflict the calamities of war co " Powers with which we were friendly ? The policy of this into' uii!etry was to maintain peace everywhere, because it was the sn at of this country that the world should remain at peace, oi)s,isettuitfhf.o,,rheeigners fitted nut expeditions fur Corfu or Malta to peace of Italy, would it be contended that they were o, 4 m ui lty of a breach of the laws of hospitality, and that they e ti . not to be interfered with as acting contrary to the interests n .: this country? A few years ago, an expedition had been fitted out here against a neighbouring country, which was all tlt,t, successful. No-.v would it not hare been the duty of the ts lyernment, if they had received the smallest intimation of w"e expedition, to interfere to prevent it ? All foreigners here s er e s ubject to the municipal law of the country, and were i u r c u! s ed to act in conformity with the interests of the country. , „toe Government knew that foreigners were preparing an Petition in in this country for the invasion of a foreign country, did the Noble Earl mean to contend that the Government I were to he quietly by, and let them strike the blow without interfering ? Why, it was only a few days ago that they had received an account. of an expedition being fitted out from Corfu for the invasion of a country in alliance with her Majesty, and that had been concerted in conjunction with foreigners ►n this country ; an 1 were the Government not to interfere? The inquiry should not be directed to particular cases ; it should be directed to the propriety of continuing the power and as to the checks to be placed upon its exercise. He should therefore propose an amendment, introducing the words which had been introduced in the motion in the house of Commons, and he would move fur a Secret Committee, composed of Members of both sides of the House, giving the majority to Noble Lords on the other si►ie, and excluding from it all persons holding office, or connected with office. The Committee would be so formed, that he trusted it ►would give general satisfaction to the public. He thought the matter ought to he inquired into, and he should therefore move as 'an amendment to the motion of the Noble Earl, that a Committee should be appointed, to consist of the following Noble Lords :—the Duke of Bedford, the E of Burlington, Lord Cottenhain, Lord Brougham, Earl Powis, Earl Somers, and the Bishop of London. The Marquis of NORM ANBY thought the amendment of the Noble Duke ought to be carried, in preference to the motion of his Noble Friend. No person was more anxious than him self that the subject should be properly sifted. lie had never exercised this odious power except in cases where the safety of the State was concerned. He had heard some of the doctrines of the Noble Duke with regret. It was true that it was de sirable to ir aintain peace, hut how he could apply his observa tions to the present case he could not tell. If the letters of exiles in this country were to be opened with impunity by the Pest-office, it was impossible to say where it would stop. He was very glad that the subject was now to un dergo a searching inquiry, but he must beg their Lord ships to understand that 'be was far from consenting to the doctrine laid down by the Noble Duke. Of course the subject would relate to the management of the Post-office in Ireland as well as in this country. When he was in Ireland he never exercised the power, except in the case of Ribbonism. The Duke of WELLINGTON explained. There were two Noble Lords that he had placed on the Committee, to whom it would be inconvenient to attend; and he should, therefore, now propose that the following Noble Lords should form the Committe : —Earl Somers, the Earl of Burlington, the Earl of Roseberry, Lord Colchester, Lord Brougham, Lord Cotten ham, and the Bishop of London. Lord CAMPBELL thought the petition of Mr. Mazzini ought to be referred to the Committee. The Earl of ABERDEEN said it should be. Lord CAMPBELL thought the Committee would report that a Bill of Indemnity was necessary. It was true that the power had existed for 150 years, and notwith‘tanding that he would ♦enture to say there had been a great stretch of power in the Secretary of State's office. His belief was that, balancing inconveniences on the one side against advantages on the other, it would be best to put an end to this power. Lord BROUGHAM said, as he was nominated upon the Committee, he should, of course, reserve the expression of his opinion both upon the law and the facts. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE inquired whether the wording of the motion included the Post-office in Ireland ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said it would be an inquiry into the whole. The Earl of RADNOR withdrew his motion, and the amendment was carried. The Committee was appointed to meet on Thursday next. The Privy Council Appellate Jurisdiction Bill was read a third time.—Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 4. The SPEAKER took the Chair at a Quarter to Four. ROYAL CONINIISSION. The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the Bar, and sum moned the House to the Bar of the House of Peers to hear her Majesty's Royal Commission read, for giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills (for which see Lords' Report). AGRICULTUIAL PROTECTION. Mr. HOSKINS presented a petition from the Agricultural Protection Society in favour of the objects of that body. POOR-LAWS. Captain ROUS presented a petition from Westminster against certain proposed alterations in the poor-law. Petitions against the new poor-law were presented by Lord MAftstrAm, Co'onel ROLLXSTON, and others whose names we could not learn. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Maryle bone, praying that parishes whi:ih have local acts for the ma nagement of their own poor, should be exempt from the control of the Commissioners. RACE-COURSE GAMBLING BILL. Mr. CHRISTIE presented a petition from Charles Henry Russell, the plaintiff in certain actions brought to recover penalties from several noblemen and gentlemen for excessive gambling upon horse-races. The petitioner complained of the injustice of the Bill that had been introduced to suspend those actions, and prayed to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House. Mr. Christie then gave notice that he would move, to-morrow, that the petitioner be heard at the bar, according to his prayer. MERCHANT SEAMEN. Mr. S. HERBERT gave notice that he would, te-morrow, move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the registration of merchant seamen. THE FRENCH IN AFRICA. Mr. SHELL gave notice that he would, to-morrow, put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir IL Peel) relating to the British Consul in Algiers—namely, whether that officer exercised his functions with a sequatur from the French Go vernment or by the authority of the Turkish Government. He would also put a question as to our relati ons with France in respect to the French possessions in Africa. Mr. WALLACE begged to ask whether there was any truth in the rumour :hat the Government intended to abandon the Railways Bill. Mr. GLADSTONE gave the most unqualified contradiction to that rumour. If he could not bring on the second reading before half-past ten o'clock to-morrow night, he would do so on Monday. In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES, Mr. GLADSTONE said that if he could not proceed with the Joint-stock Companies Bill to-morrow, he would fix it for W ednesday next. In answer to a question from Mr. BERN AL, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the ne gotiations with the Belgian Government on the subject of Post-office communications were progressing. SCOTCH AND IRISH BANKS. Mr. P. M. STEWART presented a petition from Renfrew, against any interference with the present system of banking in Scotland. Much alarm had been created by an intimation given by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that as the House had assented to the Bank Charter Bill, he should feel himself at liberty to turn his attention to the banking and currency of Scotland and Ireland. He begged to ask whether it was in tended to interfere with a system which had worked so well as that of Scotch banking ? Sir R. PEEL said that he would not take any step upon the subject without communicating with the persons best acquainted with the subject. MINISTERS' MONEY IN IRELAND. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY begged to ask the Right lion. Baronet whether it was his intention to uphold the division of the House yesterday in reference to ministers' money ? Sir R. PEEL said that the matter was in the !fon. and Learned Gentleman's own hands, and he did not think it would be just to exempt the property to which the motion related for the payment of ministers' money. DISMISSAL OF IRISH MAGISTRATES. Mr. P. S. BUTLER wished, for the information of Irish magistrates, to learn, from the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, what were the grounds of Mr. Cornelitis O'Brien's dismissal from the magistracy. Lerd ELIOT had no official information on the subject. —...--. Mr. CHRISTIE rose, pursuant to notice, to ask Sir Robert Peel whether the Government have taken, or intend to take, any steps for removing the disabilities and disadvantages under which Dissenters from the Church of England labour in the profession of the law ; but at the request of Sir R. Peel, he postponed the question till Monday. TIIE LETTER-OPENING. Mr. HUME had seen in the ordinary channels that in the discussion of the Committee respecting the opening of letters in the Post-office, the Right Hon. Baronet had said that he was indifferent to the subject. The contrary was the fact; and in the first debate he had denounced the opening of letters as base and disgraceful; and he had said that nothing could be more degrading to a British Minister than to act as a spy for foreign Governments.—(Cheers, and cries of " Order, order.") He must say that if the House had ap pointed him to the Committee, he would have had nothing to do with it.