The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-16 00:00:00

•••*•••'''''''''' riinca )k an air in b; in the plea° of Wale s - it, a n ope n tte nd3a 4 Wed hi: Kent visited bet w oraing Gra nd 1)111 ' e ry, at tbe arrive. n, at ,ix -: A be travelled Via sir • West, ona of the after n 'T to nee Albe rt n o, P r i n ce dri c rjell on. Mis s ' l c ries' 1 the Eq u- jet/ ded her b i, e ar 'y The royal o 9 lock. 0 0 , „ in the aR e k gent too oJ this evcr i Tient , f p Ltislaw, tb s . e ir sti l le Hon- "- obos ofd moon, OW 11 , , r AliV? to her 6 d .by the o A°l ;units r w." 3 1, Nirebge r g ir li , ew ce, in DI 5 01 ue'r -wa s ' re cor a in terests , to , C. 31.rrfief i ' aa an wet ye_ sterdiP Titer, trams l ey ; n i a l „.. -o . ffi td c o e i t o. , l and tir' u 'llP t i ituneron& )ne at the nals. code ith Lord .1. Co om the Land. _,fl ' e arrived,*o lborOugh ,u GrEN C RDA V. ster—tak en ts ke Dor Soldier' —taken Deer taken of Three —taken Free OP' s, and • rum „ d 11' kely to 1 / 4 1 `pril , freely ; „,, e j light de d; (no fri en ,f• investwe MOil ❑ tS. n Oil i an a re-r-t a" tggd Currier -- en 11 ly—tal t s—taken f th r e 7 l:lig ht° torn alien I e Ciorheali too navy' d Goy frIP Goxio )w4nce. taken taken icess y Tuck en rn us— t gh. 900 n°"' . o he Oaks ° o f clear po li o had a P r k e e j s cher So' [NG. h breezes,ooo Chili ;, ei ve . Brown, Va, :.rpool, for Q „ e be;, S 5 er, wen t on i he b ac k of , DeV e Isabe b tat to-dnY , f; nce. oo jorp C :easja;tvaico,fl', igwasii• ~s l t 0 ,1 s trong 4, t NyW., DF4 Terra dainabet y. ifa%. fo f I, Cant°' sq ua d isty Owen v %t Barro,,, ;le da o)3b" 1,01 tact Willi __4„r rt g ti [la; trong. - v • Jean Erb' Young IMPEWAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 15. Their Lordships assembled at Fire o'clock. The Earl of RODEN prot.ented petitions from Caith ness and other places, in favour of the legalisation of Presbyterian marriages in Ireland. MR. MA ZZINE The Earl of RADNOR moved that the petition, which he presented on Friday last from Mr. Mazzini, be referred to the Select Committee which had been appointed on the subject of opening letters at the Po4-otfice. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the Com- Inittee which had been appo:ntel was to inquire , n , o the state of the law respecting op , ning letter-. by the Secretary of State ; and he did Iv see, thrref. bre, how such an investigation could affet.t the charaet-r of Mr. Mazzini, or how such a Committee could clear his cha aCter, supposing it to have been attacked ? lie (the Duke of We;:ington), therefore, thought. this motion of the Noble Earl was premature. The Earl of RAI)NOR thought if this were the case, that the decision of the Committee ought not to biased by any statement which might be made with respect to the character of Mr. Mazzini. As the Noble Duke said the motion was premature, 112 (the Earl of Radnor) would withdraw it fur the present, and reserve it for a future occasion. .• The motion was then withdrawn. Messengers from the Commons brought up several Bills. Several petitions were presented for and against the Dissenters Chapels Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Sud bury, praying to 'be heard by counsel against the Sud bury Disfranchisement Bill. The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD gave notice that he should move the second reading of the Alien Bill to-night. PRIVILEGE. Lord BROUGHAM then rose to call the attention of, their L or d s hip s t o a gross s t a t em ent which had appeared in one of the newspapers of the day. Tha passage iu question, in the newspaper alluded to, the Britannia, stated, that Lord Brougham had given up his pet Lileme of the new judgeship in the Privy Council, and in obedience to Lord Lyndhurst had withdrawn the clauses relative to divorce. It went on to state that Lord Brougham no longer took any interest in the Bill, and the above clauses were taken out of the Bill during his•absence. Now he (Lord Brougham) had on two occasionsdistinctly denied ever having applied for any situation under the new Privy Council Bill ; and with respect to the clauses that had been withdrawn, he could only say that he had re quested his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack to withdraw them for him. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could confirm what the Noble Lord had stated. • The subject then dropped. POST-OFFICE COMMITTEE. Lord SANDON appeared at the bar with a message from the Commons, requesting their Lordships to allow the Duke of Wellington and another Noble .Peer to give evidence before the Post-office Committee sitting in the other House.—Leave was given. • BIRKENHEAD DOCK BILL. - The Earl of STRADBR,OKE moved the third reading of this Bill. The motion was agreed to. On the motion that the Bill do pass, The Marquis of SALISBURY moved the addition of certain claUses, and in doing so madc some rather severe remarks on the conduCt of Mr. Mallaby, the solicitor to the promoters of the Bill. - Lord BROUGHAM thought it was unfair. for Noble Lords to make MVO accusations against absent persons: The Earl of WICKLOW thought the'Bill ought to be Lent back to the Committee. Lord MONTEAGLE thought the Bill a most im portant one to the trade and commerce of the country, and was one which ought to pass with the least possible . delay. The Earl of HADDINGTON supported the Bill. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE :bought it was the duty of their Lordships to pass thii Bill. After a few words from Lord STRADBROKE and Lord BROUGHAM, The Marquis of SALISBURY withdrew his opposi tion, and the Bill passed. BANK CHARTER BILL.. - This-Bill was read- a third time and passed. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. Lord MELBOURNE presented several petitions in fiVribur of this Bill. The LORI) CHANCELLOR then rose' to move the Commons', amendmentslo the Bill. He said that, in spite of the . opposition of certain Noble Lords and a Right Rev. Prelate in that House, this Bill had passed through both Houses of Parliament. Still, however, the opponents 45 f h the Bill were not discomfited. The principle of the 'fill having beet adopted by both Houses, it only re mained. for their 'Lordships to c• insider certain amend 'Ments, which had been made by the House of Commons. w This as all they had now to du ; but he understood thit a most unprecPdented course was about to be adopted by a Rev. Prelate, which was that the amend .l.oents be considered on that day six months. Such a motion as this would be a sli4it upon the House of Commons, and he . could hardly think that any Noble Lord would persevere in such a course. The amend ments were not of a complicated character; nor did they require any very grave consideration in order to under stand them. Why, therefore, it should be proposed that they should be postponed for six months, especially after the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by both Houses_ o f P ar li amen t, h e c o u ld not understand. The motion was a most extraordinary one, and one the object of which could only be- to defeat the measure. The • NOble Lord then proceeded to explain the nature of the amendments which had been made in the Bill by the Rouse of Commons, and he concluded by earnestly calling upon their L ordships to give their , assent to the amendments which had been made. The Bishop of LONDON admitted that the course he was about to pursue was an unusual one, and' one which was only to be adopted in ex e the and urgent cases. This Bill contrave n ed the dictates of common sense, and was contrary , maxims of reason. There was one c h ance for e defeat of this measure, and he now intended to 1,1,v.ail himself o f this last opportunity opposing this 13111, It might be said that he was pertinacious in his uPPosition ; but when he found that all the - arguments against the fundamental principles of the Bill had been unanswered, he thought that pertinacity became a virtue. Re saw that there was a formidable array marshalled against him in that House, but he was fortified by the knowledge that out of doors this Bill was looked upon as a most dangerous one, and one to which the majority of the judges and of the legal profession were decidedly °PPosed. He recollected no question—not even except ing the Catholic question— upon which the public mind had been so much agitated. Ile believed, and out of doors it was generally believed, to be a measure hostile to religious truth, and one which would have a most dan gerous tendency. He concluded by moving that the Commons' amendments to this Bill be taken into con sideration on that day six months. The Bishop of DURHAM did not anticipate that the danger which the Right Rev. Prelate so much feared would result from the passing of this Bill. He looked upon the Bill as a measure calculated to do justice to all, and to bring the whole body of the Dissenting p )pula tion within the protection of the law. Under these cir cumstances, he could not fear that any bad effect would result from the operation of this Bill. Lord BROUGHAM argued that if these amendments were to be rejected, a conference with the Commons would be appointed ; and if, in that conference, the Commons should consent to withdraw the amendments, the Bill would then pass, and the Right Rev. Prelate would gain nothing by his motion. Everybody admitted that the Bill had been improved by the amendments which had been made, and he, for one, could not see on what pos sible ground, any opposition could be offered to them, He thought this Bill would prove as beneficial to the Trinitarians as the Unitarians, for it might happen that a case would be found in which Trinitarians were holding possession of a Unitarian foundation. He con sidered this to be a Bill of peace, and as such he had al ways supported it. The Bishop of NORWICH had formerly looked upon this Bill as nothing less than a Socinian Endowment Bill, but he had been deceived, for he now discovered that this was not a theological measure, but merely a mea sure of justice and of equity. Many others had been Placed i n the same situation, and having discovered their error, had deeply regretted having placed their hands to Petitions which had been presented against the Bill. On e x amination he had found that the majority of the peti b"ns upon this subject were in favour of the Bill, and that those petitions which were in favour of the measure were signed by very few persons. The question was nut one of religion or doctrine, but a question of equity and Justice, and it was not for man to separate those princi ples which God had joined together. On these conside rations he should give his unqualified support to the for in doing this he was only acting on that prin ciple which taught them to do unto others as we would they should do unto us.