The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

76 ter' THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING JULY 6, 1844. tali'EltlAL PA 11,LIANIEN'f. I..OUSE 0 F LQRVS, July 5. __Their Lordship re-assembled for Parliamentary business at Five o'clock, when the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack.' MORGCCO. The Earl of MIN TO sail he rose for the purpose of Putting the question, of which he had given notice, respecting the naval force to the coast of Morocco. He understood the mediation of this country between France and Morocco had been rejected, and, though he deeply regretted it, he was not surprised that such should be the case, because he did not think they had placed themselves in such a position as to afford to any weak State that assurance of their support which symptoms of preparation on their part would afford. The i n d ependence of Morocco could not be an object of indif ference to th a t H ouse, for there were positions on the coast of that empire which would be most injurious and dangerous to the interests of this country if they fell into the hands of any other .State, and a pl ace o f importance in the neighbourhood of that Coast, the isla n d o f Minorca would be placed in jeopardy. Be would have felt less anxiety on this subject It he could find anywhere in this country the means of making I display of strength on that coast. But the naval force of the ; Country was so reduced, that he did not know where his Noble Friend opposite could look for the means of producing an unpressioa there. Negotiations were good, but it was necessary they should be backed by some force— (Rear, hear)—and he had the highest authority in that oes R s e. that o f t h e Noble Duke opposite, fur such an opin on. i Ana debate on the 14th of August, 1838, on the state of their etnnmer eial relations, th e N o bl e D u k e sa id he considered the !Ti n to of th ose relations was owing, in a great degree, to the ex tensive weakne ss an d totter i ng con di t i on of their naval esta borce l ish ment ; and, fu r th er on , h e sa id h e considered t he naval of the country to be in too feeble and tottering a condition e . an swer the p urpose i nten d e d, o f g i v i ng p ro t e ction to I t commercial interests in all parts of the globe. Such "as the lang uage of the Noble Duke in the fear •; 3 •ti, at a time when they had eighteen sail of the commission in every part of the world, besides a it s serve at home of four or five ships of the line; but thei! " f ar different now, though it was quite obvious filer e were questi ons pen di ng , no t , on ly with regard to Thoceo, but with regard to the Oregon and Texas. present Government had succeeded to a fleet of twenty t i ro i „ Piof the line. They were justified in making some redue rin that numbe because there had not been of late the ionluslyneece'ssi tY for keeping r up a great naval force as had pre wiedos a r med. But they had made reductions to a degree se nt ~,i ' 4 l° re had never been known or dreamt of. At the pre line, e - , ° , 4 '. e !at there was not in commission a single ship of the Were ni ne ` h os e employed as flag-ships for admirals. There Mom, e a utPs of the line only in commission at the present ladle n • Of these two were in the East Indies, one in the West ra s; an d there ' were three guard-ships. In the Mediter th"san fleet there was only one ship of the line, and that was entonsis-tmedP be e e ; a ."tPl and there w as the Albion, which had recently e tol o e n d ly as the flag ship at Cork. The navy of England nine ships of the line, and that at a time when gr e e a , t ate of affairs abroad was such as necessarily to create the bet th e anxiety. He did not say there was any danger of war pee 2,,ne Manner in which the solution of the questions at present `2 (l ng would be brought about, would depend greatly t° , l! the respect in which we were held, and that respect i i 0 5 .1 . 1d be increased by our keeping up a respectable naval force. a _eped his Noble Friend would tell them that he had re tfi;rers to appeal to. Considering the present state of French fleet, we ought to have have an increased eet the M e dit err anean. We ought not to abdi epait; the com man d o f t h e M e dit erran ean entirely to e , - ;T n ee. but s till to ma i nta i n our power i n th a t sea. Not - 1 7 y had hi s N o bl e Fr i end reduced t h e number of the ships of Sessels but he had also reduced the number of smaller ( Hear, hear.) He besought their Lordships to recollect all that had been said on former occasions as to the necessity of keeping a resrve at home for the protection o f our own shores. He had e not any apprehension of any at tack on our own shores, but he regretted the Nuetions which had taken place in the naval force 1 the Mediteranean. He could not see without uneasiness m e or rommad of the naval foreedestined by France to act against occo co n nfided to the Prince de Jeenville. Hewould re irai- n from saying a n ythi ng re fl ec ti ng on t h e c h aracter or con 'et of his Royal g lli hness but their Lordships c o uld no t b u t trbee_olleet what had passed on ' a former occasion, and k n owi ng 1.17 sentiments which had recently been expressed by his Royal N e i g bi ntess__ lie saw his appointment with regret. The vhic i t e Earl concluded by putting the question of °, he had given notice, namely, If it was the Inc i a tton of her Majesty's Government to adopt any, wie.what, measures to send to the coast of Morocco or else .e such naval force as may su ffi ce for the protection of British inter ? T he ests . q , e 7 ti Earl of lIADDINGTON was prepared to answer the sending e n of which t h e N oble Earl had given notice as to the , e , a Briti s h f orce to Morocco. Earlti of 11 11NTO had yesterday given notice of his ques iasl.'2 he exact terms in which he had put it, and it was so of `sC.teat! in the votes. H e h a d un d erstoo d t h at t h e S ecretary would communicate his motion to his Noble Friend. t P re cise e E l i i s a o r t of °GH AM—Read, read. MINTO then read the notice from the votes in T he words :n which he had put the question. nut he arl of lIADDINGTON had nut read the votes. Riven__,;:ould take the Noble Earl's question in the terms f N4erneeo or elsewhere. They had heard the . speech o Its q uest ! Earl wh which he thought proper to introduce tlueSt' 4, to vs. Th e practice of making long speeches in putting wa s thich , a ," a most inconvenient one, and one a 'oet the Noble Earl was very partial. He a Peech t o re • al Illy t o the Noble Earl's question, not to his about t o at l he ich I pe t had any idea . that the Noble Earl was it ° e force of question respecting the distribution of the neeessar British navy, he should have thought befor e h y to re fresh his memory as to details e cam e ng speech l e ever was down to answer . that statement. , more taken by surprise in h is life than by the Earl ought to m ade Ila that h s the olunibus rebus, connected with the British navy, had been Secretes by the Noble Earl. He thought the Noble th e Much of dipl omat f ye waited for the presence of his Noble Friend vernment leavTnacY-Te Foreig n Affairs, as his speech involved so Th e Noble Earl complained of the Go near'. the g D— Y one ship of the line in the Alediterra th h time that taken there was not the g test c h ance , step was e ' th e occurrences taking place Itheieh. had been lately threat e d It was not supposed by to haveid ritish Government, tthanet ne because the French chose thi s a sailing squadron in the :Mediterranean, that therefore sho uld retr y was to follow their example The Noble Earl se a ' In recollect, too that the Mediterranetin was not a distant ! e n answer to the question of the Noble Earl, he begged to fo . r i that her Nlajesty's Government had sent to Morocco such ees as they thou g ht th e c i rcumstances required, and if it was meet'"s it was in their power to add to that force. With re to elsewhere, he begged to state that the Govern 10t had such forces in every station as they had Th'ught right for the preservation of British interests. of had greatly increased their force on the Coast od Africa. Ships had been sent out, and others had been or ,ered there, and nothing would have prevented them from l e r n e il e in them out before lint the necessity of having a force in th, 'LI. He thought that he had proved that the statement . of in t "° lsl e Earl that Ministers had neglected British e ' r ests, in all parts of the world, was totally without founds- As he had stated before, the Government had sent such . i '' r e e S . to :Morocco as they thought the circumstances ye ll . r ti, and that they would add to these forces if necessary. lusted, however, that the anticipated events in Morocco 'An slot take place. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. 14essage from the Commons, consisting of Sir George th,:kand other Members, brouht up the Bank Charter Bill, id,eb slreland) 1. ,.`: 'sons' Discipline (Scotlan d ) Bill), the Linen Manufac- Bill, the Education of the Poor Bill, T h _ a rFis, Leith, and Granton Bill, and several other Bills. Lord C ampbe ll , Marqs of Londonderry, the Earl of Rosebery, and 7 hc i. rose simultaneously to address the House. Chancelloarquii of LONDONDERRY appealed to the Lor d . ormii r whether he had not a right to address their eu s ,i oe. Pa On the subject which had just been under dia 1, T be LOet Th e -ad be g , CHANCELLOR said that, as the irregularity E a : e did not know where it was to terminate. bo re , , n : 1 of H ADDINGTON hoped that this would be to " al , in future. They often had Noble Lords rising th,1 10.., ' l e or six times when there was no question before and sometimes when there was a question. te , s 7, Marqui s of LONDONDERRY said he begged to that the Noble Earl's returns be printed.— (Laughter.) ta,:vas' surprised to see the extreme sensitiveness of the Noble Afte i r with regard to the force in the Mediterranean. fr,ei the N o b clear statement which they bad heard Aff a i rs " Noble Lord the Secretary of State, for Foreign n ation s e n a previous occasion—after the e.xpla creet 3 which had been made , he thought it was highly melts had to re -open the subject. ' The Noble Earl (Aberdeen) het ~,e9rldueted public affairs, not only with credit to himself, jasti_elth advantage to the country. He thought that it was but t_o_ the Noble Earl to make these remarks.—(" Move.") sp, e "4 Earl of MINTO said the Noble Marquis had made his Th e A f°n an intimation that he was about to move. ' r aw h. ar quis of LONDONDERRY said he would with - Th motion. —(Laughter.) b een te"aidartinis of LANSDOWNE said that the motion had e , L , and it cou ld not now b e withdrawn. lip CHANCELLOR said no motion had been ecres s Vo , tl u he could not put a nonentity.—(Laughter, and Question, question.") P b r'in ' t i„‘", A ! \I PBELL rose to move the order of the day for Committe e on the Law of Libel Act Amendment Was Th e en re Earl ROSEBERY said, before the order of the day p _awri, he wished to state that, in consequence of leaving - ` ) Mosis t e e w ctold not be able to act as a Member of the Secret The b e ,on the Post-office. E s , 4 l l , t e of WELLINGTON then proposed that the rl . t. ," of A ' 'name should be withdrawn, and that that of the Lore should be substituted. BR OUGHAMb said his Noble Kinsman would, no „i' l ' o int t :. a n excellent member of the Committee; but his - " a solu e h -nt would be a deviation from the principle laid down, Lo rd a ' he was formerly a Cabinet Minister. N c e h A I NI PRELL sai object n d - that objec would equally apply and Learned Friend.