The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-19 00:00:00

D adCiress .e was 0 trac ti°ll Is th e k tiringr ror ,r THE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY -EITENINO, JULY 19, 1944. course in the House of Commons. With regard to the motion before the House - , he quite agreed in thestatement that the House must choose between putting the Hon. Member for Finsbury on the Committee. or allowing him to examine particular witnesses himself. Sir R. PEEL said, he really must say that he thought it would have. been much more consistent with 'the (hay of the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he felt any objec tion to the constitution of the Committee, that he should have stated that objection at the . time when it was ap pointed,--(gear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman thought that there ought to have been two Members of the pre sent Government on it, and two of the past, or that there ()tight to have been lawyers, it would have been easy for him to have made a motion to that effect. The Right Hon. Geteleman complained of the exclusion of the Hon. Member forFinsbury. R hy, the Earl of Radnor ' oho had brought forward the charge in the House of Lords, had been excluded by his own consent, although lawyers were appointed. Th e appointment of such eminent lawyers in the Rouse of Lords was a decided proof that the Govern ment had no wish to exclude lawyers. .Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Right Hon. Gen tleman had a little misunderstood the nature of his ob jection. He had expressed his surprise that the Govern silent in one place had attached the greatest importance to the Committee being soconstituted as to exclude lawyers and ex-Ministers, while in another place the Committee contained two lawyers and three ex-Ministers. Mr. V. SMITH said he had understood, when he voted for the Committee, that no members of the Go vernment were to be concerned in the investi gation. The Government ought to have acted the Same in one place as another. The Committee Laid not placed the Hon. Member for Finsbury in the b e ex, and said, " We will report you to the House if you 11 0 not answer, as they ought to have done—(Hear, hear)—the public would now know that there was infor mation in the hands of a Member of that House which lie had not been pressed to give. In the Committee on election compromises the House had not scrupled to put the accuser on the Committee and in the chair of Its He should therefore move that the Hon. Manners Sutton, and Mr. T. Duncombe be added to the Committee. The question having been put, The O'CONNOR DON referred to what had been done• by the Committee with regard to the presence of the Ron. Member for Finsbury. He did not think it Would he right for the House to rescind the resolution to which it had come when it negatived the proposition that he should be a member of the Committee. If the 400 - Member were allowed to be present it would be Itrivalent to his being a member of the Committee. e must say it was due to the Government to say that no information which the Committee thought desirable Was withheld. It was given to the greatest extent. He trusted the House would withhold its opinion as to the tesult till the Committee had made its report to the Souse. —(Hear, hear.) He thought the conduct of the Committee had been impughned.—(No, no.) But there had been a degree of investigation which he thought 'would have surprised the Hon. Gentleman himself. , The SPEAKER said that the proposition m a de h a d laten Already- negatived, and it could not be put again. Mr. FUME asked whether the same proposition could not be negatived twice under different circum stances ? Th e SPEAKER said that a proposition having been trade which was negatived, it was not usual to renew the sam e proposition in the same session, but it was dif n'rent with regard to orders for papers where amended re turns were required to be made. , Mr. W. WILLIAMS rose to address the House amidst t e olli: cries of " Divide, divide," and much confusion. The Ron. Gentleman said that it was most important that t he pubijc should be satisfied with the proceedings of the ~:oremittee. No charge had been brought against, the "Mimittee, but it had been stated that they could not conduct the inquiry as it ought to be conducted unless - the Ron. Member for Finsbury were empowered to exa shine certain witnesses. Grave charges had been brought i gainst her Majesty's Government both with rega r d to t r opening of letters and to the conduct of the Post -041,ce. Great excitement existed in the public mind on the 1 1 ').iee. The Right Hon. Baronet-the Secretary of State for t he Homo-Department replied that he had done nothing more than had been done by his predecessors, and than bad been the usual practice of his office. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had called for a Committee of In quiry; and, contrary to the practice of the House , the le etight Han. Baronet, who was the party accused, had 4 noisele proposed the list of the gentlemen who were to but the Committee of Inquiry. He did not deny 'mit that the gentlemen constituting that Committee were all most honourable men, but they were all friends either 43f the late or of the present Government, who were the Parties l implicated ; and however honourable their con . "et might be in the management of that Committee , litheir decision would not give satisfaction as they were at r l e sent constituted. Her Majesty's Government could not !t see that they would be acting wisely if they were to F n opt th e proposition of adding the Hon. Member for ury to the Committee. It would give great satis -settee to the public. On a question of so much import ance • a at i„, l t was necessary that the public mind should be th e fled, and the country would not be satisfied unless er e en. Member for Finsbury were on the Committee. that' STRUTT, as a member of the Committee, felt 111 u -e was placed in a very peculiar position. The sekr of the Members of the Committee were, th - `u• In the course of the debate it had been alleged a at it was nessary that certain evidg nce should be ex el33ined in order to make the in q uir y com p lete, but it , 48 not st a t e d whether or not the Committee had already had that evidence before them. The Com rittee were e ndeavouring. to pursue their duty faith fully and diligently, and they had done so without re gard to either party in that House. They' had had Most ample evidence placed at their disposal by her Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the proposal more immediately before the House, he thought it would be a most inconvenient course to adopt to admit any gentleman on the Committee on . 1!17 terms proposed. The Committee had alre a dy gon e l' s ' co ough a great deal o f ev id ence , and it would be a great zoowiluvenience if any gentleman were to be admitted lehi e elT' a the Committee without knowing the evide nce ithetheir— been gone into already. He could not kn o w that evidence might not have proved or dis proved ban g th e articular allegations which he wished te forward. If any gentleman were placed in the rosttton i n which it was proposed to p l ace t h e Hon. sil _ e n?ber for Fi ns b ury , it wou ld be necessary that h( geld be acqua i nte d w ith the evidence which had a dY been given before that Committee. He had hithe rto acted on the principle of not saying one w ord, or giving one vote, as to the Consti tution of th a t C omm i t t ee . On a former occasion when e Hon. Afember for Finsbury had been proposed as a m ember oa o f i t he would g i ven no vo t e , nor s h ou ld h e vo t e If the present occas i o n. He merely rose to caution the _ o use not to d raw an y inference from the silence of the ln euabers of the Committeo,--(Hear, hear.) • Mr. V. SMITH withdrew his motion. Mt- T. DUNCOMBE wished merely to say a few w or ds- The Right Hon. Gentleman said it would be a t eat slur upon the Committee, if he were added to it in the way proposed—it would be a still greater slur upon .3.: Committee, if he were added to it as a member. r - , l ` a 't Noble Lord said that it would be tantamount to 'ong him a member of the Committee, if he were per• Tait te-. to be present during the examination of wit tilt the hear.) They might just as well say t i lt the counsel who proved the preamble of a private h was a member of a Committee.—(Hear, hear.) All 41 e i. asked was to be permitted to be present at the exa lt of certain witnesses, whom he was pre eh to produce to prove his charge. es- (Loud e e" r s.) Would the Noble Lord say that that it t , r ge had been either proved or disproved.