—(Cheers.) The Earl of RODEN looked upon this Bill as a Bill of injustice, because it gave a property to persons who h ad no right to it. He defended the course which bad been adopted to reject this Bill, and contended that many precedents could be found for it. Lord COTTENHANI contended that this measure Was strictly Conservative in its principle, for it was intended to confirm the possession of property to persons who had held it for a great number of years. He con sidered the amendments were a great improvement to the Bill, and be apprehendhd that that question was the only one which they had to consider. Lord BROUGHAM explained. Lord TEYNHAM felt that a deep wound was inflicted on religion by this Bill. The original owners of the property, respeeting which this Bill had been framed, would rather have suffered tine and confiscation—would rather have suffered death itself in Smithfield, than have lived to see their houses of worship pass into the hands of those to whom this Bill would give them. After a few words from the Earl of GALLOWAY and Lord LYTTELToN in support of the amendment, The House divid e d on th e amen d ment, t h at the Com mons' amendments be considered that day three months, Content Non-content Majority for the amendments Proxies—Content Non-content lO2 Majority for the amendments —BB The amendments were then agreed to. The remaining Bills on the table were then forwarded stage, and their Lordships adjourned. -73 fIOUSE F . Jul 15. The SPEAKER to o k the Cr COMMON hai at T w elve o c lock. POOR-LAW AMENDNIENT BILL. • On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the House resolved itself into Commits/co ou the Paer-law Bill. On clause 36 being proposed, which provides asylums for the destitute poor, Mr. CHRISTOPHER complained that the clause was not sufficiently extensive. Ile thought .that in every union workhouse throughout the country there should be established a vagrant ward for those houseless poor , 'who move from one place to another, some in quest of employment, others going to their several parishes. He thought that in every parish the means should 'be prOvided for supplying those poor persons with a night's lodging, and at least one meal in the course of the day, before they proceeded on their journey. There ought to be a vagrant ward in every union work house. It would be a saving of expense t, the parishes, and would save-the magistrates the pain of committing to prison, even for pity sake, unfortunate persons who were travelling from pace to place in search of employ ment. These poor persons were, for the most part suffer ing every kind of de-tit ution, rather than commit trim►'. Sir J. (il that the subject alluded to by his lion. Friend was not immediately connected with the clause' bef.me the House.—(hear, hear.) He thought that there was every reason of humanity and policy in favour of the establishment or district asylums in the metropolis, and the five large twins. • Sir C. NAPIER said that, in the two parishes which he had the honour to represent (St. Pancras and Mary lebene) there was no difficulty in any d stressed person obtaining 'elief at any hour of the day and night. • Sir J. GRAHAM said that, it' he wished to refer to any workhouse for a proof that these 'asylums were necessary it would be Marvlebone. Sr CHARLES NAPIER said that last year the Poor law Commissioners went over the 'whole of the Mary lebone Union. Be had also gone over it himself, and he must confess that he never taw a place better conducted. Sir J. GRAHAM said that the information he had received was what had taken place before a police magis trate and on oath. Colonel WOOD understood that .if a person applied for relief .at a union they were bound to give them a night's lodging and a meal in the morning. He thought that was a course that was likely to be greatly abused. So much had it been abused that now the Commissioners had ordered that a person having a night's lodging must be detained four hours in the morning, and have four hours' work. Now, to the person who was really a pauper or wayfarer, such a course was extremely hard. He thought the proper way of treating the question was, that every person who stated he was houseless should have a night's lodging in the police sta tion.—(Oh, oh.) Ile was anxious that the clause should be rejected altogether. Mr. HAWES entirely differed from the course pro posed by the Honourable and Gallant Member who had just sat dawn. The object of the clauses was purely charitable, but he thought they ought to have more information on the subject before they passed them. The real question was, whether these clauses were necessary, or whether, under the autherity of the Secretary of State, sufficient relief might not he given to the destitute poor without these clauses. The Poor•law Commissioners themselves regarded these pro visions w.th considerable doubt and difficulty. Sir J. GRAHAM said he was very sorry that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down concurred with the Hon. Member for Brecon in resisting this clause. The Hon. Member for Brecon said he thought that destitution, accompanied with the want of a lome, was prima facie evidence of criminality sufficient to jus tify his incarceration in a police-station with criminals. —(Heats hear.) In his (Sir James Graham's) opinion it was much better to provide an asylum for such per sons for three or four days than to commit them to gaol.—(Cheers.) It was indispensably necessary, as the law then stood, to provide out of the rates fur those who were unable to maintain themselves, for orphan children, for destitute children, and for - the education of the children of the poor ; and he had yet to learn that it was good economy to confound all the poor, instead of making a separate provision for each.—(Hear, hear.) The necessity of making this provision had been forced upon his attention by the great number of persons who had be. n found last winter in the metropolis, lying under arches, and in other places, without any shelter.—(Hear, hear.) Such a state of things threw a great burden on the more hum -me portion of society.—(He ir, hear.) He. altogether rejected the assumption of his Hon. Friend that, because persons were houseless they were to -be considered as guilty—(Hear, hear)—although by the force of circumstances the policemen were driven to treat them as criminals.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that three or four of these asyluriss in well-selected localities would enable the police at once to take such parties to a place where they would he admitted by the heads of the establishment at all hours of the night, where they might remain for 3 or 4 days, and, if they were sick, have proper attention paid to them. At all events, he was satis fied that the duties of Christianity and humanity would be fulfilled by their sanctioning this arrangement. His belief was, that they were .iiolated by the existing sys! tem.—(Hear, hear.) IR reference to the question whe ther this was recommended or not by the Poor-law Commissioners, the Hon. Member for Lambeth had re ferred to the tenth report of the Poor-law Commis sioners. He begged, however, to refer him to the eighth report, issued in 1841, from which it appeared that some such provision was sanctioned - .the Poor-law Commissioners. He did not rest, how ever, on their authority alone ; his experience, of , the past winter convinced him that some regulation of this kind was absolutely necessary. He could never dis card the considerations upon which the Hon. Member had dwelt ; he could never forget that many of those who contributed to the poor's-rate had the greatest diffi culty in honestly maintaining their independence, and bringing up their own families without assistance ; but he did not believe that under regulations such as those contemplated by the Bill any extra burden would be imposed on the public.—(Hear, hear.) Colonel WOOD explained. Mr. 13. COCHRANE said that the House must have been delighted with the speech of the Right lion. Gen tleman—(Hear, hear)—and the kindness of feeling it exhibited. He was also glad that the Gallant Colonel (Wood) had in some degree explained the most mon strous proposition ever submitted to the House—that a .poor person in the last stage of destitution and suffering was to be takete to the cells of a police-station. He approved of the p!an proposed by the Right Hon. Gen tleman. Ile could not see that the new poor law was much cheaper to the rate-payers than the old one. Under the old la.+ , the rates amounted to 8,000,000/. per annum, and at present they were 7,300,0001., with a gradual ten dency to increase. There had been a great relaxation of the provision by which out-door relief was forbidden ; he wanted to know then what the country saved by the management of the poor-law. In a few years the rates would exceed eight millions. Mr. WAKLEY that the Right Hon. Gentleinan had not overcharged the description of the condition of the casual poor. Is the present state of the law, there was great inequality in the amount of relief given to the casual poor in the different parishes of the same union. He took the Brentford union as an instance, where some of the parishes relieved nearly a thousand casual poor, others only two, and some not a single one. By the 51st clause this relief would be equally shared by all the parishes, which would be a great im prOvement. The Right Hon. Gentleman had referred to the cruel manner in .which the casual poor were driven from parish to parish ; he fully agreed with him as to the facts, and approved of the establishment of district as ylums ; he believed they would be good insti tutions.lt appeared the casual peor were not to be admitted into workhouses after the formation of district asylums.—(" No, no.") He (Mr. Wakley) would say no more then. If there were to be only three or four dis trict asylums the poor persons would have to travel a good distance to get admission ; this he did not think would be a cure fur the present evil, but rather an aggravation' of it. Sir J. GRAHAM said he .used the words three or four to show that the number of district asylums would be limited, and not to indicate any particular number, They would be so arranged that they could be easily got at, and that the casual poor would know where to apply.