—( Great laughte) Mitt ee. a rne of Lord Auckland was then added to r t e Com opposed to the Bill ; and he admitted that the majority of the puisue judges were against it. He entertained the very highest respect for the opinions of those venerable magistrates, but he must confess, that he would much rather ask them how the law is, than how it ought to be.—( Hear, hear.) The con stant practice of any system blinded the most acute to its defects ; and there was a difficulty in throwing aside an old system, with which persons had became thoroughly acquainted and adopting a new one. It was but right to say that those same Judges had, with one exception, given it as their opinion that the Bill for allowing counsel to pri soners was unjust and unnecessary ; although now, he believed, they all admitted that it was a splendid improvement of the law. His Noble and Learned Friend would also recollect that the Judges almost unanimously opposed the mitigation of the penal code. When the Bill was brought in making forgery no longer a capital crime, the majority of the Judges foretold that it would be followed by a vast increase in the crime of forgery, and by the destruction of commercial credit. They had been equally hostile, equally unanimous, and equally zealous against the Bill of last year, which had been adopted unanimously by their Lordships, and all but unanimously by the other House of Parliament. Now, with regard to the exclusion of the truth in cases of libel, it should be remembered that it was only judge-made laws. There was no Act of Parliament, there was no imme morial usage to be pleaded in support of the practice. All the decisions on the subject were fluctuating and contradictory. It was only in 1792, that it had been declared to be law. In the reign of Charles 11., Judge Pemberton had allowed the truth to be given in evidence in a case of libel, en a charge that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey had killed himself. In 1702, in the case of the King v. Fuller, which was a prose cution for a seditious libel, Lord Holt had urged the defendant to give evidence of the truth of the libels. "If your state ments are true," said Lord Holt, addressing the defendant, " bring forward you; witnesses, and I will hear them." The first case in which evidence of the truth was excluded, was the case of the King v. Franklin, tried before Chief Justice Wrenne in 1731. In 1777, on the trial of Horne Tooke, before Lord Mansfield, the defendant was permitted to give evidence of the truth of his statements. His case broke down, and so the pro secutors had reason to rejo'ce that the evidence had been ad mitted. lt was not until Mr. Fox's Libel Bill was passing through that House, that the judges gave it as their opinion that the truth could not be admitted. Yet, en that very occa sion, they declared one thing to be law, which the Parliament, in that very Bill, declared to be not law. He trusted, there fore, their Lordships would not hesitate to adopt this improve ment, and complete the law of last year. There was one ex ception made by the Bill, and only one ; and that was in con formity with the maxim of the law, which declared that the Sovereign could do no wrong. He therefore excluded from the operation of the Bill all personal attacks on the Sove reign. With regard to the procedure to be adopted, he proposed that as it was in many cases of public libel impossible to separate matters of fact from matters of com ment, so as to enable a justification to be pleaded, as in cases of private libel; that, in these cases of public libel, the defendant should give notice to the prosecutor of his intention to prove the truth of his assertions, and that the facts should go to the jury, who, if they should be of opinion that the facts were un true, or that the defendant had been influenced by bad motives. woull find him guilty. The judges, although they disapproved of the principle, admitted that this was the best method of carry ing at out. The law had been almost forgotten, in consequence of the mildness of the executive administrati lh o ae n w , ,c h ao u nn t ds t id h ne e or l te a db w yt s ht t ha il et l remained, and might b e rev i ve d a t a ny tim e . H e trusted their ELonrgdlisshhimpsenwoouugldhtptaosshothldisthmeirsrigurhe,ts b for he forbearance of the public prosecutor. The LORD CHANCELLOII. opposed the measure as one calculated to do great evil. It was sufficient to refer to the opinion of the judges to know that the law of England excluded evidence of the truth in these cases, and he imagined that those learned persons had declared what the law always had been, and not merely what it was at the time they had declared it. In an action for damages, the defendant might plead the truth as justification, and the judge state to the jury the nature of the libel, the nature of the justification, and told them if they were of opinion the justification had been made out, they must acquit the defendant. If the prose cution was by indictment, by the late measure justification could also be pleaded. In these cases the functions of the judge and of the jury were clearly defined. The object of public libels was to isicite to a breach of the public peace, or to bring the Government into contempt. It was no defence of such conduct that the libels were true—that would possibly only increase their evil effects. Now if the course proposed by this Bill ,were to be adopted, if only one fact alleged could be proved true, it would be competent to the jury to find the defendant not guilty, at their caprice and discretion. Their imaginations might be influenced by an artful address, and if only one part were proved it would be competent to hem to return a verdict of acquittal. It was putting in the hands of juries an uncontrolled power, which might lead to great abuses in the administration of justice. Notice would be given in every case in order to secure the opportunity of making an in flammatory address to the jury. Parties prosecuted fur these seditious libels generally were persons who fancied themselves orators, and defended themselves, and how did they defend themselves ? Why generally by a repetition of the calumnies. Now the judge could interrupt him, and prevent his going on, but would that be the case if this Bill were to become law ? Why, a party might come into a court of justice and repeat the charge, and the judges could not interfere in any way. The party said he should offer evidence of the truth of the charge, and the judge was bound to sit silently and hear it. W ell, then he offers in evidence some vague rumours ; he is told the court cannot receive it, and the jury find a verdict of ac quittal. Such would be the effect of his Noble Friend's Bill. When a man was vilified, was he not to appear in a court of justice, was net that the height of injustice, and what was the answer to this? Why, that the. Attorney-General will con duct his defence. This was one of the principles of his Noble Friend's Bill. He was sure, if their Lordships considered the subject, notwithstanding all the praises of his Noble Friend of his own Bill, they would feel assured that it was impossible to pass the Bill consistently with a due regard to justice. Under the provisions of the Bill the whole of the Royal Family might be libelled with impunity, and under it the character and conduct of a foreign sovereign might be put in issue in the courts of this country. Such were the consequences of his Noble Friend's Bill, that he felt called upon to propose that the Bill should be read a third time that day three months. Lord BROUGHAM supported the third reading of the Bill. He must confess that he was not a little alarmed when his Noble Friend rose from the Woolsack to address the House immediately after his Noble Friend who had moved the third reading of the Bill. But his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had relieved him of much of Isis anxiety by the ar guments he had used, for they rather made for his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Campbell) than against him.—(Hear, hear.) The appeal to the law by his Noble Friend might have done a few years ago, but it would be of no avail now. As the law now stood, his Noble Friend behind him ( Lord Camp bell., and his Noble Friend at the table (Lord Monteagle), might join together to libel him (Lord Brougham)—they Might give as much evidence against him as they pleased, he being out of Court. Such was the law as it now stood, but by the law as it was ndw proposed, no such thing could happen, because the Attorney-General would prosecute the parties, and would• rebut the libel by preying its falsehood. The Noble and Learned Lord having most humorously described the manner in which a defence was got up to a charge of libel, observed that it was always assumed that the truth could be proved, while under the present law it was impossible to do it. He had known juries, over and ever again, prevailed upon to give verdicts against the truth of the case. The law, as it at present existed, exposed juries to the arts and stratagems and declamations of counsel. The Government, as the law now stood, always went into Court with a stain upon it. Let their Lordships look to the case of Sir Arthur Piggot. He charged the Lords of the Admiralty with sending over troops in unsea worthy ships, and if that prosecution had been proceeded with, if it bad gone to trial, it would have been impossible, as the law now stood, for them to have defeated the slanderer, and have proved the truth of the libel, as the evidence that would have been offered for that purpose would have been re jected. He was some time ago counsel in a case against the clergy of Durham, he dil all he could to procure a verdict. He got the jury to take three or four hours to consider their ver dict ; they at last found a special verdict, rather for than against him, and the detendant was never brought up for judg ment. If the law had been in the state in which it was now proposed to place it, the case need not have occupied ten minutes. If there was any one principle in English law which was clear and understandable, it was that whatever tended to keep the public opinion with the law, and against the criminal, was wholesome, and that whatever tended to set it against the prosecutor, and against the law, was to be deplored. Never had he seen any man brought up for judgment in such a case without public sympathy being in his favour. The object of this Bill was not to make public libel defensible, but only to provide that the case should be left with the jury, His Noble and Learned Friend said there ought to be an ex ception in the Bill with respect to forei g n Princes. With re spect to the Sovereign of this country, the reason for the excep tion was obvious. As, according to the laws of this country, the Sovereign was unimpeachable, it would be perfectly incon sistent to allow evidence to be adduced. There was not one of the objections of his Noble and Learned Friend to the present Bill, which would not have equally applied to the Bill of last year. TERf art e re D uk , BANK CHAR. C motion o f the eof WELLINGTON BILL , the Bank th e N o b r i e ni „ ll was read a fir s t time and ordered to be printed, ott T„"""a next uuke stating that he would take the second reading Th e m PUBLIC HEALTH. day 'arquis of NORINIANI3Y gave notice that, Majesty th o i n s th e :'..eek , he should move a humble address to her - .matory condition of the people a Lo r d LAW OF LIBEL. 