—(Cheerer aquiwltnesses he would produce had not yet been called: se m bY a recent and most searching inquiry, amounting • k.,c'st to a persecution, which had been instituted at the , v Ltusee of the Government, in order to Ascertain who it w u's that had given him (Mr. D.) this information, it 4 8 necessa r y th a t there should be a searching scrutiny, re tf the letter-carrier up to the opener and the sealer x; o l etters—i n short, through all the rani cations of the Atoffice. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet a st 4 question. Did he ever open or cause to be opened er , lett er o f hi s (M r . Duncombes)—(Laughter, and bl tes of "'ear, hear ")—since the Right lion. Gentle insu l t ad been in office ? He considered it a very gross th a t any letter of any Member of that House, hay tAt4ken the oaths of allegiance, and holding the posi- Th e t , h ,eY dideshould have their letters opened.—(Hear.) a ne . lii ht lion. Baronet could have no heeitation in 4 r i ng whether or not he opened his letters; for e & they hi re not opened by the Right Hon, Gentleman, or by cg e i rections, they were opened by other hands.— se pe nr, hear.) Investigation was, therefore, most de ee.- The Committee ought to have allowed him to T he tutue the list of witnesses which he held in his hand. m ill e otonlittee should increase its authority in com• de nee g the attendance of witnesses to give evi -11,,,'• Ile w as willing, before a Committee of either th'se, to su b stan ti a t e his allegations.—(Hear, hear.) fi g : c ould thee have all the charges he had made hives to f a ,4; The Committee had no right to say he refused ti gat alit ate their inquiries, or assist them in the inves fakiii'2ll of these charges. He had offered them every cli we in his p ower . S om e of ;:is witnesses were sabot , : lap there in the Post-office, and he wonld not wish to give rt e i rte nam es , unless he were present to protect them. of th 4 .ew their evidence would compromise the conduct leet a e „': soPeriors, and their superiors would be most re e,hsoi-b le allow th em t o attend. He thought it was; we, tit * necessary that some one should be present cas s , Was acquainted with all the circumstances of the e 3ta He told the House and the public that the he s ul ati t f t ion—the labours of the Committee--would not * ere s aetory, conclusive, or complete, if those witnesses af ter nut interrogated. The Hon. Member concluded, a hyin :?Peatin g the uestion to Sir James Graham, by ~%r he T would persevere in his motion '• GRAHAM must say that no gentleman in t"llse was less accustomed (if he might use the ex -essio to. iv , ` e l VilpOttrifig than the Hon. Member for Pins k/. Th b qu es ti on w hi c h h ad b een j ust put t h e H on . elber knew that, consistent with his sense of duty, b;: l e , h oll es 4 , l not answer.—(" Hear, hear," from the Tory and ironical cLeeys from the Opposition.) He hth4adt,alr'eandy stated to the' tiouse, firmly but respectfully, an:stwdoeo, s : u ts t t:nt with his sense of duty, he, could sense 0 , 0 , ; and he must be the judge of what his was. He could not, er would not that question. Whet& the appointment of a tess • ei sgui T o ttlee had been moved for, he bed stated without and without reserve the e 071,8,2 he meant to Yai e n s e ,' v. b av t ,in_epreviou s ly obtained the ;Gnat* of her the utmost the word and honour of a geetleman rte '144 to ' tizil_eedegeo.nnlrit,ten!latirSt degree since then redeethed Out been two Of three days examined before :eel s & lie aced his examination bed not yet con litiee,sstioin the. elt that he should be suppwriad by both House in hie veeolutien not to answer th".. r u- Wh ich the Hon. Gentieriaau bid put to him. g l . l .'re r) t 4l h ei ."P9-` l. said the Committee wee willing to did r ot s,:etiiisite guarantee to the witnesses, and he .`'ereteitte_ what " protection" any witnesses before their ze embe _ ould rec.eive from the presence of the Hoe s fur Finsbury.© The witnesses would be per: • feetly safe in the hands of the Committee, -but the Hon. Ifornber ought to furnish the Committee with such facts as would enable them to test their veracity. ~.._ ..._ . The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it • 141 Majority against the motion —9o UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL. _ . _.... . . On the third reading of theßill having been proposed, Mr. M. O'FERRALL rose to oppose it. During the whole time this Bill had been before the House no mem ber of the Ministry had given any explanation or state ment. Sir J. GRAHAM—In Committee it was discussed. Mr. M. O'FERRALL—Yes, there was some discus sion in Committee, but there had been no Ministerial statement on the principle of the Bill, or the reasons which induced the Government to press it on the House. —lronical cries of " Hear, hear," from Sir IL Peel.) He understood the meaning of the Right Hon. Baronet's cheers. That the late Ministry had done so—(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches) — but it was proposed under very different circumstances, lifter a Committee of the House of Lords had sat for four nonths on the state of Ireland.—(Hear from the Opposi tion.) When the Government asked for a continuanceof a stringent law he thought they were bound to prove a case of absolute necessity for it. They . were bound to show that heretofore they had exercised their power leniently, and without injustice. They were bound to prove that they could not with safety carry on the public service without a continuance of this stringent law. Such, however, had not been the case. The law had been most shamefully abused. It bad been the means of sending spies amongst the unfortunate peasan try of Ireland. These spies had induced the peasantry to form combinations. And all this system of spies had been carried on with the sanction of Government. He admitted that this was a strong charge to make, but it applied with double force to the Noble Lord the Secre tary for Ireland. When he (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) contrasted the declarations which the Noble Lord had made 'on taking office with his subsequent acts, he felt that he had good ground of complaint. The Noble Lord could not deny that such acts as those to which he (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) had alluded had occurred within the Noble Lord's knowledge. The Noble Lord could not deny that such acts occurred in 1842, and that he per mitted them to be repeated in 1843 and 1844. He would prove what he had statedt and the first case to which he would allude was a prosecution which took place at Armagh, in the spring of 1842. Several persons were prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Oaths Bill. The principal witness against them stated that he hsd made Ribbonmen by the hundred—that he was in the habit of attending ribbon meetings, at which he prepared the documents. This he had been directed to do by the magistrates in the neighbourhood, The next witness examined was a policeman named Fox, who said he went amongst the peasantry, and by false hood induced them to enter into combinations. Mr.White side, than whom a more eloquent pleader did not live, was the counsel for the prisoners. Judge Crampton, in sum ning up, said the conduct of G. Fox, the policeman, to say the least of it, was uncommon, for he went about fa hrieating falsehoods. He went on to say that Mr. Whiteside, the counsel, had preferred a charge which was most disreputable to the Government. The news paper in which this case was reported did not state what the charge was, but it was not difficult to imagine it. The Learned Judge said he thought the charge had been unintentionally made, but Mr. Whiteside gol up, and said, " No, my Lord, and so far from retracting it, I re assert it."—(Hear,! hear.) This was a subject which the Noble Lord ought not to have suffered to pass over without investigation ; but no such step had been taken: Here were a certain number of men employed by the agents of the Government to seduce persons to enter into this sort of conspiracies—giving them the signs and pass-words—swearing them in to become Ribbondmen, or members of some wicked society or other, and then betraying them to the Government ; who, in their turn, look upon them as most efficient officers, and promote and reward them accordingly. Ho (Mr. O'Ferrall) should not think of opposing t'he renewal of this Bill if he could not justify his refusal of the powers it gave to the Government by the statements he had made to the House. The laws, he 'admittod, should be administered with strictness, with energy, and with vigour, but at the same time with justice ; and proof should be given to the people that the law was not enacted for vengeance, but for protection. The Government should, by the enactment of their laws and the administration of them, satisfy the people of Ireland, as the people of 'England were satisfied, that the law was their best friend, and that, so long as they kept within its pale, it would be their never-failing safeguard. They should induce the Irish people to have faith in it. But at present they had io confidence in it, and they were justified ' • for when they contrasted the trials of the Chartists and other per sons in England with the trials for political offences in Ireland, they saw too plainly that justice meant a very Efferent thing in one country to what it did in another. —(Hear, hear.) In the trials in England every man, in every quarter, was satisfied that the law was adminis tered with mercy and justice, and with the simple and proper view of vindicating the law and maintaining the institutions of the country - but he (Mr. O'Ferrall) was satisfied that this creditable construction could not be put upon the administration of the law in Ireland. But it would be urged against him, that he had been a party to the original enactment of this law. He admitted he had. But the state of the country was very different now to what it was at that period. Why, there was more pro perty destroyed in one month now in the two counties of Suffolk and Norfolk, than had been destroyed in the whole of Ireland for many months past—(Hear, hear) —and yet they heard of no' such Act as this being passed for the governing of the English people.