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HENLEY thought the question of removal was so closely connected with the law of settlement, that it would be better if the power of removal were withdrawn from the Bill, and allowed to stand over till next session, when the law of settlement was to come under the con sideration of the Hous.e. He thought the mischief of which they were complaining atose from the disputes between the pstrish officers and the orders of the Com missioners. He firmly believed that the power given by this Bill would have the effect of making beggars of the destitute poor. Mr. BORTIIWICK said he would support the clause. It only provided for the establishment of asylums in the metropolis and other large towns. He thought there ought to be an asylum in every union. Mr. HAWES asked whether it was compulsory on the guardians to erect these asylums, because if it were not, the clause would not remedy the evil, inasmuch as while the humane parishes would consent to their erec tion the careless and indifferent would oppose it. Reference had been made to the 10th report of the Commissioners, and also to the Bth report on this subject. He agreed with the recommendation of the Bth report, which recommended such an attention in the law as should enforce the granting of relief to the casual poor whenever and wherever they might apply. Entirely concurring in the propriety of effecting these objects, he could not support the proposed clause, because, he be lieved that the Commissioners had, by the existing law, ample powers for remedying this evil. Sir J. GRAHAM said that on Saturday, when he had proposed that this Committee should sit at twelve to-day, he had entirely forgotten that at two o'clock he had to attend a Committee of the other House. He trusted, therefore, the House would excuse him for a few minutes. With regard to what had fallen from the Hon. Member who had just sat down, he would ob serve that the power and the discretion of the Commis sioners were absolute as to the formation of the districts, that by the 51st clause the relief of the casual poor was made a union charge and not a parochial charge, and, as the guardians of these indifferent parishes would thus find, they would not shrink from bearing their fair share of the burden, he thought there would be no practical difficulty in inducing them to consent to building an asylum ; to the building of which, however, the assent of the majority of the board of guar dians was indispensable. The Honourable Gentle man misunderstood him with respect to the quo tation which he had made from the eighth report of the Commissioners. He had not said that the Com missioners had recommended the establishment of these asylums. He had quoted the eighth report to show that the Commissioners were at that time convinced that the present mode of the relief of the casual poor was not a good one. The Honourable Member for Bridport speculated as to the increase in the expense some years hence. „eel' . J. Graham) had always regarded the expense under the new pour law as one of its most advantageous results. There had been a saving to the rate-payers, and a better administration of the law. Darr T: DUNCOMBE thought these clauses ought to suN, LoNDoN, IuEsDAY MORN LNG, JULY 16 1644, be made the subject of a separate Bill. If they were only to apply them to Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and the metropolis, hP wanted to know what they were to do with Sheffield, Newcastle, and other larger towns. The people of Leeds had sent a petition against these clauses, and they complained that if any asylum should be established in that town, all the poor in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield and Halifax would be drawn there. Sir C. NAPIER thought they ought not to ,proceed with this Bill in the absence of every Cabinet Minister (Sir James Graham had . lift the House). He also com plained that many cases of casual distress were . not provided for by this clause.. Mr. M. SUTTON said that the 58th clause applied to other cases of casual distress. , . Sir C. NAPIER said, that as no Cabinet Minister was present, he should more that the Chairman do re port pro7ress. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought the Chairman need not report progress. He would, however, move that this clause be postponed. Sir C. NAPIER then withdrew his motion that the Chairman do report progress. Mr. B. DENISON trusted the Committee would do all in their power to pass - the present measure, as every elle of its provisions was calculated to alleviate the con dition of the houseless and destitute poor. Mr. M. SUTTON said that if any great principle in volved in the clause was cbjected to, he would not ask the House to go on with it in the absence of his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, but the clause had been discussed the whole morning, and he could see, therefore, no reason why it should be postponed. Mr. WILLIAMS trusted that his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury would not persevere in his motion for the postponement of the clause. He thought the clause had been sufficiently discussed. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE seeing one of her Majesty's Cabinet Ministers in the House (Lord G. Somerset, having shortly before taken his seat on the Treasury benches), would not persevere in his motion for the postponement of the clause, but he should certainly give it his most decided opposition. After some observations from Captain Pechell, Mr. M. Sutton, Mr. T. Duncombe, and Mr. H. Hinde, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Committee divided, when there appeared— For the clause B3 Against it Majority for the clause —77 On the next clause being proposed, Sir C. NAPIER moved that the Chairman do re port progress. Mr. MANNERS SUTTON hoped the House would not agree to the motion. Mr. T. DUNCOMBe, said the clause involved a new principle, and one of great importance. He objected to the power given to the Commissioners to fix the annual value which was to give a vote to the rate-payer. This power had never been given to the Commissioners, and he hoped it never would be. If the postponement of, the clause was not consented to, he should move the omission of the words giving that power. Mr. IVAKLEY entreated the Hon. Gentleman to postpone the clause. The clause was one that could not be discussel in the absence of the Right Hon. Baronet, who had charge of the Bill. Mr. FERRAND called the attention of the Govern ment to the power given by the clause to the overseers of the poor to appoint the district board that was to manage the schools of the poor. Mr. M. SUTTON could not consent to the postpone ment of the clause. The power given to the Commis sioners was the same as that given them by the 38th sec. of the New Poor-law Act. Mr. HAWES thought that the clause ought not to be discussed in the absence of any Member of the Govern ment who would be able to afford the House any ex planation. Mr. B. COCHR ANE said that this showed how little was known of the new Poor-law. Here was a power possessed by the Commissioners which few were aware of. He thought that the power of the Commissioners ought to be curtailed, and not increased. Captain FITZROY thought that the conduct adopted by lion. Gentlemen opposite, and by some on his side, was such as to afford any Government little inducement to bring forward a Bill to mitigate the operation of the new law. He thought the opposition to the Bill was an unfair one. He was as much opposed to the new Poor law as any one, and as such he was justified in not op-. posing a Bill which was a mitigation of that 'law He thought that the, conduct evinced with regard to this measure showed who were the real friends of the poor. It was not enough to come down to the House like the Noble Lord the Member for Newark, to make flashy speeches, in order that they might appear in . the news papers. But the mask was now taken off those who called themselves the friends of the poor.—(" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") Sir C. NAPIER said he did not know whether he was included amongst those who wished to stop the Bill. He had no wish to stop it, but it was no wonder that the Bill should be delayed when, on the last evening , it was under discussion, a clause was for four or five hours under consideration, which, according to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was" not applicable to the rural districts, and which the metropolitan districts did not want.— . . (Hear, hear.) Why should such a clause be introduced into the Bill? He hoped this discussion would induce the Government to pay more attention to the Bills they introduced. They were now on the 24th line of the present clause, which he thought was a very improper one. He hoped they would not pass it. He considered it gave the Commissioners too much power, and therefore he should oppose that part of it. After a desultory conversation, Mr. M. SUTTON moved that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday next, at Twelve o'clock. The House then adjourned till Five o'clock. The House resumed its sitting at Five o'clock. The London and Croydon Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Gateshead, complaining of the opening of letters by the Post-office authorities. Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from certain parties in the eastern division of Surrey, complaining of the contradictory decisions of revising barristers. Messengers from the Lords brought down several Bills, and also asked leave for Lord Palmerston to be examined before the Postage Committee of the Upper House, which was agreed to. NOTICES OF MOTION—MR. WCDEHOUSE AND MR. WAKLEY. Mr. WODEHOUSE said he had a notice of motion to give ; but before he did so he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words in reference to what fell from him on Saturday last. It had been intimated to him that the explanation which he had given on that occasion to the Bon. Member fur Finsbury had not been satisfactory, and he had, therefore, no hesitation in frankly and explicitly saying, that when he made the allusion he referred to, he had acted under an erroneous impression with respect to the trial. The Honour able Gentleman, it now appeared to him, from the explanation which he had given, had a verdict distinctly in his favour—that everything which occurred afterwards was also clearly in his favour, and, there fore, he (Mr. Wodehouse) feeling that he had done the Honourable Member for Finsbury an injury, felt it his bounden duty to make himself the instrument of reparation.