'it'd r He CAMPBELL moved the order of the day Bill. He the hid h e , s a ing of the Law of Libel Act Amendment r 13 tak e i .,` ti me had at last arrived when their . Lo H d o sh h ip ad s h h a o d pe t d o that t:.'le_ensideration this important Bill 0 1l th:t Lordships would have agreed to it, as he had th e .._ same principles as the Apt of last session, but in being founded ,_rinortification of understanding that it was to be opposedliast 4 si rs entiiled to the highest respect. In the Bill _ e. f (14 their Lordships dealt with the subject of private d i4 .4l ,: a h t r i °_ ,, ,. it passed a Bill with the double object of protect tiaZisti..;te character and punishing slanderers. quete.,ect Ufa of stating that that Bill worked well.Hel hactiontshoe. *eekl more stringent enactments, more than one sla n nderous az a i r Y. Paper had been dropped, and frivolous prosecutions of ..list erjourl had been checked. The great principle ,t_it Bill was that it admitted the plea of the truth of a fact tof,lriustilication on a charge of libel. This plea had been here plea er,t'acluded, both before the jury and after the . verdict, as a sid eti : the mitigation of punishment. Nay, it was con the ''' In aggravation of the offence, for the maxim arose . , Lo r d s g jNer the truth the greater the libel. Their a d e '' pa W ere shocked at such a doctrine, and enacted, that if ft r et:endant proved a thing to be true, and that he published it tl ' ,i s n e. Public good, he should be entitled to an acquittal. But i ii .,, 17triciple applied only to private cases and actions between I..'.u.vidttals. With regard to Government prosecutions, the old Iptern still prevailed. His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord (I r r a i i h m), in the letter which he had addressed to Sir James c alli aiil, complained of this defect in the law. He (Lord th,,P:!'el) acknowledged it to be a very great one, but he p r „_ g e ut . It, more expedient to apply the principle first to private pli7. ut'etti, knowing that it must inevitably afterwards be ap 0,:,..1.te public ones. In cases of seditious libel, it did not, and hal:t i not, to apply. But where a defendant stated certain specific td„jne thought it a monstrous principle that the truth or Nie"uudot these facts should be considered immaterial. Sup a case, in which a man asserted that troops were being sent abroad in transport ships that were not seaworthy, he Lord DENNI AN thought that so important a change in the might state that without any seditious motive, or from any law ought not to have been proposed without much more con wish to stir up disaffection among the soldiers. He might be ac- sideration. The Bill of last year was referred to a Committee, tuated by a patriotic wish to promote the welfare of their defenders and repeatedly discussed by persons of the greatest expe in arms. Or, suppose it had been stated that the army of the rience in such matters. The present Bill was brought Noble Duke in Spain was not properly supplied with provi- forward as a corollary to it, but it had not received the same sinus, in consequence of some fault of the Commissariat, would consideration. There was a specific offence ; the offence of they not allow the defendant to show that what he stated was j sedition. His Noble and Learned Friends appeared to have perfectly true, as in doing so he must be assisting the leaders ! confined their attention to one single branch of sedition, and of the army in this country ? Or, suppose the charge was ! that one of the least public importance. Forty or fifty years made against the Queen's Ministers of receiving bribes from ago every public newspaper, remarking on the conduct of the foreign Powers, he ought to be allowed to prove the truth of Government, was at the mercy of the Government for the that statement, since the attempt to do so would only cover time being ; but that danger was now passed, and no Attorney him with confusion. He would suppose another case—that of General would be stupid enough to institute a prosecution, a person of whom it was published that he opened letters in merely because the Government would be inconvenienced by the Post-office ; would it not be monstrous that the defendant newspaper remarks, and if he did the jary would give should not be allowed to prove the truth ? The present prat- heir verdict for the defendant. In the year 1609 tics was most injurious to the individual, if acted upon; and I the Morning Chronicle was prosecuted for reflecting on their Lordships must consider it as if it were acted upon, be- King George the Third, with reference to the Government of cause it po-sibly might tie at the pleasure of the Attorney- Ireland ; Mr. Perry defended himself on the ground of the General. It was injurious to the individual, because an inno- right to discuss the measures of the Government, and the cent, praiseworthy person might be convicted of a crime, jury acquitted the defendant. Now was not the crime of whereas he ought to be rewarded ; and it was also most inju- sedition a crime in itself? Had they not seen people rising rious to the public, because people would be apprehensive of up in arms and rushing to the destruction of their neighbours' stating facts which might be necessary. Where the lives and property ?—(Hear, hear.) He put that case because truth could not be proved at the trial, or after it arose out of recent proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) The at conviction, it operated in favour of the defendant ; tacking of a man's character tended to a breach of the peace, where the libel was false, as had been shown by Mr. Starkie, by leading him, as Dr. Franklin expressed it, to resort to the one of the law Commissioners, they could not believe the liberty of the cudgel.—( Laughter. ) He admitted that some charge was false where evidence of the falsity was not ad- advantage had arisen from the Bill of last year, by improving mitted, and punishment must be awarded as if the facts were the respectability of the press ; but he did not think a sufficient true. It might be said, that though the facts were true, the time had elapsed to enable them to say that it conferred very publication was wrong, and that the press ought not to meddle great benefit. What he chiefly complained of was that this with such subjects. They might say, as a Learned Chief change was proposed without sufficient consideration and de- Justice in the sister island said, that the Houses of Parliament liberation. were the places where these matters were to be canvassed. Lord CAMPBELL replied. He said it seemed they Even if that were so, the law of England was defective in were now called on to reverse the unanimous decision of last this respect—that they would provide no remedy for wilful ca- year; every argument used against the present Bill would apply lumny. They placed in the same situation the person who exactly as much to the Act of last year. His Noble and stated what was true from laudable motives, and the person Learned Friend acknowledged that this Act, as far as it had who stated what was false with the worst intentions. Then been tes•ed, had been found to work well. He concluded that they departed from all analogy with regard to the law of libel, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the ascertaining, by for in other eases they allowed the circumstances to be given affidavit, the truth or falsehood of statements in a in evidence, but not with regard to libel. For instance, in a criminal information. Ths Noble and Learned Lord case of assault, all that led to the assault might be given in had alluded to the case of the Duke of Brunswick. evidence. The defendant might even give in evidence that he Would not the convictions in that case have been much more was !.belled by the prosecutor, and that being se provoked, he satisfactory, if there had beerean opportunity of showing their laid a horsewhip on his back. After the Bill of last year, how utter falsehood? When the King of Hanover was assailed by incongruous was the law if they rejected this Bill ? Under charges of a similar character, he boldly appeared in the wit the law of last year, in a prosecution for private defamation, ness-box and denied the truth of those statements. Under the truth might be given in evidence, but if the Attorney- the circumstances, and after the declaration of his Noble Friend General filed an ex officio information, and called the private on the Woolsack, supported as he had been by the Chief defamation a seditious libel, the truth could not Justice, he much apprehended the fate of this Bill. They be given in evidence.—(Cries of " Hear, hear). It might overwhelm by a great majority the decision of last ses seemed to him that, in this way, they brought great scandal sion—they had the opportunity of doing so; but it on the administration of justice. He believed there was one must not be suppned that all those who were absent authority against him, for whom he had the sincerest respect. —(There were not more than two or three Peers on the He was afraid the Bill was not approved of by the Lord Chief Opposition benches)—were indifferent to this Bill.— Justice of the Queen's Bench, one of the most zealous, steady, (Laughter.) His Noble Friend ( Lord Cottenham) was ab and enlightened friends of liberty that ever blessed this coun- sent in consequence of believing that the Bill was perfectly try.— (Hear, hear.) But he must remind his Noble and secure.—( Laughter.) He could not believe that the Noble Learned Friend, that he stood alone in thinking the truth Lord on the Woolsack could be so grossly inconsistent as to should be excluded. All those who were examined before the oppose the Bill. There was his Noble Friend (Lord Committee on this subject, with the exception of his Noble and Brougham), who had spoken so strongly in favour of the Bill Learned Friend were of opinion that the truth should be ad- —he could not be supposed to be indifferent to the Bill. milted as an ingredient. His Noble and Learned Friend be- The LORD CHANCELLOR—He prefers something else hind him, and the late Chief Baron of the Exchequer, whose to the Bill.—(Laughter.) memory he should always regard with respect and affection, Lord CAMPBELL said he did not think his Noble and were of opinion that the truth should be admitted. He was Learned Friend was one of those " whose god is their belly"— afraid that his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack was (Laughter)—for on any public question, he knew he was ready to sacrifice every sensual gratification. But even now he would divide the House, though he should stand alone, in order to see how many would remain consistent. Their Lordships then divided ; the numbers were— For the third reading Against it Majority against the Bill —3o SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. The Earl of HADDINTON reported to the House the deci sion of the Committee appointed to inquire into precedents as to the doubt raised upon this Bill, whether it did not require the consent of her Majesty in order to be brought in and dis cussed in Parliament. The Committee stated, as the result of the inquiries, that the Bill was one that does so require the con sent of the Crown. The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and the House aSjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 5, The SPEAKER. took the Chair at Four o'clock. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from an individual in Lancashire, against the New Poor-law Bill. The petitioner attributed to this law the existence of Chartism, Rebeccaism, and the Anti-Corn•law League. Mr. EWART presented a petition from the wood sawyers of Paisley, praying for protection against the use of machinery in their trade. _ _ Lord ASHLEY presented a petition (we did not hear from what plane), signed by 2,400 persons, against the Truck System. After an interval of a quarter of an hour, during which no business was done, Lord S A NDON moved that the Secret Committee of Post office Inquiry might have leave to sit, notwithstanding the ad journment of the House.