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Ferrall) was at present sincere in his desire for the maintenance of the union, and was willing to bear, as best he could, the unpopularity which at tached to all those who held such opinions, and dared to give expression to them. The continuance of that com mon compact was alike cherished-by large majorities of persons on both sides of that House; but see what an argument was furnished against them by the enactment of such harsh, repulsive, and unequal laws as this.— (Hear, hear.) The Government, by their conduct, were daily taking from those friendly to the union the strong and useful arguments they were anxious to re tain, and were putting most powerful weapons into the hands of all who now thought, or who might feel it their duty hereafter, to enrol themselves amongst the friends of the repeal cause.—(Hear, hear.) With such opinions as these of their conduct and its tendency, he (Mr. O'Ferrall) felt it his duty to move that " the Bill be read a third time that day six months." Lord ELIOT said the Right Hon. Gentleman had brought a charge against the Government, which, coming from him, was most extraordinary—namely, that they had brought forward this Bill without going into any explanation of its provisions. Why, the Go vernment of which that Right Hon. Gentleman was a member, had not only in the year 1839 brought forward this very same Bill, word for word as it now stood, with out entering into its merits, but they bad passed it into a law without inviting or entering into any discussion upon it whatever.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Right Hon. Gentleman, too, was actually one of the authors of a Bill which, when the Government asked the House to renew for only • a limited period, he now abused in a most virulent manner.—(Hear, hear.) It was as well known to the Right Hon. Gentleman, as to any one at all acquainted with Ireland, that for fifty or sixty years past secret societies of one kind or another, and under one name or another—but all of them most abominable and wicked associations—had existed in that country ; and that`the members of them were bound by the most horrible oaths to obey the commands, however horrid and murderous, of the leaders of them. It was not ne cessary for hina (Lord Eliot) to enlarge on the evils that had attended every step of these societies. It was for the Right Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. O'Ferrall), if he apposed the Bill altogether, or desired any relaxation of its provisions, to prove that these evils did not now exist, and that if the societies did exist, they were at least become powerless. But this he had failed to do— or rather, he bad not attempted to do.—(Hear, hear.) For his (Lord Eliot's) part, he should consider no mea sure too stringent which could, consistently with jus tice, put down these societies wherever they existed. And how mild the Government effect this object, but by Bills such as this, and by the occasional aid of the approvers ? Mr. M. O'FERRALL—But not of spies. Lord ELIOT said surely there was a difference be tween an approver and a spy. Besides, the evidence of an approver was rarely, if ever, relied upon, unless there was eersoberative testimony to support it. The greatest vigilance, and precaution were used, and whenever the slightest suspicion of unfair play reached the Govern ment, the most determined measures were taken to bring the offending parties to condign punishment. Why, in the very case instanced by the Right Hon. Gentleman— that of Ogle—he had been committed to gaol—he was in gaol now—and was going to he tried on a charge of subornation of perjury.—(Loud cries of f‘ Hear, hear.") But the Bight Hon. Gentleman had drawn a parallel be tween the enactment of laws for England and Irelanfl which would not hold. He (Lord Eliot) would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, in sober earnestness, if he really meant to compare the state of Suffolk and Norfolk, with reference to the Bill then under discussion, with the state of Ireland? Were there any secret societies, ad ministering unlawful oaths, and binding men to the commission of the most atrocious crimes in Norfolk and Suffelk, or in any other part of England. No such thing. A4d if there were such societies existing in any part of England, be dare pledge his life that the con fidential Ministers of the Crown would come down to Parliament and demand exactly the same extent of powers as they considered necessary in the case of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Ministers felt it their duty to ask for a renewal of this Bill, but still . thei asked it only for a limited period. The late Ministry would not, in 1839, have introduced this measure, had they pot been convinced of its neces lofty, and the present measure v 54.4 nothing more than a repetition of that Bill. He should, therefqrp, feel it to be his duty to perfievere in the "motion, that the Bill should now be read a third tin* Mr. M. BELLEW supported the amendment. He thought it was but fair that Hon. Members shonid draw an Inference from the manner in which Government had acted with respce4 to juries in Ireland, for the purpose of showing how they would act in other cases. The in cautious manner in which the Attorcpy-General for Ireland had made statements in that Holm, wou4 - 1 not give much oocqdence to Honourable Membe rs as to 'the course he would pursii;,,i jf the present Bill passed. There iym a great difference its g;ft administration I Of justice in frelr_nd and this country; Irrt? "WA L T; was tf d o from taint, but vas not the case in Lelantt. In that country Darti , 3s were loroygkit haore magistrates of a different religion to 444 PP. 1.0 '7 whR 9 11 til4t account were prejudiced against diet% Old W9II I .cI:PP doubt be tried by ajury selected by a partisan sherift--1 (Hear, hear.) The House ought, therefore, to be more cautious in giving power to the executive in Ireland than in this country. This might be a small matter, but it was one that showed the views and tendency of her Majesty's Government. There never was, he believed, a time when there were less private associations in Ire land, and he trusted, therefore, the Government would not press the Bill. If they did he should feel compelled to vote against the third reading. Mr. SHELL had great objections to the present Bill, because it would furnish to informers an opportunity of carrying on their nefarious trade, which, but for this measure, could not be carried on. , Whenever the Whigs had brought in Bills that were calculated to extend liberty, the present Government always selected them as matter for avoidance, but when they brought in mea sures having a contrary effect, then they were taken as examples.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Kil dare had asserted that the Bill was not only liable to abuse, but that it had been productive of abuse, and that too in a most serious degree. In 1842 a case oc curred in Armagh, where a person of the name of Ha gan, having incited parties to commit a crime, informed of it. .He did not accuse the Government of being party to such things, but they must know that such things existed ; that informers took advantage of the Act, and that the police had employed them had been proved in a court of justice. Hagan, it was true, was dismissed when he was found out ; but there were many cases that might not be found out at all ; and that he looked upon as substantiating their case, and, added to this, it was well known that Ireland was a country fertile.with informers. Had the House forgotten that, in Kilkenny, a person, high in the constabulary, had em ployed a policeman to go to a printer, and induce him to print a seditious ballad, in order that he might after wards prefer a charge against the man whom he had induced to commit crime ?