—(Loud cheers.) He felt this to be a duty w hich he owed, not only to the Honourable Member himself, but to all connected with him —(Cheers)—not only to his relations in private life, but to his connexions and his friends in public life, did he feel it his duty to make this ex planation. He (Mr. Wodehouse) hoped he would be permitted not to go any further into the matter, but at once to tender his apology to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and his thanks to the House for allowing him the opportunity of doing so.—(Loud cheers.) He now begged to give notice, that at an early period of the next session he should move an address to her Ma jesty, prayink she would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, with a view to restoring the standard of money on which it had been placed by the advice of Sir Isaac Newton.—(Laughter.) The SPEAKER having read the notice of motion from the Chair, Sir ROBERT PEEL rose and said, in reference to whz.t had fallen from an Honourable Member on a personal matter, he thought, after the insinuation which had been made, and after the full and ex plicit expression of regret fur that insinuation—an expression which he (Sir Robert Peel) believed to be sincere, and which he was sure must be sufficient for an honourable and innocent mind—(Cheers)— the Honourable Member for Finsbury might retire from the House that night, with the understanding that complete reparation had been made to his feelings, and that he could carry his head as erect in public as any man breathing.—(Great cheering from all parts of the House.) And he was sure that he (Sir R. Peel) was only expressing the unanimous feeling of that House, in moving that they should put on record this declaration of their opinion.—(Continued and general cheering.) Mr. WAKLEY rose (evidently under very subdued feelings) and said, it was impossible for him to refrain from expressing his gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet for what had fallen from him, and he must also express his grateful acknowledgments to the House for the man ner in which they had protected him in this most painful affair.—(Loud cheering.) At the same time he must say that he received the expressions of the Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Wodehouse) in the same spirit in which they were offered, as a frank and honest expression of regret for what had occurred. —(Loud cheers.) That reparation he felt ought to be satisfactory, not only to himself, but to every member of his family; and he had a particular motive for making this declaration.—(Loud and general cheering.) Here the matter dropped. HORSE-RACING AND GAMBLING. Mr. CHRISTIE said that after the observations which had been made elsewhere, he thought the House would not refuse him an opportunity of making an explana tion. It had been complained in another House that he statel there was presumptive proof that an improper use had been made of the evidence delivered before the House of Lords. He had no intention of accusing the Noble Duke who presided over the Committee of the House of Lords of conspiracy.—(Hear.) Lord A. LENNOX hoped the House would indulge him for one moment. He only had to say that he thought gentlemen—he begged pardon, he meant to say " Honourable Members "—ought rather to in quire into the facts of the cases which they brought be- fore the House.—(Cheers.) IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Mr. lIUME wished to ask a question of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) respecting the law for abolishing imprisonment for debt. He found that within the last twelye years upwards of 12,000 p,era.cas had been imprisoncl for debt, r otwithstanding the Bills that had been brow / ht in professedly for the purpose of abolishing the inprisonment. Sir J. GRAIIA:t was understood to say, that he did not consider the Bils broufght before Parliament to have any other object thin the release of debtors against whom fraud could not be dleiyed. RUSSIA. In answer to a qiestion from Mr. CHRISTIE, Sir R. PEEL said that there was no correspondence between Russia and this country which he could lay be fore the House. Mr. "%YAWN wisted to ask the Right Hon. Gentle man the President (f the Board of Trade, whether her Majesty's Governttent have taken, or intend to take, any measures at Lb. Court of Russia, to get the vessels of this country Oat three years old) exempt from navigation dues in Russian ports, and to be placed upon an equal footing it that respect with vessels built in Russia, and belonging to Russian subjects. Mr. GLADSTONE said that no such attempt had been made ; nor WAS he aware that any was in contem plation. Russia hzd the privilege in consequence of the advantages conrerrd by the treaty. Lord PALMERSTON wished to know what were the advantages which Russia granted to England under the treaty as an equiialent to which English vessels were snbjeet to a disaCvantage as compared with those of Russia. Mr. GLADSTONE—The advantage of having the ships of England icceived on the footing of privilege in the Russian port; from whatever quarter of the globe they might come. On the motion that the orders of the day be read, Mr. CHRISTIE rose and said he had understood the Noble Lord opposite to say that he should have pursued a course more consistent with the character of a gentle man and an honourable man. Lord A. LENNOX said he did not know what were the exact words which he had used, but he presumed that they were not unparliamentary, or else he would have come under the notice of the Speaker. lie was not in the habit of making improper imputations upon any Member of that House, bilt he trusted the House would enter somewhat into his feelings when he thought that a noble and dear relative of his had been grossly maligned by an Hon. Member.--(Hear, hear.) The SPEAKER said that if he had understood the Noble Lord to have made any imputation on the per sonal honour of the Hon. and Learned Members he would have called upon him to retract it at the time. But he now thought that the conversation was irregular as there wns inn qnostion before the House. Hon. Members would do well if they would confine t e r ettentien to the subject-matters under the consideration of the House, and not allude to previous debates.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. DUNCOMBE said, as his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Weymouth had retracted the offensive expressions he had used in reference to the re lation of the Noble Lord, he thought the Noble Lord should likewise retract the expression " grossly ma ligned," which he had just repeated.—(Hear, hear.) Surely that was not a Parliamentary expression. —(Hear.) Lord ARTHUR LENNOX thought his explanation had been satisfactory to the Hon. and Learned Mem ber. He thought he had cast imputations of an improper nature on his noble relative the Duke of Richmond, and on that occasion had he supposed made use of some ex pressions which it appeared the Hon. Member did not like.—(Loud cries of " Order.", After a pause, Lord A. LENNOX again rose and said, Sir, I will put an end to this discussion, which I know it is wrong to proceed with. If I have said anything personally offensive to the Hon. Member, I beg leave to retract it. —(Laughter and cheers.) THE IRISH TRIALS. The Orders of the Day ►were then read, and severally postponed, and Mr. WYSE rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice on this subject. He first presented a large number of petitions from several places in Ire land, praying for inquiry. He had also another petition to which he begged to draw the attention of the House. It was from a number'of noblemen and gentlemen deeply interested in the tranquillity and prosperity of Ireland, complaining in strong language of the state of that country—of the discontent that universally prevailed throughout it, arising from the bad administration of the law—of the inferior position in which the nation was kept—of the inadequate representation of the people—of the existence of the Church Establishment, and stating the feeling that universally existed, that Ireland had not her fair share of the legislation of the United Empire.—(Hear.) (The Hon. Member read some of the signatures to the petition, which in cluded the names of the Duke of Leinster, the Marquis of Kildare, Lord Rossmore, and a large number of Irish noblemen.) In submitting to the consideration of the House the motion of which he had given notice a con siderable time back, he begged to state that he came for ward on no insufficient grounds, and at no improper period, while the subject was one which he believed to every part of the empire was of the greatest importance. He did not come forward without sufficient grounds, for he presented to the House on the 21st of March, a peti tion signed by no less than 750,000 of the inhabitants of Ireland, calling for immediate inquiry into the state of Ireland. Added to that petition, he had presented an other, signed by 26,000 persons, reiterating the same prayer. Other petitions had been presented, signed by 49,000 persons, forming in the whole a large aggre gate of the Irish people, all praying for inquiry. To these petitions had been added the one presented by the solicitors retained for the traversers, and that of the Corporation of Dublin, each demanding the same inquiry. In opposition to these petitions, there had only been laid on the table the one petition of Mr. Magrath, and, after a careful comparison of that petition with that of the traversers, it appeared to him, so far from modifying the statements of their petition, that it had confirmed his opinion of its authenticity. When to these was added the petition just laid on the table of the House, one not coming from men connected with the Re peal Association, but from men, many of whom were directly opposed to repeal—men who, from their pro perty, long acquaintance with Ireland, and high rank, were fair representatives of the aristocratic opinions of that country, and when they all concurred in saying that the country was in it state of division—that discord prevailed in it, and that these were no hopes of relief from that state, except by complying with the demands of justice, he thought be had some claims on the attention of the House. He believed that he did not come forward at an improper period. During the whole time the subject was pending