—Ordered. ACCIDENT AT BOLTON. Mr. FERR AND, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet, the Se cretary of State for the Home Department in his place, begged leave to draw his attention to a dreadful accident that took place in the town of Bolton, on Monday last ; by the bursting of a steam boiler iu a factory one man was killed, and three or four seriously injured. We understood the Hon. Member to say, that some mismanagement of the machinery was the cause of the accident, and that the man who had lost his life had only that morning come into the employment, with the nature of which he was unacquainted. As there were in spectors of railways, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether the Government had no power to prevent such fearful accidents in factories ? Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Government had no control over factories such as that which was exercised over railways through the inspectors. MEDICAL REFORM. Mr. D. BARCLAY begged to ask the Right Hon. Baro net whether he had abandoned his intentions respecting medical reform, or intended to carry through his Bill this session ? Sir J. GRAHAM said he would lay the Bill on the table in the course of this session. In answer to a question from Mr. BELLEW, Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was his intention, during the present session, to lay on the table of the House a Bill to amend the law of settlement in Scotland and Ireland. He should not, however, proceed with it this session. Captain PECHELL gave notice that, on Tuesday week, he should call the attention of the House to the claims of the lunatic officers in Haslar Hospital. The Committee on the Joint-stock Companies Bill was postponed till twelve o'clock on Wednesday next. The Committee on the Canal Companies Bill was postponed till Monday. Government the propriety of extending the period to twelve stage he would be prepared with an instruction, in order to calendar months. effect the amendment desired, and the necessity of which he Sir J. 'GRAHAM said he thought the lion. Member for • clearly saw.—( Hear hear. ) Finsbury was r ight i n hi s v i ew o f t h e case, an d h e s h ou ld th ere - Aft er a l ong an d Se.sultory conversation upon verbal amend fore agree to his propositio n , and move that the word " six" be ments, the clause was agreed to. omitted, and the wo r d " twelve" inserted. On clause 6 being proposed, Mr. S. CRAWFORD begged sincerely to thank the Right Mr. HENLEY suggested that some modif cation should be . Hon. Baronet for this concession, which was a most humane made in it by the Government, as it was of a most stringent and just one, and would be sure to command the approval of character. the people. Sir JAMES GRAHAM agreed to omit certain words Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved the following amend- (inaudible in the gallery), the effect of which would be greatly ments : in line 18, to substitute " one year" for " six to ameliorate the clause.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") months ;" also, after the word " child" to add these words, The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 7,8, 9, and "or at any time thereafter, upon satisfactory proof that the man 10, without discussion. alleged to be the father of such child has admitted the truth of On clause 11 being proposed, such allegation." The clause as it stood would induce many Mr. WYNN ELLIS objected to the power given to the Corn men to give an all , wance to the woman for six or twelve missioners, of apprenticing illegitimate children, which could months, in order to prevent her making any api•lication against he much more properly exercised by the poor-law guardians in him, until it would be too late; and at the expiration of the their several districts. six or twelve months discontinue the allowance, while the Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said he had received from his clause as it now stood would exclude her from every remedy. constituents instructions to object to this clause, on the same Sir JAMES GRAHAM was still opinion that there should grounds as those stated by the last speaker—namely, that the be some limitation of the time for the protection of the accused guardians upon the spot were the best judges of what ought to man. 13e done for these unhat children. Mr. T. EGEATON said that the argument of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had not been met by the Right llon. Baronet. The argument of his lion. Friend completely removed the objection, that an extension of the time would be unjust to the man. Could not the Right Hon. Gentleman introduce words at the end of the clause, that the woman should not be excluded from proceeding against the man after the expiration of twelve months on producing proof of the pay ment of money during that time ? Mr. ESCOTT was strongly opposed to the amendment of his Hon. Friend (Mr. S. Wortley), as it would bring back many of the evils of the old law. Sir JAMES GRAHAM was sorry that his Hon. Friend had thought it his duty to charge him with having introduced an illusory measure. That charge coming from a quarter so respectable, rendered it the more painful ; and he must, there fore, give it his firm denial. The clauses to which the Hon. Gentleman had referred had been framed with an honest spirit, and he would always be ready to enter into a discasssion as to their merits. With respect to the amendment of the Hon. Member far Yorkshire, he must say that he could not give it his support, in consequence of the ambiguity of its terms. Be fore he sat down, he would express a hope that his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, would not adhere to the opinion which he had expressed. Mr. HENLEY said, he had spoken of the Bill, and not of the conduct of the Government with respect to it. After a few words from Captain Rous, Mr. Morris, Sir Walter James, and Mr. Borthwiek, Sir J. GRAHAM repeated that he had conceded the ex tension of the time to twelve months, and he would now so far accede to the proposition of his Hon. Friend as to agree to the addition of these words to the clause—" that the putative father shad be liable, after the twelve months, upon proof of the payment of money within twelve months after the birth of the child."—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. S. WORTLEY expressed- himself satisfied—(Hear, hear)—and withdrew his amendment. The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. On clause 3 being read, Mr. B. DENISON thought that the power of appeal, which this clause conferred upon the putative father was un wise and improper, and entailed great hardship on the poor woman who sought to establish her claim against the father of her child. He therefore proposed that in bastardy cases three magistrates instead of two should be present when the female came forward in the first instance, and that their adjudi cation should be final. The power of appeal, as granted by the clause, would render, in most instances, the whole intentions of the Legislature nugatory. Mr. BUCK seconded the amendment. After a few words from some Hon. Members, pro and con., Mr. DENISON intimated that ;he had withdrawn the amendment, but Sir C. NA PIER, o n behalf of the parish of Marylebone, also objected to this power being vested in the Central Com missioners. Two other Hon. 'Members, wh ise names we could net learn, also strongly opposed the clause. Sir J. GRAHAM said he might be wrong in having pro posed the clause, but no one, he was happy to find, impugned his motive in doing so. He was afraid that in those local boards of guardians, local interests would be consulted at the expense of the persons about to be bound out. Under the Miners and Colleries Act, certain restrictions were imposed against binding young children to miners and colliers, and he thought that, in the present Bill, the same restrictive power should be exercised. It could not be denied that in local boards of guardians there might be a natural though selfish desire to economise, even at the expese of the poor little helpless children whom they might be willing to bind into a distant, and, perhaps, incommodious situation, in order to rid themselves, and their district of the probable expense of providing for them in future. What he wished to impose was not any unnecessary or unfair restriction on the board of guardians, but only to give to the Poor-law Commissioners a power over the appointments: of the board, which would tend towards the benefit of the poor apprentices. He had been accused of endeavouring to increase the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners, and giving them an arbitrary control over the poor. He did not think he lay Open to this charge, as he had been always most anxious to give the Commissioners only such power as would counteract the, perhaps, too par simonious tendency or neglect of the boards of guardians. Mr. CHRISTOPHER hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would not withdraw the clause, which he considered one of the most useful in the whole Bill. He believed that one of the greatest evils of the present measure was its neglect of proper provisions for parochial apprentices. He thought that a power vested in the Poor-law Commissioners was absolutely neces sary in order to protect poor apprentices, and have them pro perly bound and properly treated. Colonel WOOD would not wish to restrict the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners ; but he thought the imposition of this duty upon them was unnecessary. For there was no provision in the clause to prevent what the Right Hon. Gentle man considered so great an evil—viz. the binding out of ap prentices in distant parishes. Sir JAMES GR A HAM rose and said, he attached consi derable importance to the penalty which would be enacted in this clause, and which he trusted would prevent the abuses re garding apprentices which existed in the present measure. Mr. DUNCOMBE objected to the large powers conferred on the Poor-law Commissioners by the provisions of this clause. They were useless besides; for how could the Com missioners at Somerset House be supposed to know what would be most beneficial to a child in a remote part of the kingdom ? Surely those who lived on the spot, and who were fathers Colonel WOOD, in the most earnest manner, intreated that he would not do so. He considered the power of appeal as entailing the greatest hardship on the unfortunate female. Sir J. GRAHAM said he thought two justices would be sufficient ; and it might be inconvenient, and in some instances, almost impos,ible, to procure the attendance of more. The power of appeal could be discussed at a future time. Mr. DENISON withdrew his amendment. Mr. RORTH'WICK suggested that the allowance made by the father to the mother of the child should not be paid by him to her, as the contact might be dangerous.