--( Hear, hear.) He would have nothing to do with Secret Committees, and he thought that no proceedings of that House should be secret from the pnblic.—( Hear, hear.) Every. where he had gone throughout the country, he had heard but one opinion of this disgraceful conduct. Only yesterday, in a linen draper's shop at Yarmouth, a person came in and complained that a letter had not been sent to him, according to promise. But the shopman assured him that the letter ha I been duly posted, and perhaps it might be found upon Sir James Graham's table.—( Laughter. ) Sir R. PEEL said that the lion. Member's absence from the discussions did not show any intense anxiety upon the subject ; and he thought that the lion. Gentleman having already made up his mind that the transaction was base and disgraceful, disqualified him from sitting on the Committee. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved that petitions presented on the subject be referred to the Committee —Ordered. THE BANK CHARTER BILL. On the reading of the Order of the Day for the third read ing of the Bank Charter Bill, Lord WO RSLEY presented a petition against the Bill. Mr. WODEHOUSE then rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice, to the effect " that no tender in the payment of money made in the silver coin of this realm, of any sum exceeding the turn of 251. at any one time, shall be re- Bnted in law or allowed to be a legal tender, within Great ritain or Ireland, for more than according to its value by weight, after the rate of ss. 2d. for each ounce of silver ; and no person to whom such tender shall be made shall be any ways bound thereby, or obliged to receive the same in payment, in any other manner than as aforesaid, any 14w, statute, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding." The Hon. Member, having read several long extracts in support of his views form the evidence taken betare the Bullion Com mittee, proceeded to say that the measure was dangerous in the extreme. He was upheld in his views upon this subject by no less an authority than Mr. Herries. He was at a loss to find upon what grounds the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) and the Right Hon. Member for Portsmouth ( Mr. Baring) had given such a strong and energetic patronage to this measure. They had both addressed the House in laudatory terms of the Right Honourable Baronet's (Sir Ro bert Peel's) Bill, but neither of them had informed the House of the precise reasons which justified their approval of it. It was well to talk, as those Hon. Members and Mr. Jones Loyd did, of approaches to perfection in their monetary system, but in his (Mr. Wodehouse's) opinion, it would be much more satisfactory to the count r y t o p rove that such approaches had been made. In the whole of his (Mr. Wodehouse's) experi ence, he had never read such a farago of nonsense as that which had been published upon this subject by Mr. Jones Loyd. Sir R. PEEL said the clause was not in conformity with the notice of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. WODEHOUSE said it was not. Sir R. PEEL thought that a great part of the speech of the Hon. Gentleman ought to have been addressed against the third reading of the Bill. The clause would have been a very good one if by the present law the legal tender in silver was now above 251. ; but by the present law the legal tender of silver was limited to 405. If they permitted 251. to be a legal tender in silver, they would of course depre c i a t e th e standard of value of silver. It was impossible for him, there fore, to accede to the proposition of his Hon. Friend. Mr. HUME opposed the clause, as its effect would be t o depreciate the standard of value of silver. He should always oppose the establishment of a double standard. Mr. MUNTZ believed that if the clause were adopted, it would not attain the object the Honourable Gentleman had in view. Ho would take that opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which had occurred with respect to what he had said on a former occasion. Ile was represented to have said that he advocated a depreciation in the currency. He had never done this ; for he bad always believed that the depre ciation of the currency was one of the greatest frauds ever committed on the public. In answer to a question from Sir W. JAMES, Sir It. PEEL said, that some new gold mines had recently been discovered in Siberia. Mr. P. M. STEWART thought the discovery would place the Right Hon. Baronet's measure on a surer foundation than it was before. Sir W. JAMES explained. Mr. WODEHOUSE in reply said, he had proposed this clause in consequence of a conversation which ho had had only two days ;t7u with Lord Ashburton. He would, however, withdraw the motion, as the sense of the House appeared to be against it. The clause was then w ithdrawn. Mr. TURNER then moved the following amendment at the end of clause 9: —" And with a view to prevent loss to the working classes, that from and after the passing of this Act, the Governor and C om p an y o f t h e B an k o f England, at their bank or branch banks of issue, shall take, as of the value of twenty shillings all sovereigns, and as of the value of ten shillings all half sovereigns, tendered to them, which equally balance in the scales, notwithstanding the same may not turn the balance; and that any lots arising to the said Governor and Company of the Bank of England from the taking of such sovereigns or half sovereigns, shall be deducted from the profit arising to the public from any increase of the issues of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, before such profit be paid over to the public. In line one, of clause 14, to expunge the words " Provided always ;" and to insert at the end of line 11, of clause 14 Provided always, that all special circumstance! arising out of such contract or agreement be ex plained to such Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes by one of the contracting parties to such contract or agreement ; and that the said Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes shall have power to take such special cir cumstances into their consideration in adjusting the average under such contract or agreement." He proposed these amend ments in consequence of the loss which the public had sustained in consequence of light sovereigns. Sir It. PEEL said the amendment had nothing whatever to do with the measure which had no reference to the coinage. Mr. HUM E said the public had suffered severely by the light sovereigns, and the Government should take some step to prevent a recurrence of such a public injury and inconvenience. He thought the. e hat been a great want of attention to the public welfare in suffering the matter to lie so long neglected. Mr. C. WOOD said he apprehended that at the present moment there was very little inconvenience from light gold. Whatever extent the evil might have gone to some time back, it was a satisfaction to know that it existed but to a very slight degree at the present moment. The great point, however, now was for the Government to take such measures as would, for the future, effectually prevent any depreciation of the previous metals. This was most material, and ought to be most scru pulously attended to by the Ministry: The amendment then was, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. TURNER then moved to introduce into clause 11 the words " that all special circumstances arising out of such con tract or agreement to be explained to such Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes by one of the contracting parties to such contract or agreement ; and that the said Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes shall have power to take such special cir cumstances into their consideration in adjusting the average under such contract or agreement." In 1841 the Bank of England requested the firm in question to issue its Bank of England's notes. The consequence of that was, that this bank did use the Bank of England notes, together with its own, and so put a quantity of its own notes out of circulation. The effect was, that whereas the circulation of that bank was 72,0001. fin 1841, it fell to 51,0001. in 1842, to 30,000/. in 1843, and to 25,000!. in 1844. He thought this bank had a claim for protection, and it was with a view to do justice he proposed his resolution. Sir R. PEEL thought it would be highly inexpedient to give to the Commissioners the power of allowing certain banks under peculiar circumstances to become banks of issue. He did not think the special case made out in favour of the Bank in question. There had been a full discussion of the principle in the Committee, and he did not think the House would consent to so great an alteration as the Hon. Gentleman pro posed to be made on the third reading. Mr. TURNER then withdrew his clause. The amendment was withdrawn. Several verbal amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time. On the question that the Bill do pass, Mr. HUME rose, and said he regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had not rendered his measure complete by re pealing the legal tender clause. Sir R. PEEL said he thought there was a sufficient reason for not repealing the legal tender clause, by the inevitable dis turbance which it would produce in existing arrangements. The Bill was then passed. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion hat the House go into Committ ee on thi s Bill , Mr. F. FRENCH pot questions regarding the administra tion of the Irish poor-law, which Sir J. GRA H AM, on the ground of their vagueness and his unpreparedness, refused to answer. Mr. COCHRANE moved, " That the new poor-law, though improved by the proposed amendments, is still opposed to the ancient constitution of this realm, and inadequate to the neces sities of the people." He very much regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had brought the amendments forward at se late a period of the session. It was a measure which especially con cerned the lower classes, whose condition had of late so much forced itself upon the consideration of Parliament. The pre sent poor-law was contrary to the ancient constitution of this realm. The departure of the recent poor-laws from those which formerly existed, was admitted by Lord Althorp in his admirable speech on the introduction of the new poor-law. That Noble Lord was in favour of out-door relief. Then how came it that the practical operation of the present poor-law was so harsh in its operation, and so contrary to the spirit of the 43d of Elizabeth? 