in the law courts in Ireland he had refrained from bringing it forward, and since that time he had been debarred from doing so in consequence of th e l ong pr e i o d th a t elapsed between his moving for certain papers and their being laid on the table. The question was still pending before another House, and he should not now have interposed, but that he trusted he should be able to show he was dealing with quite a distinct subject. Let it not be said, there fore, that he came forward on insufficient grounds, or at an improper period. As to the subject itself, surely there was never one which demanded more earnest attention from her Majesty's Government. He had not the advantage of legal knowledge, and least of all could he claim their attention after the eminent men who had discussed and exhausted the subject. But this he would say, that he was an Irish Catholic—the representative of an Irish Catholic constituency—and he could not but feel, with almost all his countrymen, that Mr. O'Connell was an eminent man in the age in which they lived. He could not but feel that to his exertions millions of his fellow-countrym en owed the throwing open the gates of the Constituti on , and that he himself had the power of addressing them in that place. He also remembered that Mr. O'Connell, though a Catholic, had no Catholic on his jury. He remembered, as an Irishman, he had been adjudged by a tribunal to a sentence which they had heard in that House from an English jury and English judges he would not have been exposed ; and these questions, however closely they were now con fined to Ireland, might soon be extended to themselves. The worst evils were those which crept in under the sanction of justice; the worst -and most dangerous re sults were those which were consigned to the statute book, by the decision of judicial men. They might not be able, perhaps, openly to assail the Consti tution, but they might undermine it, and this undermin ing was what was most to be apprehended. Give him a people who had free discussion, and who lived under the aegis of equal laws, and he cared not what Ministry er what Legislature they might create—that people would sooner or later vindicate themselves in the eye of the world. He did not mean to discuss the question in con nection with its legal difficulties. He should limit him self to the facts of the case. He asked for no condem nation or censure of the Government. He should not discuss points of law, nor enter into the subject in con nection with the matter before the House of Lords. The object of the Government for many years in Ireland had been to neutralise the ques tion of repeal. It was considered a matter of importance in Ireland either to exorcise the question of repeal from the country, or to crush it, to expel it, either gently or by main force. The opinions on repeal were various—some thought it a magnificent impossi bility—many argued that it would be a good thing if it could be carried. Others, not only considered it could not be carried, but that if carried it would be a danger ous thing for Ireland. Other:: were opposed to repeal on the grounds that by it Ireland would be divided from her powerful sister and exposed to all the jealousies and discussions of a rival State. Others considered it would be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Constitution. Each of these parties were necessarily guided by their se veral opinions in their attempt to get rid of this question. If proper means had been adopted for the redress of these grievances, and good measures had been brought forward, the repeal agitation would have totally disap peared. But the other party were placed in the posi tion of those who must either completely crush repeal by violent means, or resort to fraud where they could not use force. To crush repeal by violent means was out of the question. A Coercion Bill, if passed into a law, would only adjourn and not extinguish the ques tion of repeal. The Government thougt it advisable to trust to the means at their disposal for crushing re peal. During the last session the question of repeal was allowed to make progress. They were all familiar with the meetings that took place, and the frequent appeals made to the Government in that House, on the subject ; and it appeared, from subsequent evidence, that even then the Government were not inattentive to the course of events. There was the obvious course open to them of attacking the meeting which Mr. O'Connell had announced—the general convention to be held in Dublin for the purpose of devising a plan of renewed action. It was thought that the Govern ment would wait until that assembly had been convened, and had they done so, there would have been les ground of complaint, inasmuch as it would obviously have been a direct violation of the Act against con ventions. The session, however, had not long clo,ed when the Government anticipated the meeting to be held in November, by attacking the first meeting, which was to Ve held near Dublin, namely, the meeting at Clontarf, and not content with, that, immediately pro- ceeded to engage in the pr.:mention which now formed the subject of immediate inquiry. .Whether the Go• cerement on that occasion were too late or too soon— whether they acted with hesitation or with prudence— whether it were a wise course to risk at so late a period a collision with an excited people, or whether it would not have been amply sufficient for their purpose to have instituted the p:osecution without taking any notice of the ineeCng, it was not his intention at present to discuss. The act was sudden and unforeseen on the part of the Go vernment, though it arose out of expressions which could not reasonably be viewed with apprehension when they considered the views of him from whom they fell. It did appear strange that this meeting, the last of the whole series of repeal meetings, should be that one which the Government had determined upon putting down. It now appeared that there had been all along a serious intention on the part of the Government to indict for a conspiracy—that they had watched every occirrence, and by connivance and apparent tranquillity, gave con fidence to those who were carrying on what was called a conspiracy, to produce still graver acts, for which they might be afterwards called up for punishment.—(Hear, hear.) But, he believed there was something deeper still than what he had mentioned. His impression was that th.,re was a much more alarming conspiracy existing in the minds of the Government, who thought, or affected to think, that it was not merely a combina tion for the purpose of discussing repeal, but that there was a conspiracy actually going on between certain members of the Repeal Association and the Govern ment of America. A person had been put in communica tion with America—one who was to give information to the Government that treasonable correspondence had been carried on between Mr. Steele, on the one hand, and the son of President Tyler, on the other. That impression had been imprinted on the minds of the people by the language which the Attorney-General used at the commencement of the trials. The bill of indictment had been scarcely placed before the Court when the Attorney-General announced that there would be a second bill of indictment, and in doing so used language which was well deserving of the attention of the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman stated, on the Bth of November, when the first bill was presented to the grand jury, that he " would undertake to establish as wicked and vile a conspiracy as ever disgraced this country." lie (Mr. Wyse) did not know whether that language was applicable to the first or to the second bill. With regard to the mode in which that trial was conducted he had a right to record his opinion of the impression:made on his mind by it, and on the minds of the great body of the people of Ireland. Through all the proceedings of that trial, sweeping aside the techni calities of the law altogether, there was an overwhelm ing conviction impressed on him, that upon the conduct of that trial there was not a disposition to give the ac cused every fair advantage which they had a right to demand,—(Hear, hear.) Take for instance the conduct of the clerk of the Crown in the very beginning of the proceedings—let them take the case of Mr. Bond Hughes, when he made a mistake in swearing that Mr. Barrett was present at the meeting which he afterwards discovered he was not at, and which he (Mr. Hughes) wished to correct when he saw Mr. Barrett at Judge Burton's chambers.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a question between man and man, but it was one involv ing the interests of a whole community.—(Hear, hear.) There were several other instances where a similar dis- position was evinced. There were demands made for copies of the indictment—for the names of witnesses — the refusal of which showed a narrow spirit, and a bitter hostility to the traversers. The first claim by the traversers was, as he said before, for the copy of the indictment. Surely the spirit of British law was—if a man were indicted, he should know the accusation against him, and who were his accusers.—(llear, hear.) The claim was not made in the spirit of idle curiosity, but as a matter vital to the defence of the accused— he had a right to know whether the indictment was ac cording to the statute, and how, according to the terms and charges of the indictment he could best defend him self. He looked to the statute and found that certain conditions were required. He now understood that the reason leave of inspection was refused, was because the Crown were desirous to press on the case, and feared advantage might be taken and delay might be interposed. Well, and if there were delay, there might be delay and just delay.—(Hear.) There was the delay of justice and the delay of in justice; and the accused had a right to that delay which would enable him to prepare his defence. The tra verser's attorney applied for the caption; the caption, too, was refused—the Crown said the accused had no right to it, but the judges were not so clear upon the point. But he would not dwell upon these minute but painful grievances. lie would come at once to the grand question of complaint—the whole ground of the triumph of the Government on this occasion—the jury. If all the other proceedings were dictated by a spirit of the utmost fairness, and if the jury were unequally, partially, unjustly, improperly selected, no matter what might be the crime of the individual, the trial was unfair.