—(Laughter ) The sum allocated by the magistrate should be paid to some third person for her—an overseer or other parochial official. , Mr. ESCOTT said all the compassion seemed to be for the woman, but his experience in these matters—( Great laughter) —led him to think that the putative father was frequently as deserving of compassion. He did not approve of the principle of sending the putative father of the child to the House of Cor rection, if he were not able to pay the sum prescribed by the magistrates. Sir J. GRAHAM said the provision, however hard it might seem to some Hon. Members, was found to be absolutely ne cessary. In fact, without the terror of imprisonment which this clause held out, one of the main principles of the measure could not be carried out. The clause as amended was then agreed to, Clause 4 was then proposed. Mr. B. DENISON proposed to omit the words from the clause which gave the power of appeal from the decision of the magistrates in cases of bastardy. Mr. BORTH WICK supported the amendment. He trusted her Majesty's Government would take the subject into their consideration. Mr. T. EGERTON believed that if the provision giving the power of appeal were allowed to remain in the Bill that it would be nugatory and ineffective. Mr. HAWES thought the power of appeal ought not to be taken away. Sir J. GRAHAM said this was a very important clause, and he would recommend the Committee to be cautious in coming to a decision upon it. He thought the power of appeal ought to be retained, as it would act as a preventive to injustice. Mr. WA KLEY could not see why the appeal should only be on one side. of families themselves, ought to be the best judges. Sir J. GRAHAM said that in order to meet the objections of the Hon. Gentleman, and of other Hon. Members who might be disposed to agree with him, he would amend the clause, so that it would give the Commissioners power only to prescribe the terms and conditions of the binding. Mr. DUNCOMBE was opposed to all increase of power to the Commissioners, and thought in whatever shape it was con ferred upon them, it must be looked upon with alarm. Colonel SIBTHORP expressed himself to a similar effect. He looked upon the power the Poor-law Commissioners at present possessed with feelings of jealousy and alarm. Mr. WAKLEY hoped the clause would not be altered or amended. Nothing was more desirable than that there should be some officers, who would be responsible for the proper treatment of those helpless creatures—parochial apprentices. Their condition at present was one of absolute slavery. For this reason alone he would give the clause his most unqualified and ar dent support. The present law did not provide a sufficient protec tion for the ill treatment and neglect of these poor creatures. The masters at present, in most instances, sought them only for the purpose of making money by them, and, provided they could effect this object, they cared little about the means Parish apprentices were, in many instances, employed from five in the morning until nine at night, and, in addition to this, they were frequently badly fed, badly clithed, and badly lodged. And what redress had these children ? It might be said they could go before a magistrate. Why, he (Mr. Wakley) had on more than one occasion, attempted to interfere with police magistrates on be half of these poor creatures, but his applications had not only been treated with neglect but with contempt. To be sure the overseer went to the house of the master, and when he did, he was ushered into the best parlour, and the boy was brought in in his holiday suit, and before his master and mistress, and with the fear of the birch rod before his eyes, answered those queries which the overseer put to him.—( Hear hear.) " Have you any complaint to make, my dear? Don't be afraid to speak." Of course the poor child said " Ne, Sir," and thus terminated this little farce. The overseer went away, and the boy re turned to his drudgery.—( Hear, hear.) Under these circum stances, he thought it absolutely necessary that there should be some restrictive and unprejudiced influence exercised in the binding of these poor children. The House was bound to After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM, Mr. B. ESCOTT said the reason the appeal was only one sided was, that the penalties were all on one side. Mr. AKLEY said the penalties were not on one side, as the woman had to bear the burden of the maintenance of the child. He thought the appeal ought to be made In favour of the woman as well as of the man. Mr. STUART 'WORTLEY was of a different opinion. To give the appeal to the woman would lead to much injustice and hardship. Mr. CRIPPS thought that if they were to give the female the power of appeal the provision would be inoperative, inas much as in all such cases as these the female was in humble circumstances, and had not the means of carrying on an appeal. Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported the amendment of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire. Mr. LIDDELL thought it would be impolitic to extend cases of appeals to Quarter Sessions. Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the fullest consideration of the subject he was of opinion that the clause, as it stood, ought to be retained. Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the fullest consideration, he was strongly disposed to let this clause stand over. Mr. WAKLEY strongly urged the propriety of giving the right of appeal to the woman, who was the victim of injustice, as well as to the man, who was the most powerful person and the oppressor.—(Hear, hear,) In his own experience as a Coroner, he knew that one effect o f t hi s law was c hild mur d er , now in creasing to a horrible extent.---( Hear.) He had seen many cases in which such cases were clearly proved, to the horror and disgust of the jury. These murders were effected generally, in a way to render discovery impossible. The effect of this Bill would be as bad in thi s respect as the one it propose d t o amend. Why should th e H ouse not take away f rom women the temptation to commit so horrible a crime ?—( Hear.) He trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet, who had treated this subject with great ability and fairness, would place the woman on an equal footing with the man. Mr. H. DENISON, after hearing the statement of the Co roner for Middlesex, said that the remedy which that Hon. Gen tleman suggested was very inadequate. Indeed, he would ask, how could the woman, coming out of the workhouse, poor and penniless, avail herself of such a remedy ? Mr. WARBURTON thought that the clause was framed in an oversight of what was the nature of a court of appeal. He thought that the decision in the first instance should be final. Mr. WAKLEY said that he had not advocated the appeal clause. He only said that the woman should be placed on an equal footing with the man. He knew that the appeal would be from Noodle to Noodle.—( A laugh.) But Noodle might act with more caution in the presence of lawyers, and he might gather up a little sense from their arguments, if he had none in ne or that the crime had increased. The himself.—( Hear and a l augh.) He knew that mag i strates w ere not appointed for thei r fi tness, b ut t h roug h th e i n fl uence of their friends , who being u na bl e to d o any goo d with th em a t h o me, found employment f or t h em i n d ea li ng w i t h th e poor. Sir J. GRAHAM consid ere d t h e c l ause su ffi c i ent l y difficult in itself, without being embarra sse d w ith extraneous conside rations. From the return s w hi ch h e h a d rece i ve d f rom a ll country, he did not t hi n k t h at t h e b as t ar dy c l auses feeling of shame and the desir e o f concea l men t were mostly th e hadpmotives r the etha saed t O infanticide,ccasioccasioned d it.—(Hear, hear.) He would throw out for the consideration of th e C omm i ttee , th a t a t th e en d o f H the clause there was a proviso, which seemed to press with some hardship upon the woman ; and he would put it to the Committee whether the omission of that proviso, thereby leav ing to the woman the right of appeal, would not be such a com promise as might meet the views of those who wished for a more express amendment. Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought the question was too difficult to be discussed in an assembly like this. What he wished was, to prevent vexatious appeals, and he would sug gest that his Right Hon. Friend should consider this point. Mr. WAKLEY was satisfied with the concession made by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham). But he cau tioned him not to be misled by the returns of the coroners, for in most of the cases there was no possibility of returning a di rect verdict of wilful murder. Mr. B. DENISON said that he had no objection to the omission of the proviso. But what he complained of was, that where the man appealed against the decision made in favour of the woman, she had no means to avail, herself of the judg ment, as she could not go to the expense of resisting the ap peal. It would be a different thing if the p ar i s h were b oun d to support the judgment in her favour. Mr. CRIPPS said that he and his brother magistrates had made every possible inquiry into the subject of infanticide, and they came to the conclusion that the crime had not increased under the new poor-law, but that, on the contrary, the morals of the people had improved, and the crime had decreased in their district. He only spoke 'of his own district, and, of course, did not deny that what the Hen. Member for Finsbury had stated was the fact in his district. After a few words from Mr. ESCOTT, Sir J. GRAHAM hoped that the Committee would pro ceed to divide, but with this understanding, that if the appeal were struck out, he would retain the proviso. Mr. BO RT HWIC K (who spoke amidst loud cries of " Di vide, divide,") recommended the Government to withdraw the clause and reconsider it.—[The interruption continuing, with laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh "]—He would move that the Chairman report progress - — ( A, .) The CHAIRMAN asked who seconded the motion, to which no answer was given, and Mr. BORTHWICK proceeded to address the House, but at last gave way to the repeated cries of " Divide, divide." Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee divided, when there appeared — For the amendment ... Against it Majority ....... ........... Mr. BORTHWICK said he was anxious to prevent the money payable by the putative father being handed over to her directly from the person who had already been too successful against her virtue. The clause did not provide for this, and in his opinion - it ought to do se- He trusted the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) would take this matter into his serious consideration, with a view of engrafting on some future clause of the Bill a provision to the effect he had stated. Sir J. GRAHAM said a few words, which, from the low tone in which he spoke, we could not very clearly hear, but we understood their intent to be that the suggestion should have his consideration. In answer to a question from Sir H. DOUGLAS, Sir J. GRAHAM said he agreed with him in opinion that the father should not be allowed to go scot free when the woman became chargeable to the parish, or liable to punish ment for crime. He would have words introduced into the clause which should authorise a proper hold upon the man. The matter would require to be well considered, and whatever was inserted must be moat cautiously worded. In a future took tO'thern ; they were the orphans of the State; and he felt grateful to the Government for introducing the present clause. Lord J. MANNERS said that he had heard enough to con vince him that the Poor-law Commissioners had exercised the power for the benefit, and not for the oppression, of those who were not able to defend themselves. He should give his cordial support to the clause. Mr. COLQUIIOUN wished to know whether the Com missioners would be empowered to limit the hours of labour for children. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no dif ficulty at all about this, as the Commissioners could insert clauses in the indentures of apprenticeship, limiting the hours of labour for the children. Mr. HAMILTON supported the clause. Mr. ESCOTT said, that if they gave the Commissioners the power of limiting the hours of labour for children to a cer tain time, they would be adopting a principle which the House had already refused to sanction in the Factory Bill. Mr. S. CRAWFORD opposed the clause. After a few words from Mr. P. BORTHWICK, the Com mittee divided — For the clause Against it Majority Clause 12 was then proposed, and after a short discussion, agreed to. On clause 13 being proposed, which regulates the number of votes each rate-payer shall possess, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved an amendment, the effect of which was to abolish the system of p'urality voting, and to place the owner of property and the rate-payer, and all rate payers, on the same tooting ; namely, to give each party one vote. Sir J. GRAHAM defended the present system, and said that he was fortified in his opinion by a recent decision to which the Legislature had come on this very subject. This kind of voting had been sanctioned by the Legislature in the last session: of Parliament in the Irish Poor-law . Bill. He did not think it would be consistent with justice that the occupier of property rated at 1001. a year should be placed en the same footing, with respect to voting, as the occupier of property rated at 5001. The Committee then divided. 'The numbers were— For the amendment l7 Against it . Majority for the clause The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. On the reading of clause 14, Mr. HAWES said that the rate-payers ought to have the power of impeaching proxies in the election of guardians, and he suggested to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) to introduce a proviso to that effect. He was himself prepared with such a proviso. Sir JAIIES GRAHAM recommended the Hon. Gentleman to bring forward his proviso, as a distinct clause, at a future stage, or to be added at the end of the Bill. Mr. HAWES would act upon the suggestion of the Hon. Baronet, and gave notice that he would propose the clause on bringing up the report. Mr. HINDLEY admitted that the clause, as introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet was a great improvement in the Bill. Captain PECHELL would admit that this was a very use ful modification of the Bill. But neither this clause, nor the one proposed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury would meet his views, and he would move that the clause should be omitted altogether. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE admitted that the clause was a great improvement; but he was opposed to the system of proxies altogether, except it were in the case of female rate-payers.— ( A laugh.) He had received communications from Gravesend, showing the abuses to which the system was liable. The owners of property were very few ; but the collector of the rents held the whole of the proxies, and thus had the nomi nation of the guardians fur the two great parishes of which that union consisted. He would not object to the clause if the latter part of it, which gave such a power to the collectors of rents, were omitted. Mr. HINDLEY suggested that the proxies should be re newed every six months. Mr. HAWES thought that the time allowed for notices should be extended to more than fourteen days. Sir J. GRAHAM thought that it would lead to much incon venience to give a greater time than was necessary for due in quiry and the detection of fraud. Mr. W AWN moved an amendment for the omission of the words in brackets, which gave power to stewards and land-agents to hold proxies. On this amendment the Committee divided, For the amendment Against it Majority ... --142 The clause was then agreed to. On the reading of the fifteenth clause relative to the annual election of guardians, Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that he had received a letter from a gentleman, a member of one of the largest boards of guardians in the kingdom, suggesting several alterations in the mode of electing guardians. He did not mean to propose any amendment, but pressed upon his Right Hon. Friend to consider the recommendations of his correspondent. On the 16th clause being proposed, Mr. S. CRAW FORD proposed that it be omitted. The Committee divided, when there appeared— For the omission of the clause 45 Against its omission Majority The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 17, 18, and 19 were agreed to, after which Sir J. GRA HAM moved that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Thursday at half-past four o'clock. The Militia Ballot Suspension Bill went through Com mittee. The Vagrants Removal Bill went through Committee. The Stock in Trade Bill went through Committee. The Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill went through Com mittee. The Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Assessed Compositions Bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be committed on Monday next. REGISTRY OF SEAMEN. Mr. S. HERBERT obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws relating to merchant-seamen, and for keeping a register of seamen. The Bill was brought in and read a first time. THE IRISH CHURCH. Mr. P. BUTLER moved for a return of vacancies which had recently arisen in the Established Church of Ireland, and of the names of the parties appointed to fill them. Lord ELIOT said if the Hon. Member would produce any instance of improper appointment, or any proof of miscon duct on the part of those appointed, he would not object to the return. But this not having been done, and knowing that it could not be done ' he felt it his duty to resist the motion. Mr. BUTLER persisting in his motion, the gallery was cleared for a division, but no division took place, and the motion was negatived. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. T HORNELY a new writ was ordered for the borough of Birmingham, in the room of Joshua Schole• field, Ell:, deceased. POOR-LAW.—COMMITTEE. Sir J. GRAHAM moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a C o mmittee of the whole House upon the Poor-law Amendment Bill. The order having been read by the Clerk, Mr. HAWES claimed to take advantage of that opportunity to present a petition from the rated inhabitants of St. Mary's, Lambeth, agreed at a meeting in vestry assembled, praying that the Poor-law Amendment Bill may not pass into a law, and that all plurality of voting may be abolished. Mr. JOHN FIELDEN said he would also take advantage of the opportunity to present a petition for the repeal of the poor-law from the Board •of Guardians of the Todmorden union—the union in which he himself resided. They stated that the poor-law was brought first into operation in that dis trict at the point of the bayonet—that it could not be intro duced even until the presence of the soldiery bad been obtained.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said, most wickedly and most untruly, that he (Mr. Fielden) had been instrumental in stiring up dissatisfaction against the Bill, and encouraging riots to oppose it; but every one who knew him, knew that he had never taken part in or approved of any illegal conduct in his life—( Hear, hear)—and that he had no more to do with those riots than any other Hon. Gentleman in that House. It was right the House should know that some of the guardians who signed this petition had originally been in favour of this new poor-law, and were anxious to have it intro duced into the district ; but since they had had practical expe rience of its operation, they had become thoroughly disgusted with it, and now petitioned most earnestly for its repeal. On the motion of the Hon. Member the petition was then read at length by the Clerk at the table. Sir JOHN WALSH presented a petition from the inhabi tants of St. Pancras against the 58th clause of the Bill, re latiag to parishes now managed under Hobhouse's Act. On the reading of the order off' the day for the Committee on the Puor-law Amendment Act, Mr. BORTH WICK jumped tip suddenly, and said " Mr. Speaker," and then as suddenly sat down amidst shouts of laughter, which were continued during a discussion carried on between the Hon. Member and Col. z.•ibthorp. In the meantime the Speaker left the chair, and the House went into Committee, Mr. GREENE in the Ch air,: On the question that clause 1 stand part of the bill, Colonel SIBTIIORI S rose to move his amendment to the effect that the office and powers of the Poor-law Commissioners be abolished. After a discussion, much interrupted by bursts of laughter, the Gallant Colonel was informed by the Chairman. that he could not bring his motion on on the present question. Mr. BORTHWICK, who rose amidst renewed laughter, said he supposed at least that he was entitled, upon this ques tion, to show why clause I should not stand part of the Bal.— ( Hear, hear.) He expressed a hope that, his Hon. and Gallant Friend would persevere in his motion, as he would never have a better opportunity of doing so. The real mean ing of the proposal which had been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman to his (Mr. Borthwick's) Hon. and Gallant Friend, to postpone this moths'', was that it should be abandoned. There had been too much postponement with regard to that question already. Mr. TATTON EGERTON said in his opinion the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) was too late to bring forward the amendment of which he had given notice. He should have moved his resolution on the order of the day being read for going into Committee. He (Mr. Eger ton) was as great an opponent as any in that House of many of the provisions of the Poor-law, but after the division of last night he thought the best thing they could now do was, to exert their best efforts to modify the various harsh clauses of the Bill in Committee. Colonel SIBTHORP said he was in the hands of the Chair man, and whatever that worthy and excellent gentleman told him to do, he ahould do.—( Laughter. ) The Chairman of the Committee said the only thing now competent to the Hon. and Gallant Officer to do was, to ne gative the clause. Clause 1 was then agreed to amidst great laughter. On clause 2 being proposed, Mr. FER RAND said he felt bound to express his opinion that his Hon. and Gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) had not been fairly used, either by the House or the Government. He (Mr. Ferranti) had distinctly put the question to the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir James Graham) last night, whether his Hon. and Gallant Friend could put his amendment that night, and the answer made by the Right Hon. Baronet was, that he could do so. It appeared to him (Mr. Ferrand) that his Hon. and Gallant Friend had been regularly done.—( Great laugh ter.) lie was satisfied that throughout the whole House there an intention not to give a fair hearing to the opponents of the Bill, and he should, therefore, advise his Hon. and Gal lant Friend riot to waste his time in bringing forward a mo tion which would not be listened to, but leave it to the coun try to decide upon the conduct both of that House and of the Government. Sir J. GRAHAM said he would assure his Hon. and Gal lant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) he had no intention or desire whatever to hinder him bringing forward his motion; and whenever the opportunity presented 'itself for him to do so, every attention should be given by him to his Hon. Friend's arguments and opinions. Col. SIBTHORP said the Right Hon. Gentleman had not treated him with common candour—he had almost said with common decency. —(Laughter. ) The Gallant Colonel then, raising his voice to its highest pitch, and stretching forth his arm, said " I have often before declared I had confidence in this Government; but I now declare I can never have con fidence more."