—(hear, hear.) Where they had a knowledge of the people, and what was going on, was it wise or prudent to insist upon an Act like the present ? By the present Bill they were making that a crime which ought only to be evidence of a crime. The measure was only brought in from due necessity in 1839—it was not necessary in 1840, and it ought not to exist in 1844. Let the Government follow the advice of the Hon. Member for Kildare, and make as little distinc tions between this country and Ireland as possible ; he trusted they would not avail themselves of a majority to draw a line of demarcation between England and Ireland. Mr. T. B. C. SMITH (Attorney-General for Ireland) complained that questions had been mixed up with the present discussion in no way connected with the question • before the House. Allusion had been made to the State Thals, but he would not discuss the subject, except to state that, he considered himself perfectly justified in the observations he had made at the close of the proceedings. With respect to the present case, the Hon. Member for. Kildare had confounded the character of a spy with that of an informer, although they were perfectly distinct. After having received the information of an informer, to make use of him . as an instrument to entrap others into the commission of crime was unjustifiable, and no man in that House would denounce it more strongly than he would—(Hear, hear) —but in all prosecutions for the administration of unlawful oaths, they were com pelled to prove that the words found on any person were actually the pass-words of the particular society .stated in the indictment, and this evidence could only be given by an informer, who had been connected with the society. It was impossible to prosecute without such evidence. On this point be would read the opinion of Lord Plunkett, who admitted the necessity of having the evidence of the informer.—(The Hon. Gentleman read a passage from a charge to the jury, by his Lordship, in a trial for this offence.) He could also adduce the au thority of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Clonmel, who, when Attorney.:General for Ireland, conducted the prosecution in the case of " the Queen v. Jones," in which he made use of evidence of this kind, after stating the defects of the existing law, and the necessity of some statute like the one under discussion. To show that the evidence of informers was generally admitted, he cited a case in which a man named Ken nedy was examined, who was proved to be of the most depraved character, having even assisted in the comini , - sion of murder. Having read this man's evidence, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that no person could be more sensible than himself of the impropriety of employing what were properly called spies, but the dis tinction between one of these men and an informer must be remembered. It must also be recollected that, in the case of secret societies, it was impossible to arrve at any proof, unless they got the testimony of some person con nected with them. With respect to the case in the county of Sligo mentioned by the Hon. Member for Kil dare, the policeman's name was Ogle, and he suborned a man to charge another with having administered an un lawful oath. Of that he might have been guilty under the Act of George 111., and the present Act would pro vide no remedy for such a case. Under the whole of the circumstances, he trusted there was sufficient grounds for the present Bill. The O'CONOR DON was glad that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had drawn a distinction be tvveen spies and informers, and he hoped the Govern ment would in future repudiate the assistance of the in former ; but, unfortunately, in Ireland the man who had been employed as an informer, generally became a spy. Being, an outcast, he was compelled to attach bimself to the police of his district, in order to supply theno4 with information. In the Sligo case, it was proved that the man Kane was entirely supported by the police. The Crown prosecutors were so ashamed of the man's testi mony, that they retired in disgust from the con ,an when evidence was called to the character of th .pri /d- -soner, the jury said they did not require any , a I ac quitted him. But the worst of these cases was, th bad impression they left on the minds of the people. At the previous assizes two men were transported on the evi dence of this man, whose testimony in this case was re - jected. This produced a feeling of universal distrust and suspicion, which was exceedingly injurious. In another case, a clergyman, named Day, was fired at in the county of Roscommon, and the parties having been traced, it was discovered that the identical man who had fired the shot was an informer, who had convicted several men in the county of Louth. Sir R. PEEL said he hoped the proposal of the Go vernment to continue this Bill would not lead to any misconstruction as to their experience with regard to the employment of spies. He did not believe there was much difference as to the employment of persons; but in this country, or in Ireland, to reject the evidence of informers—of men, who, without any previous connec tion of the parties, who had been really and bona fide concerned in crime, would be to defeat the ends of cri minal justice. He recollected that in some of the most aggravated cases of murder, the conviction of the mur derer depended upon the evidence of the accomplice.— (Hear, hear.) Look to the case of Mr. Baker. A per son named Keating had employed five or six persons to murder him, and he was afterwards the person who gave evidence against those whom he employed. He received a reward of 2,0001., and he actually instituted an action against the Government for not giving him more.—(Much laughter.) The parties were convicted but they were not executed. This wretch was con stantly complaining because he did not get more. To reject the evidence of informers, therefore, would be impossible. With regard to the employment of spies, or persons who performed the functions of what were called spies, be would say, that to send men with authority to invite others to commit crime, by entering into a secret society, and then for the Go vernment to avail itself of information as obtained—that he thought that a Government which was guilty of such an act ought itselt to be visited with a punishment as severe as that of the guilty parties.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Nothing could be more dangerous, dis graceful, or more calculated to bring disrepute on the administration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Govern ment ought to be more cautious with regard to em ploying a man in future, who gave information of some crime which was passed, because he would be likely to incite others to crime, that he might make himself of importance.—(Loud cries of " Hear," and cheers.) Those were the principles of the Government, and the subordinate agents of the Government in Ireland ought to know that the Government would not countenance any, person who incited others to commit crime ; and that if they resorted to those acts, they would meet with no encouragement from the Government.—(Hear, hear.) That was the principle on which his Noble Friend acted. Those who had once become informers, had lost their ordinary occupation—their character was blasted. They, therefore, wished to be able to bring forward new cases, and on that account it was neces sary that the greatest caution should be used in giving them employment in future.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure that the convictions for the possession ofpass-words required the greatest caution, and the Government ought to watch the conduct of subordinate agents with great care. The Bill would only remain in force for a year, it would then undergo serious consideration before it was renewed, and in the interval during which it re mained in force, the utmost vigilance would be exer cised on the pert of the Government. But he was sorry that when her Majesty's Government came forward to renew the :Act which was in existence when they came into office, that that circumstance should be taken advan tage of in order to hold them up as enemies to the liberties of Ireland.—( Hear.) Their predecessors brought in the Bill, and when they were charged with indifference to the peace of Ireland, they game forward and pointed to this Bill which they passed for the suppression of un lawful assemblies. It was said that the Bill originated in a Committee of the House of Lords, but the late Go vernment said was their own spontaneous act.