—(Hear, hear.) The tribunal was not what a British subject had a right to expect. There was an essential want—a want which vitiated the whole proceedings, and which entitled the prisoner to say ho had not had a fair trial. He (Mr. Woe) would under take to show them that tribunal was defective—most de fective—and, if he did so, he would call upon the British House of Commons, as the protector of the Constitu tion and of the liberties of the people—as the pre server of the purity of trial by jury—the greatest palladium of the British people—to inquire into the facts and see who were the defaulters. He would call upon them to free themselves from the imputation of being participators in the injustice—to listen to the people who cried out " Hear us." If they would not do so, they would show more convincingly by their own act than by any allegation of the Irish people, that they were not disposed to do justice to their fellow-subjects.—(Hear.) (The Hon. Gentleman then alluded to two petitions which had been laid on the table of that House; one from the attorney of the convicted, and the other a counter petition. The Hon. Member then went on to compare these two documents, and ad verted to the mode of getting up the jury list, which he censured as most one-sided and unfair.) The proceedings in the Recorders' Court for the revision of the jury list more resembled a bitter election contest than an equitable and solemn arrangement prepara tory to a great and important trial.—(Hear, hear.) There were two Conservative election agents for the Conservative party, who objected to those persons put forward by the repealers, Messrs. Walker and Jackson ; whilst the repealers made their objections to those put forward on the other side. The greatest possible acrimony and bad feeling was exhi bited, but the repealers had the greater cause, for they were the accused. The greatest accuracy was desirable in those proceedings, and it should have been secured. Mr. Walker was not refused the opportunity of compar ing the lists. He was allowed to compare them with Mr. M'Grath. (The Hon. Gentleman then read extracts from the affidavit of Mr. M'Grath, in which the depo nent disclaimed that he was influenced by any improper motive) He (Mr. Wyse) complained that the House of Commons should allow such irregularities, if they de served no other name, to pass unnoticed.—(Cheers.) There were good grounds for believing that, notwith standing the affidavit of Mr. M'Grath, fifty or sixty names had been omitted. One of the persons whose names were omitted, wrote to the Recorder requesting that his name should be inserted. To that letter he re ceived no answer. —(Hear, hear.) (The Hon. Member then read the letter, and contended, from the statements, that it was not fifteen or sixteen names omitted, but be tween fifty and sixty.) Mr. M'Grath admitted in his affidavit that distinctions of qualification had been an nexed to the names of persons in an improper manner. Surely they would not on the opposite side of the House tell him that that was the way in which they them selves would wish to have their juries formed and their trials conducted ?—(Hear, hear.) And if they would not, after the prima facie case he had ,made out, he did not think they would venture to say that inquiry was uncalled for. For his own part he was by no means satisfied that there had not been more interference with the lists than that of which they were already cognizant. He was entitled to think there were other grounds for his motion than those even which had been stated, and he might very fairly be permitted to demand the oppor tunity and the means for inquiry. Leaving out of the question the influence that one-tenth might have had on the whole panel—not heeding what chances that circum stance might have had in Mr. O'Connell's favour—there was the question of still greater importance for the public, and that was to convince them that he had had a fair trial.—(Loud cries of Hear, hear.") It would have been infinitely better to have had no trial at all ; for if the people of Ireland were in such a state that they could not afford to treat them with that impar tiality with which they treated Englishmen, better would it have been to have let the evil go on.— (Hear, hear.) And then let them reflect on the charge which had been delivered by the judge. That charge called to his mind the times of Charles the Second, when: the judges extenuated evidence on the one side, and exaggerated it on the other, just to suit their own, or other people's purposes ; and when no confidence was felt, or could bp felt, in the justice of the legal tribunals of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He would not go into any further question of the trial itself ; he was precluded by the terms of his motion from doing so ; but he would just ask the Minister what he had gained by it ?—(Hear, hear.) What was the result ?—what the profit to the Minister ?—what the profit to the country ?—(Hear, hear.) Was the Minister now more satisfied with the state of Ireland than when he first took the reins of Government ? (Hear, hear.) The consequence of their conduct had been this, that they driven even moderate men into immoderate courses. Every one was rapidly becoming either on the one hand a repealer, or upon the other a stern determined supporter of the Government. 'There were no neutral men—none of that moderate, middle class, so healthy and useful in a community.—(Hear, hear.) But was the repeal question done for ? Had it exploded ? No ? There they stood in dogged obstinacy to the Government—in the worst position subjects could possibly be in—sullenly writhing under feelings of animosity and of vengeance.—(Hear, hear.) They looked upon the laws with more of suspicion, with more of doubt, with more of distrust and of dislike than ever. —(Hear, hear.) But had the Government obtained its immediate object ? No, they had not. They said they would put down the receipt of money from the public, and the publication of a certain class of articles in the newspapers, but had they done so ? Why, there was just the same organisation as ever—just the same rami fications throughout the whole body of the Irish people —just the same sentiments, s editious or not as they might choose to call them, published in the newspapers. and more money than ever collected for the repeal rent.—(Hear, hear.) They had seen the declarations of the greater portion of the mayors and corporations of the various liberal municipalitFes of Ireland—and what lan guage did they use to the Government ? Again—did they think they had suppressed Mr. O'Connell or the Repeal Association ?—(Hear, hear.) They had done neither, as those addresses to him from within the em pire, and from without the empire, pretty plainly proved. Did the Ministers never think how they, in fact, were upholding Mr. O'Connell ? That man did not attain his high position by his own talents alone, but by the wrongs, the folly, and the injustice of the Government towards his country.--(Hear, hear.) He created not the revolution, but. the revolution created him.—(Hear, hear.) Though he (Mr. Wise) wished to continue to form an integral part of this country, he still felt that he was an Irishman, and it was from respecting their several nationalities that England must hope to keep her whole people in harmony and concord. It was by allowing and consecrating this feeling of nationality—by nou rishing Irish feeling, and respecting Irish sentiment, that England must expect to keep her faithful and true. —(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") They must convince the people of Ireland by every means that they could, that they were disposed to make reparation and atone ment for the past, by giving to the Irish equal rights, and equal independence with the English for the future._ Until they were-thoroughly convinced that there was to be a real union—not a parchment union—but a union of rights, civil and religious—not as America was with England, not as Belgium was with Holland, but as Scotland was with England—until this. was shown to be the moving principle, there could be noi• con fidence, and, therefore, no real or lasting peace.—(Hear, hear.) It was not enough for the Minister to tell the House he would not call for coercion Bills—that he did not desire to rule by military law—but they must tell Ireland by their acts as well as by their words, that Eng land had made mistakes in her conduct, and that she was willing to repair them—that she was anxious to begin a new system—and that as wrongs could not produce any thing but resistance, they would now try if kindness and justice could not lay the foundation of a solid and lasting union between the two countries, contributing alike to the peace and prosperity of both.—(Cheers.) The Right lion. Gentleman concluded by moving for " A Select Committee to inquire, in accordance with the prayer of the petition presented 17th June, into the facts connected with the format* of the Special Jury, in the case of the Queen at thq prosecution of the Attorney-General v. Daniel O'Connell and others." The motion was seconded by an. HON. GENTLEMAN, whose name we could not learn. Lord ELIOT said, that upon hearing the first part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, he fancied that he was under a delusion, and that instead of being in the House of Commons on the 15th July, he was there in February last, discussing the question of the State trials. At that time the whole question was fully discussed by her Majesty's Ministers, and it was, therefore, not be coming at the present moment to enter into those sub jects again, He would confine himself to the points brought before the House by the Right Hon. Gentleman. It appeared to him that the House could not accede to the proposition made by the Right Hon. Gentleman, unless it could be clearly shown that there was a fraudulent tampering with the jury list for the purpose of producing prejudice to the defendants; and supposing even that there was so, the question .. then was, whether the inquiry now proposed would tend to any useful result. He did not think that the Right Hon, Gentleman had established any of the propositions he had put forward, nor had he established the assertion that he had made, that Mr. M'Grath was biassed in the course he had pursued. Mr. M•Grath could have had no bias whatever against the traversers. He was not a Protestant, because he had declared upon his affidavit that he was a Roman Catholic. That