11r. Pitt said the evils of the poor-law were not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution; but he coincided with Blackstone, who in his " Commentaries" thus wrote A plan was formed in the reign of Queen Eli zabeth, more humane and beneficial than even feeding and clothing of millions, by affording them the mea ns , w ith p roper industry, to feed and clothe themselves. And the farther any subsequent plans for maintaining the poor have departed from this institution, the more impracticable and even pernicious their visionary attempts have proved." And Mr. Canning con demned any precipitate course in altering the poor-laws in any way not in accordance with the spirit in which it was instituted. Every poor-law should have two objects in view—to relieve the poor, without insulting their feelings and treating poverty us a crime, and to make the poor thankful for the benefits conferred by themode of its administration. He deprecated the present system of cooping up the poor in workhouses, and the classification that prevailed there, so much against the feelings of human nature, and so destructive of the finer and tenderer feelings of humanity. The bread they ate there was that of bitterness, and the garments they were clothed in were the garments of shame. Under the new poor-law, crime had won derfully increased, as had been seen from the Parliamentary returns, which he would quote to the House. In 1836 the amount of convictions in England was 14,700. In 1837, when the new poor-law came into operation, 17,000; i n 1838, 17,000; in 1839, 18,000; in 1840, 20,000; in 1841, nearly 21,000; and in 1842, nearly 23,000 ; thus showing a fearful increase of crime since the year 1836. The cost of the support of the poor was eight millions in 1835, and it was very little less now. This did not include interest of sums borrowed for the erection of workhouses. The Act of Elizabeth was based on the principle that, if a labouring man, who was willing to work, should be thrown out of work, it was the fault of the country. The present law, however, pro ceeded on the principle of throwing the labourer on his own resources. The labourers were that class on which the pros perity of a nation depended. When the wages of the labourer of the country were high, that country was sure to be pros. perous. lie believed that a great portion of the distress which existed in this country was owing to the great use of machinery in our manufacturing districts. The consequence was that an enormous amount of pauperism was thrown on to the land. —( Hear, hear. ) The manufacturers benefited by the distress of the country, because they could then command labour and reduce wages. He, for one, be lieved that our greatness amongst nations was not upheld by the development of our manufacturing system. But even if it were, lie thought that system ought not to be allowed to be upheld at the expense of the happiness of the people. He rather thought it ought to be sacrificed, if it were necessary to do so, to secure the happiness of the people of the country. The report of 1834, on this subject, stated that the poor were idle, improvident, and vicious. He thought the refutation of this was to be found in the results of the allotment system wherever it had been established. In order to benefit the poor of this country, it was essential that the machinery employed in manufactures should be taxed for the relief of the poor, and that the allotment system should be generally established. He thought that our system of poor laws ought to be placed on the same footing as that which was established by the Act of Elizabeth. No system of poor-laws would be successful, unless it was founded on the Catholic spirit which characterised the carrying out of the Act of Eli zabeth. The people of Scotland were• decidedly hostile to a measure such as that of her Majesty's Government. By that measure, the poor of the country were treated as a different kind of beings to the other classes of society. The poor had the same feelings and the same sympathies which they in that House had, and it was a disgrace to those who would attempt to treat them otherwise than as beings having the same feelings and sympathies as themselves. He concluded by placing the motion of which he had given notice in the hands of the Speaker. The SI'EAKER said there were only two amendments that could be made on the motion that the order of the day be read, namely, either to move another order of the day, or to move that the other orders of the day be read. Mr. COCHRANE was understood to move that the other orders of the day be read. Colonel SIBTHORP, in seconding the motion, said that he agreed with everything that had fallen from his Hen. Friend. He looked upon the present poor-law as brutal and uncon stitutional. The returns from all parts of the country showed that there was a great increase of crime, which would not be checked until the poor were placed in the enjoyment of those rational amusements to which they were entitled as much as the highest noble in the land. He would not occupy the House in going over the same ground as his Hon. Friend. But if the Bill went into Committee he would move an amendment for the purpose of abolishing the Commission. Sir JOHN GUEST made a few observations in reply to Mr. Cochrane, but in a tone nearly inaudible. He asserted that manufacturers were rated to the poor-rate, and he himself paid one thousand pounds a quarter. lie disclaimed the charge of avarice to which those were liable who maintained the corn laws for their own advantage. Mr. BORTHWICK then moved an amendment, to the effect that the Act of 4 and 5 William IV., commonly called the new poor-law, was unconstitutional in principle, and oppressive in operation, and that it is therefore expedient that the said Act should be taken into consideration with a view, not to its partial amendment, but entire reconstruction. He wished the present oppressive and unjust law should be repealed, and that in its stead should be enacted a wise, just, benevo lent, and catholic measure. The reproach of having departed from the wise law of the 43d of Elizabeth lay with the late Go vernment and its supporters, who were placed on the very pin nacle of political economy. (He read a long extract from a pamphlet by Lord Brougham, in which the Noble Lord ridi culed and condemned the project of Mr. Pitt, toenact a Bill by which every poor man should be made comfortable in his own home. The Noble Lord called this a frantic proposition. But he (Mr. B.) considered such a proposition as consonant with all the principles of English law, and immemorial usage. The Noble and Learned Lord declared that the advisers of Eliza beth in preparing that Act (the 43d), were wholly ignorant of all sound principles of legislation, and that they had laid the foundation for extensive misery and pauperism, and the utter extinction of every feeling of humanity from the breasts of the poorer classes. He (Mr. Borthwick) could not agree with the Noble Lord that Lord Bacon and the distinguished philosophers and statesmen who advised that great Queen, were ignorant of political philosophy, of morality, or religion. The Noble Lord had said that the old law gave rise to agrarian disturbances. But had there been no such disturbances since the Bill was passed in 1834? Those disturbances were at least as frequent and as terrible since that period, as they had been before. The Bill had proved utterly inefficient for every ob ject which it was intended to effect. Rates had in many in stances been greatly increased, but without giving adequate relief to the poor, or producing their content. He thought the powers of the Commissioners were unconstitutional, and placed the poor out of the pale of the Consti tution, leaving to the Commissioners an irresponsible power over their liberties, and, in some instances, even over their lives. If a man, who had lived for sixty years in honour able toil, dwelling in the cottage which he had inherited from his father, happened to be a month or two unemployed, Lord Brougham's humane Act directed, before he could even claim the scanty allowance of the workhouse—just enough to keep body and soul together—h e must first sell the dwelling of his fathers.—(Hear, hear.) The Act said to the rogue and the THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 5, 1644. idler—" Look to the state this old man is brought to. Do you wish to come to the same state? " But the rogue would say—" No, I prefer crime, which may lead only to a gaol, and that is far better than a workhouse." That humane and constitutional law, so much eulogised by Lord Brougham, gave the Commissioners a power •f raising money without the consent of Parliament, which was beyond any pre rogative po isessed by the Crown. He would not go into a de tail of what he considered to be the causes of distress, which so alarmingly prevailed since this law was passed in 1834. Th• Act, instead of amending the administration of the old Act, was, in reality, an Act to punish the idle and unindustrious, with this misfortune, that it included the industrious poor in the same category. He conclud. dby thanking the House for the indulgence it had extended towards him. Mr. FEHR AND seconded the amendment, but without speaking upon it. Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the speeches which had been made it was expedient that he should address a few ob servations to the House upon the important subject then under ifs consideration. And he would begin by frankly stating that if, atter hearing all that had been said, and after duly consider ing much that had been written, he could come to the conclusion that the existing law was hostile in principle to the interests of the poor, no consideration upon earth should induce him to oppose the motion for its re-con struction. Rut his experience told him, that the poor-law as amended in the year 1843, had been useful to the working classes ; and although, doubtless, it was, like every other law, capable from time to time of modification, still he frankly confessed that his judgment approved the general results which had been produced by it. After taking a very long historical review of the various poor-laws, front their earliest origin to the last great amendment in 1834, the Right Hon. Baronet contended that that amended Act was identical in all its essential , provisions with the enactment of Elizabeth, of which there was, in the present day, so much talk, but which was, in fact, so little understood by those who made a sort of stalking horse of it. Now, the Act of 1834, had been denounced as unconstitutional by the Hon. Members for Bridport and Evesham ; but it had not been stated by either of them what was to be its substitute. Neither to the Act of Elizabeth, of George the Ist, or any other Act were they to go back. Ne substitute whatever was offered to them—nothing tangible suggested ; but it was said, that in the matter of out-door relief the present law was essentially different from that of Elizabeth. This he (Sir J. Graham) denied. In the Act of 1834, there was no denial of out-door relief.—( A loud " Hear, hear," from Mr. Ferrand.) He ( Sir J. Graham) was stating the fact—the fact and the law. There was no provision in that Act directing a denial of out-door relief. No less than one million five hundred thousand persons in England and Wales had, during the s ear 1842, received re lief, and a very considerable number of these person= had received such relief in their own houses. Such was the fact, and therefore the assertion that the law specially forbade out-door relief at once fell to the ground. He lamented, with every Hon. Gentlemen who heard him, that so large a pro portion of the population of England and Wales should have required relief; but he rejoiced, as an Englishman, to think that he lived in a country whose laws were so considerate and humane as not only to provide this relief, but to authorise, to direct, and absolutely to require its administration.—( Hear. The Hon. Member who had just sat down said the honest, industrious roor, should be provided for by the State. But much depended in what sense the term " poor was used ; if by " poor" he meant the honest, industrious labourer, who was unable to obtain employment, then he entirely agreed with him ; hut care should be taken that idleness should not be en couraged. The law in Scotland did not recognise the claim of any able-bodied pauper to relief ; and such had been the law there since the time of Charles the Second. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport had in his speech alluded to the distress which prevailed in the manufacturing districts. It was true great distress had existed there, and great distress still existed there, but it should be recollected that the population was very dense in these parts. and unfortunately as population increased poverty became pro portionately more prevalent. The only way of properly and efficiently meeting this evil was by multiplying the means of productive industry.—( Hear, from the Opposition.) Heknew what the Hon. Members on the ether sideof the House meant by crying" Hear," but notwithstanding he asserted the principle though they might differ as to the means of applying it. He was willing to admit that any restrictive interference with manufactures and machinery would be the greatest blow the country could receive. He would not say that the present law was perfect. It might require many amendments—it did require some, but he felt satisfied that in the present state of the country nothing could be more unwise than by a summary resolution of this sort, to annul the only law in the statute-book providing for the maintenance of the poor. Such a course would be, he firmly believed, an impolitic and fatal course ; and he hoped the House would take the more humane and benevolent course—to revise the statute, and introduce the re quisite amendments. Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought it was possible to frame the present poor-law in conformity with the altered state of society in which they now lived, and should therefore resist a motion for the total repeal of the law. He would not say, in the words of the Hon. Member for Evesham, that the present poor-law was unconstitutional ; but he was willing to admit that it was unsound, and if the Hon. Member for Evesham would so far alter his resolutions, he would support him. The Hen. Member quoted from several documents to show that the unions had been formed without any regard whatever to the population—sometim es they were too large, and sometimes too small ; by the former, poor men were obliged to perform long journeys to a workhouse for relief—by the latter, the taxes on the rate-payers were made oppressive almost beyond endurance. He quoted from the report of Sir John Walsham in proof of what he stated, as to the desirable ness of having unions of a moderate size. After some further observations, the Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that if the alteration he suggested were adopted, he would vote for the resolution of the Hon. Member for Evesham. Lord J. RUSSELL said he owned that the speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, very much surprised him. He could very well understand the resolutions of the Hon. Member for Evesham. It was plain and straightforward, but he very much apprehended that the declarations of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire were not in accordance with his professions on the hustings and elsewhere. The complaint of the Hon. Gentleman was, that the union workhouses were too large, and this, he must confess, appeared to him (Lord J Russell) a very extraordinary complaint. He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, had answered much that had fallen from the Honourable Member for Evesham respecting this law. Hon. Gentlemen, in speaking of this law in public, were very fond of indulging in vague as sertions. They described the law as oppressive and unconsti tutional. They talked about the unchristian system of sepa rating husband and wife. Now, it so happened, that there was no such provision in the law ; but in the next place, he would inform those Hon. Gentlemen, that in large workhouses it was necessary, for mere decency, to adopt such a system. But was this a new system ? No, it had been in existence long before the new poor-law came into operation. The Honourable Member for Evesham, in speaking of this law, talked as though we had been living in a per fect state of happiness from the time of Elizabeth down to the pasing of the new poor-law, and he wondered that the Government of Lord Grey, and Lord Brougham in particular, should have endeavoured to have disturbed that which, for three hundred years, had been the cause of so much happiness. No doubt it was a very wise law for the time in which it was passed, but it was not intended that it should remain unaltered through every change in society. The Hon. Gentleman talked very much about its having been con ceived in a Catholic spirit ; but he (Lord John Russell) thought tkat every law which was passed in the reign of Eliza beth was conceived in a Protestant spirit. But had this law produced the happiness which Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked so much about? He thought that a refe rence to history would s h ow that it had not. In the reign of Willi am and Mary, and Queen Anue, great complaints were made as t o t h e operat i on o f t h e new poor- l aw, and frequent applications were made to Parliament for its reform. In the year 1796 passed that law which the Hon. Gentleman had so much commended, but which he (Lord J. Russell) thought contained a great many evils. Did that law meet with general approbation ? So far was this from being the case, that immediately on the termination of the war, Com mittees of Inquiry were appointed on the subject. Various alterations were proposed, but the evils complained of gre w greater and gr eater ; and in 1830 that law, which h a d produced t umu l ts and disorder in the country, was repealed. It was found necessary, in consequence of the state of the country, that a change should be made in the law, and Lord Grey's Government undertook to effect that change. It was very easy for persons to go about saying that by this measure the poor of the country had been deprived of the charity to which they were entitled. The fact was otherwise. It was a degradation to the people to be obliged to live on parish allowance instead of wages, for it reduced them to a state of slav ery, and any law which would have the effect of placing the m aga i n i n a state of indepen dent labour, was likely to prove in the end a blessing to the country. That the law was difficult of operation no one could deny. Th e object of the law was to give a stimulus to labour —to get rid, if possible, of a system of allow ance and wages combined, and to give relief in cases of desti tution. He thought this was a sound principle, and he would be sorry to see it departed from, for if they were to do so, it would be only to bring back the many evils which existed prior to 1830. He was sorry to find that so important a measure as this had been delayed to so late a period of the session. From what he had heard, he could not but wonder that gentlemen should be found to pledge themselves against a law, of the provision s of which they appeared to be quite ignorant. He was glad, however, to find that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State intended to persevere wiih this measure. and he should give his cordial support to it. Mr. STUART WORTLEY explained. Sir W. JAMES opposed the measure, as one not founded upon the principles of justice and morality. The Bishop of Llandaff had told him that the workhouse system under this Bill never would answer the purpose intended. But it was said that it was wrong to agitate upon this subject, because such agitation tended to make the poor discontented and mise • rabic. But he could not agree with that argument, for he was convinced that under the present law the wretchedness of the people was rapidly increasing , and would g o on un l ess th e Legislature returned to the old law. H e k new t h at t h ere were many abuses in the old law which required correction. It would be better to leave the poor entirely to the assistance of private charity, than to lead them to look for such relief as the present law othreomee—aidst repeated cries of ( m Cries of " Divide.") Captain " Divide," said he knew how difficult it wa s t o o bt a i n a hear ing in so impatient a House. But he would rem i n d th e Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, th a t h e h a d p rom i se d, in the earlier stages of the Bill , that he wo u ld g i ve ever y gen tlemangive an opportunity of stating his opinions in the present stage.