— (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.)" It remained in force; and now that the present Government proposed to con tinue it for a year, Hon. Gentlemen opposite came for ward and charged them with being disposed to be tyran nical.—(Cheers.) It therefore became necessary to tell theitruth.—(Hear, hear,) Hon. Gentlemen opposite per mitted the Bill to go through the House ofCommons with out saying one word in opposition to it.—(Cheers,) In the book which contained the proceedings of the Howse on that Bill, he could not find the name of the person who introduced it—the name of a single speaker was not found,—(Hear, hear.) It was described, " Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill i' , introduced, first reading, seoond reading, Committee and report, third reading, and not one of the gentlemen opposite opposed the continuance of the Act when their friends were in power, or thought it worth while to urge a single objection against it; and when the Rill waq under discussion in the House of Lords, those words, "Having an unlawfnl eacusp," which were not in the Bill originally, were introduced lly one who was a member of a Conservative Administration. — (Loud cheers.) Ile read the Bill---s((sheers)—and took, by the introduction of those words, tlap precaution ainst the possible punishment of innocence.— (Hear, 1 nsay.) He suggested that addition, which had never H occurred lo ou. q vg ppnvn opposite—and if there i were mitigation and secrecy evinced against the punish ment of innocence, that mitigation and that secrecy were I 1 n ti c reiat : t4 sin a g A to rm on s e who w . as , a illinister , in i a l :o::7- 1 on. pi e .;) n n, e s m ea en by Q YatiVO !., - ; 4 6teinnient,—(Letid sheers.) Let them recollect 1 the imputiitiOni' they - bsstt utidn 0.4 Government, with fs,g FV h . Bill. The Croyeininer4 r Bill p t p h tsitv olo p ern ac t o h n e t y of lO wh t i h o o h p ih ill u p: p s . , p w r h o e v i e l d, and now, when th.si Government came forward this session to continue the. Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill, the credit of having introduced it being claimed by . . the Government who persuaded them, it was found out to be an intolerable injustice to Ireland.—(Hear. hear.) lie did not mean to say that Hon. Gentlemen opposite might not have opposed the Bill for the welfare of Ire- Lind ; but it was neither fair nor wise to add to the excitement of Ireland, by imputing to the Government intentions which they could hardly really and seriously think they entertained.—(Hear hear.) He gave the Hon. Gentlemen opposite all credit for the firmness with which they had resisted the attempts made to' indnce them to join in the repeal agitation, but, when they said it was difficult to resist the cry for "rd peal, seeing that there was a different law applicable to. England and Ire land, he begged to remind them that, in 1839, they gave their cordial support to this very Bill.—(Cheers.) He admitted that the criminal law of England and Ireland ought to be substantially th e same. - -(Hear, hear.) He would not contest that principle. All he complained of was, that an attempt was made to raise what .he called unjust clamour against them for taking a course less open to objection than that.which was taken by the Government which they supported themselves.—(Hear.) Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought there was more of ingenuity than candour in what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. The Irish Members supported this Bill in 1839, when there was nothing beyond mere conjecture that the provisions of the Bill would be abused. Now they resisted its continuance, because they had experience of its being abused. He }loped the words of the Right lion. Baronet would be attended to by the officials in Ireland, and that they would form part of the instructions to the stipendiary magistrates. If his Right Hon. Friend pressed his motion to a division, he would vote with him ; but, after the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, he thought he would do better to withdraw it.—(bear, hear, from Mr. Escott.) He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) thought the cheer of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was most unfair. He came down to the House prepared to vote ivith his Right Hon. Friend ; but he took the explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet in the spirit in which it was given. —(Hear.) Lord ELIOT explained. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIN said that on his side of the House there was every disposition to take the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman in a fair spirit.—(Hear, heai.) Mr. ROSS did not think there was any necessity . for the Bill, but that there was not was owing to the exer tions of the Roman Catholic clergy, who set themselves against secret societies, an d the habits of temperance wich they inculcated upon the people. • Dr. BOWRING was ranch interested as an English man in this discussion. He thought . the Bill a harsh one, but every credit was due - to the Right Hon. Gentleman for the benevolent interprotationcwhich he put on it. He though there was a good deal iiithe taunt of the Right Hon. Gentleman against those - Irishmen who supported the Bill under the late Government. Mr. M. O'FERRALL expressed himself so satisfied with the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, which he considered so much more useful than a division, that he would not divide the 11.ouse.—(flear.) He would sug gest that the punishment of transportation should be changed to two years' imprisonment. Sir R. PEEL said it would be better to leave the mat ter to the responsibility of Government The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. POOR-LAW. On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM the House went into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. Clause 61 was agreed. to. On clause 62 being proposed, Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause, as an attempt to give justices of quarter sessions power to act as judges of assize, having to decide difficult points of law. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that at present the board of guardians were exposed to very unfair inconvenience as 'respected the debts due to them. The persons of the guardians themselves were not responsible for debts in curred, and even when actions were decided in the cre ditor's favour, there was no property to be seized. Al though a novel enactment, it was a necessary one. Mr. DARBY objected to the clause, because it gave no power of appeal. Sir J. GRAHAM postponed the clause, for the pur pose of taking the matter into consjderation. On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, clause 63 was struck out. Clause 64 was agreed to. On Clause 65 being proposed, Captain PECHELL said he had yesterday called the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to a case in which a woman, wishing tosee her relation, who was about to be confined in a workhouse, was not allowed access to her. lie wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had given that subject his consideration with a view to some future regulation ? He also complained of the employ ment of the inmates of workhouses in grinding bones, and hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would express his disapprobation of such a system. Sir JAMES GRAMAM said that, with every desire to superintend the working of the poor-law, it was im possible for him to attend to every minute regulation. Power was granted to the guardians, subject only to the control of the guardians, and he was persuaded that in every well-regulated workhouse, admission in cases like that mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman would be granted. With reference to the introduction of bone-grinding in 'workhouses, he had last year, he did now, and he would occasions, express his dissent to the use of that siiiitriclliv,employment.