gentle- man had appended his name to a petition to that House, and he did not think that it could be said of him that he would state on peti- tion as true that which he would not state was so upon affidavit. The question in his opinion was simply this, was there any wilful or fraudulent intention on the part of any individual concerned in the formation of the jury ? He did not find it stated by the attorneys for the tra versers that they suspected any individuals. They merely stated that they believed that some fraud had been practised. But that did not attach to any of the law officers of the Crown. It did not , attach to Mr. Kernmis, and the clerk of the peace could not be charged with it; and Messrs. Archer and Dickinson denied that anything of that sort had taken place in their office. The Right Hon. Gentleman had made insinuations that appeared to him totally unfounded. What was the ,gravamen of the charge? Why, that no Roman Catholics were on the jury. The Right Hon. Gentleman had then stated that there were some discrepancies between the state ments of Mr. M'Grath and Mr. Mahoney. *He believed it would be found that such was not the case, when the matter was properly looked into. Then the Right Honourable Gentleman had insinuated that he could not see why Messrs. Walker and Jackson had been employed in the matter. Perhaps it was not known to him that many gentlemen had had notices given them, that if their names were proposed they would be objected to. • Under such circumstances, he would ask whether it was not natural that they should employ professional, men to see that their names were not improperly struck out? Such was the state of things previous to the trial. The Recorder presided at the Registration Court, and he directed cer tain marks to be made to the names of certain parties as to their rank and so on, and it had :been clearly shown that no partiality had been exercised by that officer. The Right Hon. Gentleman had cast some blame on the Recorder, for not performing, as he said, the duty that was cast upon him. He was bound to be present at the adjudication of the claims of but nothing more. He had caused the list to be pre pared, and he was not bound to do mdre. Now, he would put it to any thinking person, whether parties in copying a list of a great number of names might not commit some error? There could be no doubt that such a circumstance might take place. Ouch an error would not be sufficient to vitiate certain proceedings. It must be shown that there was some wilful tampering in the getting up of the jury. Now the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to bring this matter before a Select Committee of the House—a Committee, it must be re. membered, that had not the power of exaMining upon oath as to what had taken place. In 11:.s (Lord Eliot's) opinion, the constitutional course would have been the finding of a criminal information. Now :svkat was the course that was pursued by his Right Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland ? The Right Hon. Gen tleman opposite had said that his Right Hon. and Learned Friend had applied for the postponement of the trial, in order that the new jury-book might come into operation. Now what was the fact? Why his Right Honourable Friend, t seeine , that in the old jury-list out of upwards of three seeing names there were only twenty-five Catholics, at once agreed to the postponement of the trial till the new jury-list shonid come into operation. As to the com petency of the traversers to have a jury of the county of Dublin, such a demand had not been made, and it therefore could not now be complained of. The Right Hon. Gentleman then complained of the partiality of the jury. Why Mr. Fitzgibbon, one of the counsel for the traversers, had admitted that there was not a single in dividual on the panel that would not give a fair and im partial verdict. He would now consider whether the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence. But:in doing so he would not discuss the question of the law of the case, but take it from the bench. The learned judges had laid down what the law was, and the jury had taken it from them ; and although it might be well for learned counsel to endeavour to arraign that law, he did not think that any of the traversers them selves would say that the charges laid in the in dictment were erroneous. Had not, he would ask, large meetings been held? Had not paragraphs been inserted in newspapers in Ireland under the sanction of the traversers themselves? Then, if that were so, and the law of conspiracy, as laid down by the judges was correct, the jury had no other course to pursue than that which they had adopted, whatever their professions might be, whether Roman Catholics a Protestants. Then with respect to the challenging of the array, if there was any Just ground for complaining of the panel, that was a question now for consideration in the House of Lords, and it was not, therefore, proper or becoming for the House to appoint a Com mittee for considering that question. He did not believe that the appointment of a Committee would lead to any beneficial result, while it might pro duce injurious consequences. If the Hon. Gentleman believed that any fraud had been committed with re gard to the formation of the jury. list, the proper course was for the parties to file an information against those individuals. But he could not see that an inquiry at this period of the session would be of any benefit. He should, therefore, resist the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said he should not have risen so early in the evening, but that he thought it desirable he should reply to the observations of the Noble Lord. He laboured under some difficulty on the present occa sion. It was hard for him to enter on the subject without giving way to these feelings naturally excited by his connection with the individual who, if there had been fraud, or collusion, or oppression, had been the victim o that fraud, that collusion, and of that oppression. Ile should, however, endeavour to avoid personal feelings, and he would commence by assuring them that it was not because this was the 15th of July that they would be able to avoid this question. It was only the people of Ireland who were looking on this subject with attention. It occupied a great space in the mind of the public out of these realms, and he believed he did not over-estimate it when he said it would occupy a considerable space in the mind of posterity. The great difficulty he felt on this subject was, where to begin. But he must first notice the strange advice which the Noble Lord gave to the parties who had suffered, not to come to the House of Commons, as it could not examine evidence on oath : but to file a criminal information to be tried before Chief Justice Pennefather and the jury, the malformation of which was complained of. It might be quite satisfactory to the Noble Lord to have no in quiry, but if anything could tend to produce dissatisfuc tion, it would be the refusal of inquiry on the present occasion.—(Hear.) The first allegation was that there were sixty-three names omitted from the jury list ; but it was stated by Mr. M`Grath and the Recorder that only twenty-four had been omitted. With respect to these twenty-four, there were some curious facts, not the least curious of which was the statement of the Noble Lord—that 180 lists were formed for the twenty-four parishes of Dublin. Now, as many of these parishes were very poor ones, there could not have been names in all these parishes fit for all the classes of jurymen —(Hear, hear) — and many of the lists therefore must have been blank sheets of paper. With respect to the list of the parish of St. Audeon's, it was a most unfortunate coincidence that the majority of the lost names were those of Ca tholics, whose bias, if they had any at all, would have been rather in favour of the traversers. There was great cause for suspicion, but it seemed they could not inquire into it, because it was the 15th of July. The traversers, on their part, challenged inquiry, especially into the cause of the omission of the names How some names were placed on the list, and how others were omitted which ought to have been on the same list, he left it to the Noble Lord—he was going to say to the Recorder, but the Recorder, it seemed, had left it :0 them —to explain. If there were any fairness they were bound to clear this matter up. He might go further than he had done, but he would merely ask the House if it could get over the allegations of which investigation was challenged? Let them have ingu;rS., t There was enough to excite more than suspicion;,arpt he thought he might venture to say that in the„preseat state of public feeling, and in the pi-e.r...pt state of Ireland, it ..vould not have a good eff.ct if they appeared inclined to tr , at these _in,ati . ers When they could state that some wbo -special jurors before vtere left out, when their e.xcuse for the missing list turned out to be an untenAW4c, he asked them how could they refuse to grant this viry ? But there was anoth(r party to this casc—Ml(Aber individual whose character was at stake on this occasion, that was the Recorder of Dublin. Had he no "friends in this House? Or were hoz. Majesty's Govern ME; tso indiff rent to the character of that gentleman that they would not allow him, and all tho , e persons connected with his 1 office, to clear themselves if any false or unfounded charges were made against them? The;Hight Hon. Gentleman had vouched for the statement of M•Grath. ..... _ ... . lie hid shown that that excuse had broken down in its strongest point, and therefore be thought that in justice to th Recorder of Dub!in they ought to grant this inquiry. He dii not wish to go into other questions connected with this matter which had been debated on previous occasions, but they were matters of grave im portance in themselves; and if they allowed this subject to pass by without inquiry, on the grOund of the ap proaching termination of the sessica, or any other ground, the public mind would be unsatisfied, the doubts of the public would be as strmg as - , ever, and they would have not one but many discussions on the state of Ireland, quite as troublesome as those whip had taken plan in the . early part of this year. Its Right Hon. -Friend had delayed bringing this sultject-lorward, be cause it was before another tribunal, and, it would be unfair to distract the public mind, or pre argue the question which was pending before the highest tribunal of the land. His Right Hon. Friend had postponed it also for the convenience of the Govermnent ; and it was not fair to twit him with bringing it forward at this late period of the session. 