—(" Go on.") He was willing to' admit that the Bill was greatly modified . Still it retained many clauses which he considered objectionable in the extreme—( Hear, hear) — and, above all, he should feel it his duty to support every proposition for getting rid of the authority of the Commis sioners.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") These gentlemen interfered in the most vexatious way with the local management of the parishes under their control. That interference extended even to the apprenticing of the parish children.--( Hear, hear. ) And they were now attempting to control those parishes which were already so well managed under Hobhouse's Act.--( Hear. ) He would recommend the Government to look at the discon tent which this measure occasioned throughout the country, and the great unpopularity, and many election defeats, which it occasioned to the late Governtnent. He would support the pro position of the Hon. Member for Evesham.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. S. CRA WFORD (who also was received with loud cries of " Divide,") said that on so important an occasion he had a right to claim the attention of the House.—( Hear, hear, and Go on.) He would support the resolution of the lion. Member for Evesham, and he hoped that the Hon. Gentleman would resist any attempts to induce him to alter the terms of it.—( Hear.) Th ose Commissioners possessed the most unconstitutional powers, rendering altogether null and unavail ing the functions of the elective bodies—the boards of guar dians.—( Hear, hear.) The great principle of this Bill was to terrify the poor man, by the horror of the workhouse, from seeking relief until he was in the very last stage of destitution. —( Hear, hear.) In the Tenth Report of the Irish Poor-law Commissioners, it was stated that the law was going on most satisfactorily. But what was the proof the: report gave of this ? Why, that great numbers of people i n the last stage of destitution came to the workhouse so reduced by want, that they died soon after their admission. That was the satisfactory working of the law in Ireland ! People kept out of the work house as long as they could, and until famine overcame their horrors. Was this fair treatment of the working.-classes? Was it not most cruel and inhuman ?—( Cheers.) 'Under this law in England, a new system of giving tickets had grown up, by wcs l m a eoe b laufr o nneb u . t y r rn e y oh r l,i ed — r onh, ,(11,eteCue,pm,t e h te e hun e :, d r i which the farmers wer e ena bl e d to re d uce t h e wages o f t h e i r ' e t c . ch n o )oe t u mr ateBb backre b r ° y e o m u w sa . o t m l ha e ne ad o ; a p )n r (el ylsu pport a tih r i m h n gy and riot, as was th e case i n t h e l atter part o f t h e re i gn o f Henry the Ei g hth, an d d own to t h e t i me w h en t h e present l aw was passed.—( H ear , h ear. ) H e entreate d t h e H ouse to l oo k to the conditi on o f t h e wor ki ng - c l asses at t hi s moment , an d to consider seriou s ly th e c l a i ms o f h uman i ty an d j ust i ce. H e wou ld vote for the re so l u ti ons . p n d o ( o g r ui t bieeemtdichruo:f s r to from e t d h o e n e w f e o a r l t t h h e o f p t o h o e r Lord SAN DON would not trespass long on the House.— (Cheers.) He was glad to hear the workhouse test disclaimed. —( Cheers.) That was not the language which was used in the early debates upon this question.--( Hear, hear.) Much had been said about the inflammatory language used out of doors ; but if it had not b sen for the efforts which had been made to expose the growing evils of the system, there would have been no amelioration of the law, however slight. ( Hear, hear.) He could not admit that the test of extreme destitution was fit to be applied in a country like this.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then read an extract from the report of the Commissioners of Poor-law Inquiry in Scotland, con demnatory of the workhouse and extreme destitution tests. His Right Hon. Friend told the House the evils of the old law, and went through a catalogue of those evils ; but he omitted to state the fact, that all those evils were repro duced under the new law.--( Hear, hear.) He wished now to state why he could not vote for the resolution of the Hon. alember for Evesham, or the motion of the Hon. Member for Bridport ; because he was not prepared all at once to make a total change in the existing system. Mr. WAKLEY thanked the Noble Lord for his speech, which was characterised by a consistency in strong contrast to the inconsistency of many Hon. Gentlemen around him, who obtained their seats on the ground of their opposition to the Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had been consistent in supporting this Bill, but he had supported it under very different faces.—( Hear, and a laugh.) If the destitution test were to be given up, why were the houses of torture to be kept up ?—(Cheers. ) In justice to the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite ( Colonel Wood), who expressed his dissent at the expression, he must admit that in the union in which he resided, the work house was not a house of torture.—( Hear, hear.) The avowed object of the Bill was, in the course of time, to get rid of poor laws altogether. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman still adhere to that opinion ? Any hope of causing, the Act to be repealed was futile. He (Mr. Wakley) was quite sure that no spon taneous act of that. House would do away with it. The leaders of both parties were in favour of it. They lauded each other as practical men—but he ( Mr. Wakley) was convinced they really knew not the state of the country—they knew not what they were doing. Apply to the independent labourers of Eng ! land—those who never yet had applied for relief, but upon whom calamity might come to-morrow—and not one out of a hundred would be found to sanction or to support it. He begged to say he put little faith in those gentlemen who were specially forward on this occasion in I asking for a reconstruction of the Act, for when the work ing classes asked them for their fair portion of power, in order that good laws might be made, those very gentlemen were amongst the first to treat their claim with coldness and with scorn. As to the poor-law itself, he begged to say that its poison was cir culating through the whole social system, and as he ever would tell the truth, he must tell it now, though with pain, that the elected guardians were becoming harsher in their administra sion than the ex-officio guardians and the Poor-law Commis sioners themselves.—( Hear, hear.) It was a fact within his own knowledge, that in several instances where the elected guardians had refused relief, it had only been obtained by the intercession of the ex-officio guardians, or by the direct inter ference of the Poor-law Commissioners themselves.—( Hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM explained. Colonel WOOD ( Brecon) said from his own experience he could assert that the guardians, especially the ex-officio guar dians, were anxious to administer the law fairly and justly between the two parties, the rate-payers and the recipients ; and whenever there was a slight inclination in the scale, it was in favour, as it ought to be, of the latter class. The fact I was that public opinion had greatly underated the operation of the law.—( Hear, hear.) In the first instance it most cer tainly was administered with too high a hand, and in too harsh a spirit, but public opinion had had its legitimate in fluence, and would continue to have it ; and thus directed, in fluenced, and softened, he could safely say, the Bill was work ing well for the poor, and for the rate-payers, and would in the end effect incalculable good to the country.—( Divide. ) Mr. BROTHER TON (amidst loud cries of " Divide," and great uproar) said he had a strong conflict in his own mind as to the vote he should give. He had hitherto invariably opposed the new poor-law. He thought it began at the wrong end. He ob jected to such large powers being given to a body of Commissioners. He disliked the enormous size of the unions and the workhouses, and he felt that the Bill could never be worked in the manufacturing districts. But now, when he found that eighty-five per cent. (as sated by the Home Se-, cretary) of the poor had been relieved out of the workhouse, and when he heard the statements as to the mild way in which the law was now administered, compared with what had been the custom, his views were somewhat altered, and he was now disposed to support the motion for the Speaker leaving the chair, in order that, by getting the Bill into Committee, they might render it a more mild and merciful measure still. The great thing, after all, that the people wanted was not so much a poor-law as plenty of employment, good wages, and cheap food l and, if they had only commenced with these things, they would have found the enactment of a sound poor-law a very easy task indeed.— ( Divide, divide. ) Mr. FERRAND (amid loud cries of " Divide ' divide," " Go on, go on") moved the adjournment of the debate.