—(Hear, hear.) •-The.clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 66 and 67. • Schedules A and B were also agreed to. Sir J. GRAHAM than brought up the following clause to inserted instead of clause 14 : " And be it enacted, that no owner of property shall be entitled to vote as such, under the provisions of the said recited Act, either in person or proxy, during the year following the 25th day of March in any year, un less before the Ist day of Febinary next preceding such 25th day of March he bad given to the overseers the statement required by the said Act, signed by him, nor unless such statements contain a description of the nature of the interest or estate he may have in such property, and a statement of the amount of all rent-service (if any) which he may receive or pay in respect thereof, and of the persons for whom he may receive or to whom he may pay such rent-service ; and no person shall be entitled to vote as proxy until fourteen days after he have made his claim so to vote in the manner required by the said Act; and no person shall be entitled to vote as proxy for more than four owners of property in any one parish (except he be a steward; bailiff, or land agent, or collector of rents for the owners of property for whom he may be appointed to vote); and no appointment of proxy shall remain in force for a longer period than two years from the making thereof, excepting only in the case in which an owner appoints his bailiff, steward, land agent or collector of rents to be his proxy; in which case such appointment shall remain in force so long as the proxy may continue to be such bailiff, steward, land agent, or collector, and while such ap pointment remains unrevoked."—Agreed to. Clause to follow clause 14 : " And the overseers of every parish containing a population exceeding two thousand persons, according to the last enumeration of the population published by the authority of Parliament, shall, on or before the sth day of the month of February in , every year, enter in the book to be from time to time provided for the purpose the names and addresses of all persons who, before the Ist day of the said month of February, have given such statement or made such claims as owners or proxies as aforesaid ; and such overseers shall allow any person to peruse such book, without payment of any fee, at all reasonable hours, between the said sth day and the 10th day of February ; and- any . person who has given such statement or made such claim, or any ratepayer of such parish, may, on or before the 15th day of the said month of February, object to any other person as not being entitled to vote as such owner, by delivering to the clerk of the board of guardians of the said parish, or of the union in which it may be comprised, and at the ad dress of the person objected te,•netice in writing of the grounds of such objection ; and, on or before the 20th day of such month of. February, such clerk shall send to the overseers of such parish, notice of some day, between the 24th of the said month and the Ist of March then next, on which he will hear evidence in relation to such objections, and of the place within the parish or union at which he will attend to hearsuch evidence ; and such overseers shall forthwith 'cause a copy of such notice to be fixed on or near the doors of all churches or chapels within such parish and at all the usual places of affixing notices of parochial business ;' and such clerk shall at tend on the day and at the place so appointed, and shall, in the presence of all persons who may think fit to be present, 'hear any matter adduced in sup port of such grounds of!' objection, or in' oppo sition thereto, but none others ; and the overseers of the said parish shall then and there attend and produce to such clerk the rate-books of the parish for the whole year preceding, and shall answer all such questions as such clerk may put to thetn..or any of them, touching the matter of any such objection ; and such clerk shall retain in the said book the name of all persons to whom no objection has been duly made, and of all persons ob jected to, unless the party objecting have appeared in support of his objection ; and when the name of any person has been duly objected to, suck clerk shall re quire proof of the right of such person to vote, as owner; and in case any matter be adduced in support of the objection, and the right of the person objected to be not proved to the satisfaction of such clerk, he shall expunge the name of such person from such book ; and such clerk shall have power to adjourn, from time to time, and administer an oath to the over seers of any parish, and to all persons attending before him, claiming a right to vote as owners, or objecting to such right, and to all witnesses who be tendered or ex amined on either side ; and such clerk shall write his initials against every name struck out, and sign his name to every page of the said book ; and the persons whose names as owners aro retained by such clerk in such book shall be deemed to be the persons entitled to vote in other y•ear person follow ing the 4 fo u r d t n h o e shall be deemed to be so entitled : provided always, that such parish, 4th o a r s s. o f w a n ro e i r l s n o e f st pr p o n p a e u r h t l y g , , the said Commissioners may, if they see fit, by order anger their hands and seal, direct the guardians of such Parish or union to appolat some person o th er th an th e clerk to such guardians, as a paid officer, to. hear and decide the matter of such ob l jectioes as aforesaid,"-- Aree4 to. Second clause to follow clause 14:— `f Arid whereas, by the said first.recited Act it is pro vided that no person shall be deemed a ratep,ayer, or be entitled to vote, or do any other act, matter at thing as such, under the provisions of that Act, unless he shall have been rated to the relief of the poor for the whole year immediately piecedin his so Nano or otherwise acting as such ratepayer, and shall have paid the parochial rates and assessments made and assessed upon him for the period of one whole year, as well as those due fromat the time of so piing or. Acting, ei&pt 'such Its -shall' have Been mad e or - bor - become due within six iiiontbsiiiiinediately preceding 'gticli voting ee• g acting ; be it enacted, that such pkrochlal rates and 07 sessinents sbail'be deerite4 to extend Only to rates made for the relief of the poor:'—Agreed to. Sir JAMES GRAHAM then proposed,_ thap Alter clause 53 the following clause should be inserted:— " And whereas by the said Act, passed in the 55th iear of the reign of King George the Third, it is enacted that if any person or persons shall desert, or run away from any workhouse or workhouses, and carry away with him, her, or them, any clothes, linen, or other goods, as afore said, such person or persons being thereof lawfully con victed, either by the confession of such party or parties, or. by the oath or oaths of one or more credible witness or witnesses, before any justice or justices of the peace, be forthwith committed to the common gaol or house of Correction, there to remain without bail or mainprise for the space of three calendar months ; and it is further enacted, that in case any person or persons maintained in any public workhouse or workhouses established for the relief, maintenance, and employment of the poor shall refuse to work at any occupation or employment suited to his, her, or their age, strength and, capacity, or shall be guilty of drunkenness or other Misbehaviour, every such person or persons, being thereof lawfully convicted before any justice or justices of the peace, shall 'thereupon, by such justice or justices of the peace, be committed to the common gaol or.house of correction, there to remain without bail or mainprize for any period of time not exceeding twenty-one days, and during such time to be kept to hard labour. And whereas it is desirable that justices of the peace should have a power to commit such persons as are first mentioned for a period of leis than three months, and such persons as are last mentioned for a period greater than twenty-one days, in cases of repeated offences ; be it therefore enacted, that it shall be lawful for any justice or justices to commit any such persons as are first mentioned to the common gaol or house of correction, to be kept there in the manner provided -by the said recited Act for any period not less than seven days, nor greater than three months, and to commit any such persons as are last men tioned, in case such persons have been before convicted of a like offence, to the common gaol or hbuse of correc tion, in manner provided by the said Act, for any period ' not exceeding forty-two days." Captain PECHELL thought this was an excellent alteration. The clause was then agreed to. Sir J. GRAHAM proposed to insert the following clause after clause 63 :—" And whereas it is provided by the said first-recited Act, that all rules, orders, and regulations made by the said Commissioners, under the authority of the said Act, shall be as valid and binding, and shall be obeyed and observed as if the same were specifically made. by and embodied in the same Act,' but no sufficient provision is made for bringing such orders to the knowledge of courts of justice : be it there fore enacted, that any copy of any such rule, order, or regulation, printed by the printer duly authorised by her Majesty or any of her royal predecessors or successors, shall, after the lapse of fourteen days from the date thereof, be received in evidence, and judicially taken notice of, and shall, until the contrary be shewn, be deemed sufficient proof that such order was duly made and is