'The question as to the le gality of the verdict was now before the highest tribunal. Suppose that the legality of that verdict should be con firmed, would that satisfy the public mind, if all inquiry was refused as to the errors and inaccuracies with which it appeared to be connected? He did not know any way in which they could more exasperate - the . public mind, and more embitter conflicting parties, and, what was worse, conflicting sects. Even with legality on their side, the public impression would be that: justice, fair ness, honesty, had not been observed, and that tyranny only had worked its wantonness in the form of law. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped that the tone and feeling exhibited by the Right Hon. Gentleman would exist to the end of the debate ; but the peculiar psition in which he was placed had caused him to. do injustice to his Noble Friend who answered the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Every argument which had been brought forward on the present occasion had been over and over again addressed to the House, and he thought they were now entitled to expect that something new would be brought forward. He did not mean to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman who broUght forward this motion had intended anything, that was mis chievous, but certainly the present discussg.pn was calcu lated to cast distrust on the administration of justice. — (Opposition cheers.) Under what circumstances was the motion made? A most extensive and dangerous conspiracy existed, fraught with the most serious conse quences, threatening the dismemberment of the empire. That conspiracy was—not by resorting to any extra ordinary power not by coming to Parliament for a Coercion Bill—with no . other weapon than that with which the law had armed the Government —beaten down to the ground. The lew had vindi cated her supremacy—the offenders against her were prostrate at her feet, and under circumstances like these the Right lion. Gentleman thought it was the pro per time to insinuate suspicions against those proceed ings,_ and to endeavour to lead the public mind to the conclusion, that in some way or other the parties con victed had not been fairly tried. Tile Right Hon. Gen tleman had introduced topics into this debate which were not properly connected with it. Blame had been cast upon his Right Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney- General for Ireland; but any person who was acquainted with the facts would be convinced, not only of the great ability and dexterity with which he extricated himself from the technical difficulties with which his cause was surrounded by the ingenious counsel opposed to him, but by the moderation and firm ness of his conduct from beginning to end. That was an acknowledgment that was extorted from one of the most eloquent of his adversaries. It bad been said that a copy of the indictment had been refused to the defen dants. Now, the fact was, that eight copies of the in dictment had been made out and delivered to the defen dants; but it was true that a copy with the names of the witnesses was refused by his Right Honourable and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General fur Ireland). He thought that his Right Hon. and Learned Friend was right and justified in doing so, and that he would be guilty of a dereliction of his duty, if, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he acceded to the application which was made fur it. After the manner in which Mr. Bond Hughes, upon whose testimony the informa tions were granted, was placarded as a high Govern ment spy, was it not perfectly evident that there would be very great . danger indeed to permit the wit nesses' names to be known? He would now proceed to the real, in fact the only, question before the House, that which regarded the defective list of jurors. When this question came before the Court. Mr. Justice Crampton strongly expressed his belief that there was no fraud, but that there was some inadvertence regarding the manner in which the jury lists had been made up. If there were any fraud, there should have been an application e to the Court. Such an application was made, a t was deliberately decided by the Court it that the defe dents had no right whatever, under the circumstances,• to call upon the Court to quash the verdict. An observation had been made by his Noble Friend which deserved the serious attention of the House. There was a mode in which the defendants might have obviateltheinconvenienceiiMeh arose from a defective panel. ey might have tirpliM for a trial in the county of Dublin at large, and the only inference to be drawn from their not doing so was, that they were not willing to abandon the possession of a grievance which might be useful to them at a future time. The trial, however, approached, and it was then determined that there should be a new attehipt made to impeach the jury list by what was called a 'challenge to the array. He thought a very great mistake had tirisen on the subject of that challenge, and he' felt it his duty to set the House right on that point. He had lately seen leading articles, in which it was distinctly stated that the Lord Chancellor, in the discussion in the House of Lords, had distinctly admitted that the lists were fraudulent. He must endeavour to disabuse the public mind of such an impression. Admitted it undoubtedly was, in a certain sense, because no person could demur in point of law without admitting the facts upon.which: the law arose ; but admitted to all intents and purposes it was not by the demurrer.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The fact was admitted merely for the purpose' of raising the question of law.—(Hear, hear.) All that the Lord Chancellor had said in effect was " You must admit the existence of a fraudulent list, and argue the point of law which .is raised under these circuinstances."—(Hear. hear.) Now a majority of the judges had . decided against the challenge. The Right Hon. Gentleman said " The verdict pronounced was not satisfactory, in consequence of the nature of the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice." He must say he thought this was a very un fair and unjust attempt to cast reflections upon the emi nent judge who presided at that trial. Considering the situation in which he was placed, by the opportunity which there was, if there had been any impropriety in his mode,of charging the jury—considering that he was not only addressing the jury in the presence of the en tire bar, but that, being himself only one of the four judges present, and that the others were bound to address the jury if they considered that any of the evi dence had been omitted or improperly stated—he must repeat that he thought . this was a most unfair and unjust attempt.—(Hear, hear.) lie had read the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice more than once, and excepting one solitary expression, which was hardly worth obser vation, he could see nothing objectionable.—(Hear. hear.) Over and over again the Lot d Chief Justice said that the onus of proving the conspiracy was upon the Crown, and that was only to he made out by facts, and undoubted inferences from facts.—(Hear, hear.) He even asked the counsel for the traversers to interrupt him, if he omitted or stated wrongly any portion of the evidence, and the counsel of the traversers avieled them selves of that privilege.—(Hear, hear.) It was most improper to attribute to the Chief Justice any unfairness with regard to the mode of summing up the evidence. It was calculated to make the public beliere that this State trial had not been brought to a satisfactory con clusion. The question which the House had to decide was simply this—were there any circumstances whatever which could induce them to say that any good could possibly arise from an inquiry conducted by a Select Committee in the manner proposed by the Hon. Gentleman?—(Hear, hear.) What benefit was to result from it he was at a loss to understand. If there had been any fraud with regard to the missing list, there was a particular course of legal proceedings by which redress might be obtained. After investigating all the circumstances of the case, he felt convinced that no hardship or inconvenience had arisen to parties from the fact of there having been a missing list. He felt convinced that the trial had been fairly conducted, and that the conclusion would be con sidered by all well judging men, and all lovers of their country as perfectly satisfactory. On the ground that the granting of the inquiry would be an admission of fraud, he felt bound to resist the motion before the House. Mr. V. STUART said one or two obiervations made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had taken him rather by surprise. It was a pity, for the sake of the Learned Judge to whom he had referred, that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was not in the House when the debate took place in reference to his charge, in an early period of the session.; for, if he re membered rightly, not one of the Right Mon. Gentlemen opposite defended him on that occasion.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) It was no light: thing to bring such charges against a judge.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle man had commenced by saying that a wide-spread con spiracy was over the land, and that this was, therefore, no time for such a motion as that before the House. Why, was not that begging the very question at issue ? How did they know of the existence of a conspiracy ex cept by the decision of the jury ?—(Hear, hear.) They had on that occasion been dealing too much with techni calities. What they should aim at was to remove the feeling which existed so generally in Ireland, that, whether from fraud or not, justice was not duly adminis tered.—(Hear, hear.) He contended that that was a question which the House ought to entertain, and the lateness of the period was no argument against inquiry. What had been the evil all along but the want of confidence in the administration of the. law ?—(Hear.) How could they have any confidence in the administra tion of justice, when they recollected that the law had so long been made the instrument of oppression, and that jurors had been employed to subvert Justice, and not to