— ( No, no.) Sir R. PEEL trusted the Hon. Gentleman would make his observations at once. The Government was not compelled to bring in this Bill, but had rather done so to meet the views of those who desired a mitigation of the law. The measure did not go the length that some of these Hon. Gentlemen wished, but in no one point did it render the law more stringent—in many it mitigated it—and yet those who most asked for it were now trying to impede its progress. If such were the case, then all that the Government could do would be to withdraw the Bill.—(Loud cheering ) Lord JOHN MANNERS strongly protested against the language of the Right Honourable Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) and was surprised he had thought proper to use it. For five months they had been discussing every conceivable subject, and now when an adjourned debate was asked for on a Bill the most important to the in terests of the people that could possibly be brought forward, they were threatened with the withdrawal of the measure if their wish for another debate was persisted in. The Govern ment itself had brought forward the Bill at the beginning of the session, and for their own convenience had adjourned it from time to time till the present period ; and now, when fair discussion—and fair discussion alone—was asked for, they were met by threats. He thought such conduct unbecoming in the Government, and most disrespectful to the House and country. Mr. B. ESCOTT strongly urged an adjournment of the debate, that the Bill might be thoroughly discussed. Lord STANLEY said that discussion of the Bill was just what the Government wanted. Bat the fact was, that Hon. Gentlemen had been discussing general principles all the evening, and not the Bill; which ought, properly and strictly, to be the subject of the deliberation of the House. If the measure was to be lost, it would be from a superfluity of talk ing.—(Laughter.) If Hon. Members would consent to legis late without talking, whether they should legislate or not— ( Hear, hear, and laughter)—an advance might be made, and a good practical measure, might be devised in mitigation of the existing system and of great value to the community at large.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. B. COCHRANE complained of the tone adopted by the Noble Lord (Stanley). The Noble Lord said they were not prepared to introduce a Bill, but he believed his Hon. Friend the Member for Evesham was willing to bring in a Bill on the subject.—( Roars of laughter.) Why was not the Bill brought forward at an earlier period of the session ? He should certainly persevere in supporting the motion for adjournment. Mr. P. BORTHWICK likewise complained of the tone and manner of the Noble Lord, as totally unworthy of him.— ( Laughter.) He admitted the talents of the Noble Lord, but did not relish the mode in which they were on this occasion directed.—( Renewed laughter.) The Government had broken faith with the House on this subject. These amendments should have been introduced at an earlier period of the session, and at an earlier period of this evening. It was of the utmost importance that the new poor-law should have a full discus sion, and he did not think it had already received that discus sion. The House then divided on the question of adjournment— For the adjournment Against it Majority On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. FE RRA ND addressing the House. He said, that un less the Government redeemed the pledge they had given, that this measure should be fully discussed, he should feel it his duty to oppose, in every way possible, its going into Committee. Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to explain the course which he had taken in respect to this Bill. In compliance with the request of the Hon. Alember for Finsbury, he had made a general statement of its enactments, at a time when he had not even the draught in his possession. But after the de bate on the second reading, and now after seven hours' de bate, he could not think that the principle had not been fully discussed. He thought that when 219 Members voted against the adjournment, and only 18 gentlemen thought it necessary that an adjournment should take place, it was not necessary to adjourn. 111 r. DUNCOMBE bore full testimony to the correctness of the Right Hon. Baronet's statement, and he believed that for any delay in the measure the House and net the Right Hon. Baronet, were to blame. _ _ Mr. tiORTHNVICK would not move the adjournment him self, but, after what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Secre tary for the Colonies, he would vote with any one who moved it.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The Noble Lord disclaimed any personal allusion to him (Mr. Borthwick), nor had he bean personal in his observations. Sir R. PEEL had so often seen the Hon. Gentleman take a reasonable part, that he had no doubt he would do so on the present occasion.—( Great laughter.) Mr. BORTHNVICK explained, amidst great laughter, and cries of " Spoke, spoke." Mr. FERRAND said that he was induced to move the ad journment, at the request of an Hon. Member, who said he wished to speak, and that his speech would occupy at least an hour.—( Laughter, and cries of " Name, name.") Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Hon. Gentleman might have his opportunity to-morrow, as the discussion would come on at half-past four o'clock.—( Hear, and laughter.) After a few words from Mr. COCHRANE in explanation— The House divided on the main question, when the numbers were— For going into Committee For Mr. Borthwick's amendment ... ......... 19 Majority for going into Committeee... -180 The House then went into Committe, pro forma, and imme diately resumed ; the Bill to be further considered in Com mittee to-morrow (this day. ) The Prisons ( Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed. THE STATE TRIALS. WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 4. THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. This being the day fixed for the hearing of the great appeal case, in the matter of the Queen v. Daniel O'Connell and others, the entrance to the House of Lords was crowded with persons interested in the case. At ten o'clock the Lords present were the Lord Chan cellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, Lord Camp bell, Lord Denman, Lord Auckland, Lord Redesdale, Lord Glenelg, and Lord Camoys. The following Judges were also present :—Sir Nicholas Tyndal, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Maule, Baron Gurney, Baron Al derson, and Baron Parke. The following are the names of the counsel engaged for the Crown :—Sir William Follett, Attorney-General ; Sir F. Thesiger, Solicitor-General ; Mr. T. B. C. Smith, Attorney-General for Ireland ; Mr. H. Waddington, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Smyly. The following are the names of the defendants' counsel :—Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. M. D. Hi!l, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Sergeant F. S. Murphy, Mr. Charles Crompton, Mr. David Leahy, Mr,.John William Smith, Mr. J. S. Close, Mr. B. Peacock, and Sir Colman M. O'Loghlen. Agents—Mr. P. Mahony, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Cantwell. Lord DENBIAN—I more that counsel be called. Counsel having appeared at the bar, The Loan CHANCELLOR (addressing Sir T. Wilde) said—Sir Thomas Wilde, will you state what course you intend to pursue with regard to this case. Sir T. WILDE-1 appear for Daniel O'Connell. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes. Who appears with you? Sir T. WILDE—I believe Mr. Peacock. But your Lordships are aware that there are several defendants in error, who have brought separate writs ; and there are points applicable to some which do not apply to others. With a view to the convenience of the House, I would suggest to your Lordship that Mr. Peacock and myself should appear for Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and with regard to the other defendants, who have different counsel, I would propose that Mr. Hill should be heard for Mr. Steele, and Mr. Kelly for the other defendants. Lord BROUGHAM—That is four counsel in all. Sir T. WILDE—Yes ; and we have also, with a view to the convenience of your Lordships, agreed that, upon several points, we shall not each address your Lordships, but there are others of such importance that each coun sel will address your Lordships upon thein. • The LORD CHANCELLOR—When you come to the re ply, will you reply for all the defendants ? Sir T. WILDE—No, my Lord. My Learned Friends, Mr. Hill and Mr. Kelly, will also address your Lord ships. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then we shall have three replies ? Sir T. WILDE—Yes. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then I would suggest a circumstance material for your consideration, which is, :hat the circuits are fixed fur Wednesday ; and if you do not complete your argument 'before Wednesday, so as to get the opinion of the Learned Judges before that time, it will be impossible to finish during the present session. Sir T. WILDE—We will bear in mind the importance of getting the opinion of the Judges before that time ; and with that view we will compress our argument ac , much as possible, and as much as is consistent with justice. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Having stated the actual position of things, I must leave it to your own judg ment and consideration, to, take that course which you think best. Lord BROUGHAM—There are but four days altogether, but do not understand that the maximum should be ne cessarily the minimum. The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Judges will probably require a day to consider the arguments, so that prac tically you will only have three days. Lord BROUGHAM—That is only if they are necessary. The ATTORNEY GENERAL (for England)—l do not understand ycur Lordships to determine that there shall be three replies in this case. The LORD CHANCELLOR—In strictness, each party is entitled to a separate reply by counsel, and as there are, I believe, nearly ten parties— Lord BROUGHAM—Seven. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Seven, is it? Well, as there are seven parties, strictly speaking, seven counsel ought to be heard, that is one for each. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England) MS about to interpose with some observation, when he was inter rupted by Lord CAMPBELL—When there are several plaintiffs in error, each has a right to be heard by himself and his counsel. If that were not the case, injustice would frequently be done. In strictness, each party has a right to be heard by himself or his counsel. In the present case I understand that it is proposed that some arrange ment should bo entered into with the view, if possible, of saving time. The proposal, I believe, was that the counsel for one party should not re-argue points which had been already argued. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—lt is 11 matter of indifference to me whether four or four-and twenty counsel are heard. I believe the ordinary rule is that the Crown has the right of reply. The Learned Gentleman was here interrupted in his argument by the Lord Chancellor, who called Lora I Brougham and Lord Campbell to the table, and a long consultation followed between the Lord Chancellor, Lord Denman, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—lt iS usual in cases of this nature for all the parties to join in one writ of error. In the present case each party has sued out a sep crate writ of error, and in consequence of their pursuing this unusual course each party claims the right of appearing by separate counsel. Lord BaoucHAst—ln civil cases we always make par ties consolidate their appeals. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—The course which has been adopted in this case is most unusual. Sir-T. WILDE—Your Lordships will perceive that in this case there have been several different findings. One party has been convicted of one offence, and another party of another, and the Attorney-General asks why the parties did not join in one writ of error ? Simply, because the errors assigned in one case differ from those assigned in another. My Learned Friend says that the parties wished to appear - by separate counsel. Possibly that might be the case, and it would be unfair to deprive a person of the right of appearing by the counsel in whom he might place confidence. Lord BROUGHAM—I would suggest, Sir Thomas Wilde, that you should try to shorten the case as much as possible, and I do this, not for the sake of the House, not for the sake of the Crown, but for the sake of the plain tiffs in error. You have only five days, including Saturday, and it is for your interest that the Judges should give their opinion before they . go on circuit. Sir T. WILDE—We must endeavour to take care of our own interests. Each party has clearly a right to appear by his own counsel, as he would have a right to be heard himself if were present. The defendants, severally, have been convicted ; they are severally suf fering the penalty of imprisonment, and they have seve rally the right to appear before your Lordships. If they have not that right, the Attorney-General is too late now in taking his objection. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—l am not objecting to the defendants appearing by as many coun sel as they may , think proper ; but holding the office which I do, I think it right to draw your Lordships' at tention to the right to reply claimed for the plaintiffs in error. I believe that, in strictness, the Crown is always entitled to reply. At all events, there ought not to be these replies en the other side, or the replies should be conducted upon the principle which my Learned Friend laid down, that two counsel should not reply on the same points ; but I submit that they are not entitled to reply. Lord CAMPBELL—I had occasion to hear that in a writ of error for the Exchequer in a revenue case it was ruled that the plaintiff in error was entitled to reply. In Frost's case, in which I was Attorney-General, the counsel for the prisoner replied, and each had a sepa rate reply. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is unnecessary to deter mine that point at present. As the case is now stated, I understood Sir T. Wilde to say that no counsel will • touch upon any points which have been argued by his predecessor. Sir T. WILDE—I would not wish to deprive Mr. _O'Connell of the benefit of any points which may be raised by other counsel ; but, without pledging myself strictly to any arrangement of that nature, we will gene rally endeavour to abide by that rule. The LORD CHANCELLOR—That separate counsel shall confine themselves to separate points ? Sir T. WlLDE—Precisely so. The Loan CHANCELLOR—If the Attorney-General has a right to reply on the whole case, we can consider that point hereafter—at present we hate nothing to eo with it. Sir T. WILDE—My Lords, I appear for Daniel O'Con nell, who, in conjunction with other defendants has been found guilty on an indictment, charging him with con spiracy. On that indictment he comes before your Lordships in error, and various errors are assigned. I will now state to your Lordships the objections which, as far as I am concerned,l intend to urge against this convic tion. The present is an indictment for conspiracy, which contained 11 counts. The first count charged, " that it was the intent of the plaintiffs in error, to raise and ' create discontent and disaffection among her Majesty's subjects, and to excite such subjects to hatred and con tempt of the Government and Constitution of the realm as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious op position to the said Government and Constitution. To stir up jealousies, hatred and between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of and hostility towards and against her Majesty's subjects in the other parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in that part of the United Kingdom called England. To excite discontent and disaffection amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army. So to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and procuring, divers subjects of her Majesty unlawfully, malicigusly,and sedi tiously to meet and assemble together in large numbers at various times and at different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the government, laws, and constitu tion of the realm by law established. To bring into hatred and disrepute the courts by law established in Ireland for the administration of justice, and to diminish the confidence of her Majesty's subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to in duce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudica tion of their differences with and claims upon each other from the cognisance of the said courts GAMING DISCONTINUANCE BILL. Lord PA LNIERSTON moved the second reading of the Gaming Discontinuance Bill. Mr. CHRIST 1E opposed it, and moved its postponement. Sir 11. PEEL thought the Bill should be read a second time. After a few words from Mr. Duncombe, Lord Palmerston, and Sir 11. Peel, The House divided on the question of adjournment, when there appeared— For the postponement Against it Majority The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted on Vednesday next. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Two o'clock. THE LI6HTNING.--(From a Correspondent.)—As Mr. Edward Johnson, of 14, Stebonheath-terrace, Lime house, was sitting up in bed reading, where he has been con fined through illness more than two months, he was struck by lightning, on Monday night, which dashed the papers from him, and entering his fingers ran up his arms to his neck and down his breast, where the lightning seemed to be fixed, aid burning.with great heat for nearly half an hour; his hands were violently stunned, and his whole frame much shaken. Be describes the, shock as similar to that felt by dipping the fingers into the electrified water at the Adelaide Gallery, but much more violent. On Wednesday morning he was much better, by law established, and to submit the same ~ I C the judgment an d d eterm i nat i on of other tribit." -*- 7 ' •-•'‘--- , nals to be constituted and contrived for that- purpese.T, • ..7 . 7:, That was the charge in the indictment ;it thenasetlioW _ *V.:: ) a vast number of overt acts, among which w e itttent o i; ing and assembli ng a l arge number of persona ' eir . t (----- January and October, 1843, am' making va ••la S_Ai ANT tious and inflammatery speeches at those meetings, and during that period causing those speeches to be pub- • I lished in various newspapers. The overt acts ran to a • great length, but he had state,l accurately the subject of the first count. The second count is the same as the • first, omitting the overt acts. The third count is the same as the second, save that in the fourth charge the words " unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously," are omitted. The fourth count is the same as the third, omitting the charge as to the army, The fifth count contains the first and second charges set forth in the first count; omitting the overt acts. The sixth count contains the fourth charge set forth in the first count, omitting the words " unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi tiously," and the overt acts. The seventh count is the same as the sixth, adding the words, "and especially by the means - aforesaid to bring - about and accom plish a dissolution of the Legislative union now subsisting between Great Britain and Ireland." The eighth count contains the fifth charge set forth in the first count, omitting the overt acts. The ninth count, contains the fifth charge set forth in the first count, omitting the intent therein charged and the overt acts, but adding the following charge (that is to say) : "And, to assume and usurp the prerogative of the Crown in the establishment of courts for the administration of taw." The tenth count is the same as the eighth, omit ting the intent stated in th e fifth c h arge i n t h e fi rst count. Th eleventh count charges the supposed conspiracy to be to cause and procure meetings in divers places, and at. divers times, in Ireland, "and by means of unlawful, seditious, and inflamatory speeches and addresses to be made and delivered at such meetings, and also, by means of the publishing and causing and procuring to be pub lished, to and