—( Shouts of laughter. ) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE suggested that the time allowed to unhappy females to name the father of the child—namely, six months—was hardly long enough. He strongly urged on the KNACKERS' YARDS. Mr. COWPER obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act 26 Geo. 111., for the regulation of yards kept for slaughtering horses. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. Lord G. SOMERSET asked leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the trial of controverted elections of Members of Pat liament. Lord MAHON suggested that at this late period of the ses sion, the precedent of the last and the previous year had better be followed by the House agreeing to a temporary Bill. Nest session they might advantageously discuss a permanent mea sure, and whenever they did so, he (Lord Mahon) should urge upon the House to part with its jurisdiction ; and, failing in his endeavours to accomplish that, he should propose a dimi nution to three of the number of Members sitting on a Con troverted klection Committee. Sir R. PEEL said he thought the time was come when the House would decide whether it would retain in its own hands the jurisdiction regarding controverted elections. He thought there was a just jealousy on the part of the majority of Hon. Members against any invasion of their privileges. He con sidered there was a tendency on the part of the courts of law to treat them lightly; and for his part he wished this House to retain all the privileges and powers it at present possessed. He was in favour of. the proposition of the Noble Lord for making the Bill permanent. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, which was read a first time. The Hausa adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock. PARLIAMEN TAR Y DIVISIONS. (From the rotes mid Proceed;`, of the House of Commons.) THURSDAY, JULY 4. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. Order for Committee read; Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now• leave the Chair :" Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words " That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " Act 4 and b Will. 4, c. 76, commonly called the New Poor-law, is unconstitutional in principle and oppressive in operation; that it is therefore expedient that the said Act should be taken into consideration, with a view, not to its partial amendment, but to its entire re-construction," instead thereof : - -Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question :" The House divided : MAJORITY-AYES,' 199. MINORITY—NOES, 19. Cochrane. A. Hindley, Charles Smythe, Hon. G. Collins, William Hodgson, F. Wakley, Thomas Crawford, W. S. M'Guachy, F. A. Williams, W. Duncombe, T. N. Manners, Lord J. Fielder), J. Mintz, G. F. TELLERS. Fleetwood, Sir P. Morris, David Ferrand, W. B. Forman, I'. Seaton Pechell, Captain Borthwick, Peter Hall, Sir Benjamin Potlington; Viscount LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF .QUEEIVS BENCH, July 5. Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice WIGHTIKAN and a Special Jury.) CURLING AND YOUNG V. COLLINS, PRYCE, WARBURTON, AND OTIIERS. Mr. Whately, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cleasby appeared for he plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Tenderson, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Price for the defendants. • This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, the well known ship-builders, at Limehouse, against the defendants, shareholders in the once celebrated British and North Ame rican Steam-ship Company, to recover a sum of 1,7441., the amount alleged to be due for repairs done to the British Queen steamer, once the property of the Company alluded to, but since sold by them to the Belgian- Government. It was stated to the Court by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff's to take such a sum from each one of the several defendants as he might have been, by the non-payment of his calls, in debted to the association itself. Should counsel for the defend ants wisely consent to this arrangement, then the question for the Court and jury would.be merely one of liability. Counsel for the defendants at once admitted this to be a very hand some offer, and would not therefore trouble the plaintiffs to prove the various items of account, but would confine their efforts to contesting the question of liability. Upon this evi dence was at once adduced to show that all the defendants had signed the deed of partnership with the exception of Collins, and that he (Collins), as well as the rest of the de fendants, were all of them shareholders in the Company. On behalf of Warburton, witnesses were put into the box to prove that the handwriting of Warburton to the deed was net the handwriting of the present defendant to the action, Peter Warburton ; and it was urged generally for the other defendants, that they had not held themselves out to the world as responsible parties in connexion with the British and North American Steam-ship Company. The jury, how ever, found for the plaintiffs against all the defendants, for the several amounts due and unpaid by them as shareholders in the Company. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 5. ,Sittings at Guildhall, before the CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.) HALIFAX AND OTHERS r. VERNON. Mr. Erie, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Bovill, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Unthank, for the defendants. This was an action brought by the eminent firm of Glyn, Halifax, and Co., bankers, to recover the sum of 4,137/. 17s. 10d. from the defendant, Colonel Vernon, M.P., alleged to be a shareholder in the well-known Talacre Coal and Iron Com pany. The case appeared of a very intricate character, and likely to occupy the Court very many hours in its unravelling. When our reporter left Mr. Warwick Werton, jun., was under cross-examination, a determined effort being made to extract admission from him that several sums of money, subscribed by shareholders to the Talacre Company, had, by witnesses father, in conjunction 'with Alderman Thomas Wood, been applied to the purposes of the St. George's Harbour Com pany. Many strange disclosures were expected to be made before the conclusion of the case. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 5. Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and a -Special Jury.) YOUNG V. WILCOX. This case, which is an action to recover for repairs of damage done to a ship-yard and dock, was partly heard yes terday, and was resumed by the Court this morning. The trial, which .presents not the slightest feature of interest or importance to the public, was likely to occupy many more hours than those already consumed in its hearing. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. RESULTS OF THE SESSION. Transportation.—The following were sentenced to trans portation for Seven Years :—Rosina Lee; Harriet Wright,. J. Wright alias Brown, W. Taylor, R. Simmons, T. Inwood, C. M`Carty, J. Hinnen, J. Brown, J. Little, J. Simmons, W. Woodman, T. Hill, and J. Smith. For Ten Years :—Sarah Neule, J. Jones alias Williams, J. Sharratt, C. Osborne, T. Page, J. Smith. For Fifteen Years :—Mary Ann Wood. Imprisonment and Hard Labour :—For three years, R. Smith, for cutting and wounding; for eighteen months, 1; for one year, 9 ; for nine months, 3 ; for eight months, 1; for six months, 12 ; for four months, 15 ; for three months, 19 ; for two months, 2 ; for one month, 6. Discharged by Proclamation—(No bills).—Twenty-one were acquitted, four traversed, and two were ordered to find bail. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) CLERKEIVWELL. Thomas North, a fashionably-dressed young man, clerk to Mr. Bragg, a stockbroker in Throgmorton• street, Bank, was charged with threatening to murder his father, Mr. John North, residing at 13, Judd-street, Islington. Mr. Combe appeared as solicitor for the defendant. Mr. GREENWOOD, at the instance of the father, suggested to the son the propriety of expressing his regret for his mis conduct, with a view of preventing exposure of family matters. _ The son (contemptuously)—l will listen to no such ar rangenient. Mr. GREgNWOOD—Then let the case be proceeded with. The son (to his father)—Go on; why don't you go on? The father deposed that, on Saturday last., a dispute oc curred between the defendant and his mother ; after using the most violent language, the defendant pulled out a pocket knife, opened it, and• swore he would stab her. The mother retreated in alarm, but the prisoner flung the open knife at her, fortunately, however, she escaped without injury. Wit ness ran up stairs, and not wishing to call in the police, begged of his son to beg his mother's pardon, but he answered, " I'd see you d—d first." 'Witness said he would feel it his duty to acquaint Mr. Bragg, his employer, of his conduct, upon which the defendant with an oath exclaimed, " If you do, I'll murder you." He had, on a previous occasion, threat ened to run a sword-cane through witness's body. Witness feared he would carry his threat into execution. Mr. GREF.Nwoon—What have you to say to this? The son (with the greatest composure of manner)—,l would not wish to take away the man's life. Why, let him continue to live ; I have no objection to it, but he must let me alone. I have been living with him fur eighteen months, and paid him_ for my maintenance. I owe him nothing. The father—Yes, he owes me rent. The son—l want my boxes. I will have nothing more to do with you. _The father—You can have the boxes by paying the rent. Mr. GREENWOOD put an end to this disgraceful scene by ordering the defendant to find two sureties in 501. to keep the peace, which not being forthcoming, he was locked up. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. LoicnoN, JULY 4.—Wind this day at noon N.E. LIVERPOOL, JULY 4.--Wind S.E.—Arrd. Columbus, Green, Pernambuco. Sld. Mary Hartley, Calcutta; Thomas Caity, Bombay; Nereid, Cape of Good Hope; Deenster, Horatio, and Henry Bell, Ichaboe; Amazon, Brazils; Ritson, St. Thomas's ; Abbot Lord, Boston ; HiberniaKstearner), Halifax ; Robert Watt, Quebec; Syren, Montreal. Off, Resolution, Maranham ; Carolus, New Orleans. • OFF CORK, JULY 2.—Andover, Burns, Lima; Atalanta, Demerara; Hopewell, Goodwin, Savanilla ; Hebden, Porto Cuba. A brig, supposed Irish, Whiteway, from Buenos Ayres.—The wreck of a vessel, apparently timber laden, level with the water's edge, and masts gone, was passed in let. 53, lon. 29, by the Hopewell, off this port. OFF CROOKIIAVEN, JULY 2.—Marnella, Valiant, Callao; Helen Noel, Valparaiso (170 days); Theodore, Quebec; Thetis, New Orleans •, Mary Ann, Seymour, Trinidad ; Funch, Mobile; Elora, Turnbull, China; Argyll, Welsh, West Coast of Africa. DEAL, JULY 4.—P.M. Wind S.W.—Arrd. Gulnare, China ; Pilgrim, Batavia, for Stockholm; Fenella, Buenos Ayres, for Rotterdam; Maria Albina, ditto, for Bremen; Clifton, Ma tanzas, for St. Petersburgh ; Falcon, New Orleans, for Rot terdam ; Asia, Baltimore, for ditto. Sid. Foam, China ; Dub lin, Sydney Constant, Madras; Wilhelmine, Cape de Verde. PORTSMOUTH, JULY 4.—Wind W. --Sld. A?incourt, Cal cutta. Off, William Wise; Lowe, Launceston ; Tasmania, Ja mieson, ditto, sailed March 24; Osiris, Java, for Amsterdam ; Keelsing, Thomas, for Flushing. COWES, JULY 4.—Arrd. Winnegance, Lowell, Havannah ; Nimrod, Matanzas. SounrAmmoN, JULY 3.—Sld. Lady Mary Wood (steamer), Gibraltar. 4.—Liverpool (steamer), Lisbon, &c. PLysiouTn, JULY 4.—Wind moderate.—Arrived Asia, London, for Calcutta, to land two sick men ; H.M.S. Syden ham, and sailed for Malta ; Wave, Baines, Sierra Leone. FALMOUTH, JULY 4.—Wind moderate. Arrd. Vesta, Shearer, Ichaboe, April 20; Maria, Ratje, Rio ; Cmsara, Go del, Cape St. Paul's, Africa ; Jane, Chandler, .Aux Cayes. Oft; Grace, Wilkin, Ichaboe, May 3 ; Caroline, Harris, ditto. BELL'S LIFE IN LONDON, GRATUITOUS SUPPLE MENT, SUNDAY, 7th JULY.