amongst her Majesty's subjects, divers malicious, unlawful, and seditious writings and composi tions, to intimidate the Lords spritual and temporal, and the Commons'of the. Parliament of the United Kingdom, and thereby to. effect and bring about changes and alte rations in the laws and constitution of the realm as now 'by law established." Such were the several counts. The record then proceeded to state the finding of the jury .upon the several counts. The parties, when called upon to plead, pleaded in abatement; they pleaded that the bill ' was found by the grand jury upon the evidence of witnesses that had not been properly sworn in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland. These pleas in abatement were over-ruled,-and the defendants then pleaded not guilty, and upon that plea issue was joined, and the trial Was appointed for a certain day. On that any, on the jury being called, Mr. O'Connell challenged the array. Mr. O'Connell says "that the said several lists respectively were by the said Recorder at the said ;pedal sessions duly corrected, allowed and signed by the said Recorder, pursuant to the statutable enactments in such case made and provided, and that the several persons whose names arc hereinafter mentioned were then and there adjudged by the said Recorder to have • the_ qualification hereinafter named, and that the names of the said several persona were then and there contained- in the said several lists so corrected, allowed and signed as aforesaid; but the said Daniel O'Connell says that the said Recorder did not, as by the said statutable enactments is directed, cause to be made out from said several last-mentioned lists one general list containing the names of all persons whose qualifications had been so allowed, arranged ac cording to rank and property, nor did the said Rcorder thereupon or at all deliver such general list containing such names to the Clerk of the Peace to be fairly copied by said Clerk of the Peace in the same order as by the said statutable enactments is directed, but on the contrary thereof omitted so to do. And the said Daniel O'Connell further says, that a certain paper writing purporting to be a general list, purporting to be made out from such several lists so corrected, al lowed and signed as aforesaid, was illegally and frau dulently made out by some person or persons unknown." T. that challenge the Attorney-General of her Majesty in Ireland demurred. So likewise the several defendants all presented their challenges, and to their respective challenges a like demurrer was filed. The record pro ceeded to state that those demurrers .were overruled, and judgment given for the Crown. It then proceeded to state the empannelling of the jury, and their being sworn to speak the truth. The appearance of the parties was then set forth. It then proceeded to aver that the jury found the verdict upon the indictment, which verdict was contained in page 76 and the following pages. The first finding was that eight of the defendants (there was a ninth, who was dead) were guilty of so much of the indictment as charged that they unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously endeavoured to create disaffection among the subjects of the Queen, and to excite hatred and eontempt of the Government ; that they " did conspire - with each other" which words would 'be found material in a future stage of this ' argument—and with divers other persons whose names were unkown, to raise discontent, and to excite contempt of the Government, and to create jealousies between different classes of her Majesty's subjects. In fact, the whole eight were found guilty of the charges set forth ,n the first and second counts. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the particulars of the finding of the jury, and the sentence of the Court. In page 80, a writ of error, coram nobis, was set forth. It appeared that the Attorney-General did not take issue upon that, but he joined, and, after the case had been argued, the Court held that the error was not well assigned, and that there was no error in truth, and gave judgment for the Crown. My Lords, continued the Learned Counsel, upon that judgment, given by the Court below, and also upon the judgment originally given, writs of error have been brought. My Lords, upon this record several objec tions appear to arise. I will state to your Lordships what these objections are:—ln the first place, it is meant to be insisted that these counts are too generally framed to be properly the subject of an indictment ; that the judgment was not formed upon evidence sworn as required by the statute ; that the jury was not pro perly constituted ; that judgment had been passed upon more offences than are charged in 'the indictment, than have been presented by the grand jury, and than have been pleaded by the defendants ; and that will apply to the first, second, and third counts.;- that with respect to the verdicts of acquittal in certain insances, no proper judgment has been pronounced. Lord CAMPBELL here put a question to the Learned Counsel which was inaudible in the gallery. Sir T. WILDE—It is insisted that these counts are bad, for the reason I have stated, their being too gene rally framed, and not stating an indictable offence ; and it is contended that, if any one of the counts is bad, the judgment must be reversed altogether. The LORD CHANCELLOR—De you make that a sepa rate position ? Sir T. WILDE—I don't know that it is a separate posi tion; it is stated ratherby way of answer to anything that may be urged, supposing the argument should not sa tisfy your Lordships that the whole of the counts are bad. We mean tosinsist that if any one is bad the judg ment cannot be sustained. It is then stated that the judgment is unlawful, inasmuch as the parties are rc• quired to be in prison, not only till.-they have paid their own fines and given their own recognizances, but also till the others have paid their fines and given their re cognizances. Thirdly, the judgment requires the pri soners to give security for their good behaviour for seven years, but it does not say from what period that seven years is to commence. The judgment is also defective in its form in not stating where and when the jury was sworn, and it is also alleged that there is an uncertainty whether the jury was sworn, or whether they merely affirmed ; and if they affirmed it is not stated that they were of 'that description of persons whose affirmation would qualify them to be upon the jury. It is also stated that whether the jury was sworn or affirmed they did not do so in the legal words, " we do solemnly affirm," which are in the statute, but "we affirm" simply. It is also stated that the order for the continuance of the trial out of term is also informal, and that there is a discontinuance on the record. These are the points. that will be presented to your Lordships, and it is my intention principally to ad dress myself to the character of the indictment and the effect of the finding of the jury, and to insist that with respect to the finding it is erroneous in several particu lars, upon grounds that entitle the defendants to the judgment of the Court. This, my. Lords, is, I believe, the first time that an indictment for conspiracy has come before your Lordships for judgment. The LORD CHANCELLOR—AIIow me to ask, Sir Thomas Wilde, if your statement includes - all the points that are to be argued by all the Counsel ? Sir T. WILDE—They do, my Lord. I am not aware, my Lord, that I have omitted any. I was stating that this is the first time that an indictment for conspiracy has come before your Lordships for judgment. The nature of an indictment and conspiracy has always been the subject of much comment, and I have never con versed with any legal :authority wlio did not express himself with respect to the form of such an indict ment, that it was inconsistent with justice. The foundation of law on this subject seems to have been the 33d of Edward 1., and I be lieve there was no attempt made. to prosecute any one for a conspiracy from that time down to the trial of the seven Bishops. They were tried for an offence similar to one of the charges in this indictment ; the seven Bishops were tried for attempting to encroach on the royal prerogative, by the presentation of a certain peti tion. There was a charge in this indictment for en croaching on the royal prerogative, by creating courts of justice. From the time of - the seven Bishops to the year 1796 there was no indictment for any conspiracy to commit a political offence. Mr. Redhead Yoske was the first person tried on such an indictment, but one count of it charged him with a riot, and being found guilty of that it was useless for him to contest the le gality of the indictment. The next case was that of Henry Hunt, he was charged on one count with attend ing an unlawful assembly. Mr. Hunt defended himself, so was not competent to contest the legal form of the indictment on which lie was tried. That case brings us down to a very modern period. The LORD CHANCELLOR—WAS Mr. Hunt only con victed on one count ? Lord BROUGHAM —Was he sent to prison for 30 months for attending an unlawful assembly ? Sir T. NVILDE —For a conspiracy for procuring and attending an unlawful assembly. When your Lordships consider the great expense attending the prosecution of a writ of error before this House, you will perceive that it is not in the power of many defendants to contest or impeach the form of an indictment and conspiracy. The Courts of Westminster Hall would not feel inclined to deal with such a question, but before this tribunal parties are justified in bringing it. And it is one of the most important duties of this House in its appellate jurisdiction to review the law as it is laid down and acted on in the courts below, or as it may have been retained and acted on till challenged as informal. I think the form of this kind of indictment is utterly inconsistent with justice, and at variance with all the principles of justice, which re. A"°" ,nvul• and Is the L-ssion con y the were quite issing then man, that then ri and than r (111 ush low , nt o then o af' , Of a 001 ai - ‘1 A i