—Running Rein and Orlando ; ver batim report of the Trial, to the extent of Eighteen of the Bell's Life Columns ; evidence before the Select Committe on Gaming, and the usual Sporting varieties. Bell's Life is re gularly published in time for all the Saturday afternoon rail ways. A Sixpence, inclosed to Mr. Clement, Jun., 170, Strand, will insure a copy by return of post. All persons interested in Sporting matters should read Bell's Life of July 7. THE STATE TRIALS. (SECOND DAY.) • WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 5. THE QUEEN AGAINST O ' CONNELL AND OTHERS. Their Lordships assembled at ten o'clock to hear the arguments in the above case. Counsel haring been called on, - Mr. PEACOCK said that lie appeared on behalf of Mr. Daniel O'Connell in this case, and after the able arguments of his Learned Friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, he thought it unnecessary to call the attention of their Lordships, or to make any observations on that part of the case which related to the generality of the counts, but he would en deavour to show their Lordships that judgmedt had been given against Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the other parties for offences, or a greater number of offences, than had been charged against them in the indictment, and he would submit to their Lordships that in cases where punishment was discretionary, and where it, appeared that the court had given any part of the judgment for offences not charged in the indictment, or for offences badly charged in the indictment, it was a ground for reversing the whole judgment. He would also submit that this judgment was bad on the ground of the verdict having been entered in the way it was on the third count. Ain would also submit that the judgment was bad for want of entering into the proper continuances ; that it was also bad as regarded the recognisances the parties were called on to enter into ; that it was also bad in not having given judgment of acquittal as to those parts of the indictment of which the jury had found the parties net guilty and finally, he would submit that judgment should be reversed altogether ; that their Lordships had no power to amend the judg ment, but that the judgment must be reversed be fore their Lordships could pass their judgment, and that as punishment was discretionary with the court which tried the parties, that their Lordships would not pass any fresh judgment. With regard to the first point, he would submit that the parties had been found guilts' of three several and dis tinct conspiracies under the first count, and of three distinct conspiracies under the second count, and that under each the 'parties were charged with one offence. The case would be simplified by treating this part of it as applicable to the second count of the indictment, be cause the second count was the same as the first, with the exception that it set out the overt acts. Their Lordships would observe that by the second count nine persons were charged, one of them being the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell, who was since dead, with a joint conspiracy, to do several acts. It charged them that " they did unlaw fully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors af'resaid unknown, to raise and create discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of the government and Constitution of this realm, as by law 'established, and to unlawful and seditious opposi tion to the said Government and Constitution, and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of ill and hostility towards and against her Ma jesty's subjects in the other parts of the said United Kingdom, and especially in that part of the said United Kingdom called England." Now he would not contend that the jury were not justified, under this count, in finding the whole of those parties guilty of a part of. the conspiracy charged ; but what he would submit to their Lordships was, that having found them all jointly guilty of one conspiracy, they could not find others guilty of a distinct and, separate conspiracy. The jury found the parties guilty of one thing, and then they found them guilty of conspiring to do another thing ; they found them guilty of so much as charged them with combining to cause others to meet, but they acquitted them of conspiring unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi tiously to procure and assist them to meet. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you quite sure that is in the record ? lam informed it is a misstatement fit the case. Mr. PEACOCK said he would satisfy their Lordships that it was in the printed copy of the record, at page 77. He would then proceed to the residue. As to the resi due of the premises, they acquitted Mr. Tierney, there fore he could no longer be received as a conspirator with the other parties. The words of the finding were— " And as to the residue of the said premises, in the said first and second counts of the said indictment, respec tively charged as aforesaid, the said jurors, upon their oath aforesaid, say that the said Thomas Tierney is not guilty thereof." Then the remainder were found guilty of conspiring for certain other objects, not with Mr. Tierney, but with each other and divers persons un known. The words of this part of the finding were these :—" And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say that the said. Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, are, and each of them is, guilty of so much of the said residue as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously intending as aforesaid, and further un lawfully, maliciously and seditiously contriving, intend ing and devising to bring into disrepute, and to diminish the confidence of her Alajesty's subjects in the tribun a ls duly and lawfully constit u t e d for the administration of justice, and further contriving, intending and devis ing, by means of intimidation and the demonstra tion of great physical force, to procure and effect changes to be made in the government, laws and Constitution of this realm as by law established, did un lawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers other persons whose names are to the jurors unknown, to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and procuring, divers subjects of our said Lady the Queen to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at va • rious times and in 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 Constitution of this realm as by law established ; and further, to bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law esta blished in Ireland for the administration of justice, and to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with and claims upon each other from the cognizance of the said Courts by law established, and to submit the same to the judgment and determination of other tribunals, to be constituted and contrived for that purpose, in the said residue of the said first and second counts of the said indictment respectively charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is so above charged." So that they 'were found guilty of conspiring on what he would call No. 2 charge. The case was this—The indictment, con tains charge No. 1, charge No. 2, and charge No. 3. Eight were found guilty of charge No. 1, seven without the eighth were found guilty of charge No. 2, and charge No. 3 was still left behind. Then with regard to the residue of the remain der the jury acquitted all the defendants except Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy ; therefore, with regard to this third part none were found guilty of con spiring except these three. The verdict went on thus— " And as to the remainder of the said residue of the said premises in the said first and second counts of the said indictment respectively therein charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon their oath say, that the said John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, and John Gray, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof. And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles Gavan Duffy, are and each of them is guilty of so much of the said remainder of the said residue as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously in tending as aforesaid, and further contriving, devising, and intending to create discontent and disaffection amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst others her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army, did unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine and conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors unknown, to excite discontent and disaffection amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army ; in the said remainder of the said residue so charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is so above charged." Mr. Tierney, therefore, was ac quitted of all except the first count, and with respect to conspiring to cause disaffection in the army all were ac quitted except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Air. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy. They were found guilty of con spiring with each other but not with the other six. If that were an offence punishable by law, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy were found guilty of it. But he sub mitted that the finding was not good ; and if it was not good on that count it must be bad on all the others, as had been submitted by Sir Thomas Wilde. But there was still something behind, and of that the jury found Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy not guilty:—" And as to other the premises in the said remainder of the said residue charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles G. Duffy, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof." They were not found guilty of conspiring to cause seditious and un lawful meetings. The words of the indictment were : " And further to excite discontent and disaffection amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her said Majesty's army ; and further to cause, and procure, and aid, and assist in causing and procuring divers sub jects of our said Lady the Queen, unlawfully, malici ously, and seditiously 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 demonstra tion of great physical force at such assemblies and 1 meetings, changes and alterations in the govern merit, laws, and Constitution of this realm, as by law established ; and further to bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law established in Ire land for the administration of justice, and to diminish , the confidence of her said Majesty's liege subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with, and claims upon, each other, from the cognisance of the said courts by law established, and to submit the same to the judg ment and determination of other tribunals, to be consti tuted and contrived for that purpose, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity." While the finding was, that they did un lawfully and seditiously combine, and conspire, to cause divers subjects of her Majesty to meet, they were not found guilty of causing them 4, unlawfully .. and sedi tiously" to meet, which are the words of the indictment, and, therefore, they are acquitted of that part of the charge. iOO 137 __... r 3 ly 5. r's 'Bl •••••••• sal k oyal Ack, DU a a nd nea oval the >pen r aro and e of ock. frrnep with tars ;ter' nes s , oval ss of si; of the Wee I by to of eter nlef .d a p the :hri f lard gr. n. )ebt .jlor , and tail refs ,er• re' err• , e 1 'lO or fe' Jot' ,na e. to o d Ir !6 i Li ~, t'