in. force." The clause had been suggested by the Solicitor-General to remedy a defect in the law. The clause was agreed to. Mr. SCOTT then proposed the following clause : " Provided always, and be it further enacted, that wherever overseers shall have, for the first time, been separately appointed for any township or village, since the 14th day of August, A. D. 1834, all persons who, in case such township or village had been a township or village maintaining its own poor from time immemorial, would have been legally settled in such township or vil lage, shall be considered to have their place of settle ment in such township or village notwithstanding, at the occurrence of the circumstances conferring any such right of settlement, such township or village was united with a larger district' for the maintenance of the poor ; and every such person shall or may be removed to such township or village, as to his or her place of last legal set tlement.' The clause was intended to remedy this evil. Many townships had separated themselves from other townships with which they were joined in the rate to'the relief of the poor. The consequence was, that those paupers belonging to the separated townships. who were not resident in the parish at the time of the separation, I could not be removed to them, and the . maintenance of such paupers was thrown upon the other parishes. The present clause would prevent such occurrences for the future, and the object of the proposed clause was to remedy the evils which had occurred. Sir J. GRAHAM admitted the existence of the evil, but the present measure would prevent its recurrence. The evil, however, had as yet gone to a very small ex tent, and he thought that the litigation to which the clause would give rise would be a greater evil than the one it was intended to remedy. The poor could not be injured, as they would have to be maintained as casual paupers in the unions in which they were domiciled. Mr. SCOTT knew of an instance in which forty pau pers were maintained by a township in which they had no settlement, in consequence of their own township se parating in the manner in which he had stated. He thought no difficulty could arise in carrying the clause into effect. Sir J. GRAHAM wished the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to explain what the precise meaning of the words " legally settled" was? Mr. SCOTT said, settlement in a township from time immemorial. Sir J. GRAHAM said he would consider the matter, and trusted they would arrange it in a satisfactory manner on a future occasion. The clause was then withdrawn, by consent. Mr. R. YORKE moved the insertion of the following clause:—" That the Commissional be not empowered to enforce indiscriminate separation between man and wife, and that in no instance shall they sanction or allow separation when the application for relief shall be sub stantiated as arising from positive inability to obtain work, or from physical infirmity, and not from idleness, vice, or crime." Surely persons in a free and civi lised country should not be treated worse than the slave, in a country where liberty was not so jealously guarded, and yet it appeared from the regula tions regarding slaves (which the Hon. Member alluded to at some length), that slaves were allowed to live with their wives, and even with their concubines.—(A laugh.) In a country which so much professed to observe the tendency of the Bible, it was altogether anomalous that the husband and wife should be separated by the law under any circumstances. Sir J. GRAHAM observed, in a jocose manner, upon the phraseology of the clause. He did not understand the meaning of the words " indiscriminate separation." The Hon. Member should be aware that at present the board of guardians had a discretion to permit man and wife to sleep in the same apartment. He would not ad vocate the transfer of this power from the local boards of guardians to Somerset-house, for the Poor-law Com missioners could know nothing about the particular facts of each case, by 'which alone a just decision could be arrived at. He did not think the Hon. Member was cor rect in making either the Commissioners or the boards of guardians judges of the vice or virtue of paupers. He must oppose the clause. Mr. R. YORKE said he would give up the phraseo logy of the clause to the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he conceded to him the principle for which he contended. Mr. A. DARBY opposed the clause. Mr. S. WORTLEY would also oppose it, though he was certainly adverse to any restriction being imposed upon man and wife in the workhouse. Dr. BOWRING thought the clause would produce greater evils than it was intended to remedy. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against_it 96 Majority against the clause --90 Mr. BURROUGHS moved that the following clause be added to the Bill, by way of rider :—" That, in the case of any person being a widow, who shall have a legi timate child or children dependent upon her for support, and no illegitimate child born after the commencement of her widowhood, it shall be lawful for the guardians of the union or parish to which such widow or widows may have become chargeable, to grant relief, if they shall see fit, to such widow or widows, although not residing with in the union or parish in which she or they may have a legal settlement." Sir J. GRAHAM gave great credit to the Hon. Gentleman for the good feeling which dictated his pro position, and assured him that were he himself to be governed by his own wishes he should not for one mo ment oppose it. But a good principle of the law was at stake and his sense of duty compelled him to maintain that principle. Relief of this sort to non-residents was a wholly new principle—one never heretofore recognised —and which the House should pause about before con senting to engraft it on the present Bill. In some cases relief to non-residents was allowed, as in the first six months of widowhood. A departure from the'principle would entail boundless expense on the rate-payers. Mr. SPOONER regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet would not consent to the amendment, as the law at present inflicted in many cases very grievous hard ship. The expense to the parishes was very much in creased by it. Mr. HAWES said the law at present gave sufficient latitude to meet such cases. After a few words from Mr. BROCKLEHURST, Mr. T. EGERTON said that these cases were found principally in the manufacturing districts, and it fre quently happened that a small allowance from the agri cultural union would enable the widow and children to support themselves. Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was neither more nor less than applying this small amount in aid of wages in the manufacturing districts. Mr. T. EGERTON explained that the children were , enabled to support themselves ; the widow alone re quired the assistance. Sir J. GRAHAM :still thought it amounted to the same thing. Mr. BANKES thought the recommendation might be adopted without danger. Colonel ROLL I ESWIN supported the clause. He was of (Ipiniou Ow a discretionary power should exist. Mr. BROTHERTON thought the guardians might have a discretionary power of giving relief to the widows. After a short conversation, the Committee divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against It 4S Majority against Government —1 The announcement of the numberg was reeeived with loud cheers, The (law was then brought up, and ordered to be made part of the Bill. Mr. HAWES moved the following clause :—" And be it enacted, that in every case in which a parish ',contains more than twenty thousand persons, according to the enumeration of the population then last published by authority of Parliament, the cost, charges, and eNpenses properly incurred by the officers of such parish in malting out, preariag, printing : and collecting the lists pertOiAs qualified serve on juries, according to tlAc proyisicpS of the Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, , and wletti Th ng thereto shah be paid.and.all:owe4 to them out of- u Aiinr,ZralAs cc On I;iud - patitsh,. together also with all expenses properly incurred by the same officers, on the perambulation of such parish, and -in setting up and beeping in proper repair the -boundary stones of din. said parish, -provided that such perambulations do not Arise more than once in every three years."—Agreed to. Mr. BROCKLEHURST moved the insertion of a clause to the effect that persons of good character, above sixty years of age, applying for relief, should not be compelled to go into the workhouse, but should have out-door relief granted to them. Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the clause as un necessary. By the law, as it stood at present, the guardians had full discretionary power to grant relief in such cases. Mr. TATTEN EGERTON hoped that henceforth it Would be clearly understood, that guardians had dis cretionary power in such cases to grant out-door relief. In the North of England the general opinion among the guardians was that they had no such power. Colonel ROLLESTON recommended the Hon. Member to withdraw the clause, as it imposed greater restric tions on the boards of guardians than they were under at present. Colonel WOOD assured the Hon. Member, that in the South of England, the guardians generally exercised that discretionary power. Every magistrate in that part of the country was aware that he could make an order for out-door relief for persons above sixty years of age. Mr. BROCKLEHURST, on the distinct understand ing that the same system should be pursued in the North of England, would withdraw the Clause. The clause was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. DARBY, in the absence of Mr. Alderman Thompson, proposed the clause of which that Hon. Gentleman bad given notice, empowering the Poor-law Commissioner:, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to detach parishes from one union, and annex them to another. Sir J. GRAHAM said he disclaimed, as Secretary of State, all discretionary power, and preferred its being vested in the Poor-law Commissioners, who were the best judges, and who would beheld responsible for their acts. Be would put .a clause into the hands of the Chairman—an amended clause—ronveying the purport of that proposed. The Right Hon. Gentleman then proposed the amended clause. Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the clause. Mr. S. WORTLEY supported it. Sir J. GRAHAM explained the effect of the clause, which, he said, would remove the restraints from the discretion of the Commissioners with respect to the dis solution or unions, which at present required the assent of two-thirds of the guardians. The relative rights of parishes would remain the same as under the exist ing law._ . . . Mr. BANKES opposed the clause, and urged the im propriety of discussing such important provisions at so late an hour of the night. In his opinion, the clause did not go far enough. Sir J. GRAHAM said he could assure the House he had not brought up the clause until after the most 'mature and anxious consideration of the evil it was in tended to remedy. There certainly had been an original imperfection in the working of the Bill, arising from in experience, and this was the cause of the too large extent of some of the unions. The remedy, however, must be applied with discretion and care, and he hoped the present clause would prove a gradual, but adequate remedy fur the evil complained of.—The clause was then agreed to. The preamble of the Bill was then agreed to amidst loud cheers, several Hon. Members congratulating Sir James Graham on the excellent temper and considerate feeling he had shown throughout the whole proceedings in Committee. DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL. ... This 11 was considered in Committee, and the report was ordered to be brought up on Monday 'next. The Canal Companies Bill was -withdrawn by ,Mr. GLADSTONE, who announced his intention of bring ing in another Bill upon the subject in the early part of next session. - The report Of •the Joint-Stock Companies at Law and in Equity Bill was brought up and agreed to. RAILWAY BILL. Mr. GLADSTONE postponed the Committee on this Bill till Monday next, at one o'clock. CUSTOMS ACTS BILL. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Customs Acts Bill, Mr. GLADSTONE moved the following resolution: —" That it is expedient to reduce, under certain circum stances, the duties payable on books and engravings." Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whe ther there was any objection to the printing of the evi dence taken before the Customs Frauds Committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the only objection was, that the evidence cast certain impu tations on particular individuals. Mr. DURCOMBE said there were some persons who did not object to having their names published. Thd Bill then passed through Committee. The District Courts and Prisons Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Lecturers and Parish Clerks' Bill passed through Committee, and the report was received. The Wes:tern Australia Bill was read a third time and passed. The Farm Buildings Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Party Processions (Ireland) Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Loin Societies Bill was read a third time, and passed. _ - The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter before Two. SUMMER ASSIZES. HOME ClRCUlT—Chelmsford, July 18. CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.) Elizabeth Beleham, 22, a good-looking young woman, was indicted for the wilful murder of her male illegiti mate child, by casting it into the waters of the Chelmer river, and thereby suffocating it. Mr. Clarkson, with Mr. Espinasse, conducted the pro secution. Mr. Ryland appeared for the prisoner. Mr. CLARKSON addressed the jury, and from his state ment and the evidence adduced, it appeared that the pri soner had resided with her mother at Southminster, in this county, but about twelve months ago she became acquainted with a man named Dean, a carrier at Chelms ford, and eventually went to live with him, her friends being induced to believe that they were married. They continued to cohabit together for several months, when the prisoner proved in the family way, and it appeared that when this became apparent Dean behaved very unkindly to her, and at length turned her out of doors. The prisoner returned to her mother's house, where she was delivered of a child, the unfortunate infant in question, about five weeks ago; and it appeared that she had several times applied to the father of the child for assistance, but could not obtain any from him. On the morning of the sth of July the prisoner left her mother's house, taking the infant with her, and, just as she was about to depart, she told the nurse to kiss the baby, for perhaps it might be the last time she would see it. The prisoner represented that she was going to take the child to Chelmsford, to place it with a wet-nurse. She was traced along the road, and at a beer-shop in the evening, at a short distance from Chelmsford, she had some beer and a biscuit, and she was seen to chew a portion of the latter and give it to the baby. The last time she was seen with the infant alone was about ten o'clock the same night, at which time she was going towards the river, and at eleven she went into a public-house; where it was observed her clothes were very wet, and her boots were also wet and covered with gravel of a similar description to some that had been placed on the banks of the river. The next morn ing a labouring man, who went to the river to water his master's horses, found the dead body of an inftmt in the water. There were no marks of violence upon it, and it had evidently died of suffocation. To prove the identity of the deceased it was found necessary to call the mother of the prisoner as a witness for the Crown . , and she was obliged to admit that the deceased was the offspring of her unhappy daughter. The man was also examined, in order to prove that the day before the dead body was discovered in the river the prisoner wrote a letter to him, to the effect that the child was no more, and that it had died on the previous night, An additional fact, tending to show the identity of' the deceased, 'MA also proved by the medical man, who said that upon opening the stomach of the deceased he found in It a portion of masticated biscuit. Other facts were also disclosed, which made out a very strong ease of suspicion against the prisoner. Mr. RYLAND made a very forcible appeal to the feel ings of the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commented in severe and appropriate terms upon the conduct of the man Deans, who, he said, had first ruined and then de serted his unfortunate victim. He admitted that a case of suspicion had been made oat, but contended that the evidence was not conclusive of the prisoner's guilt, and that, under the Circumstances, they ought to give her the benefit of any doubt that appeared in the case. Mr. Baron PARKE having summed up, the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. MIDLAND ClRCUlT. l —Nortleampten, July 17. (Before Lord DENisLuv.) - MANSLAUGHTEIt EY A FA . rnsn-IN-Law.—John Marriott was charged upon the Coroner's inquisition, with killing and slaying James Plowright. Mr. Miller conducted the case on the part of the prose cution. Ann Plowright deposed that she is the widow of the de ceased, James Plowright, and daughter of the prisoner. She had been married not quite five months. Her husband, who was twenty-one wears of age, had a fit about a fortnight be• fore his death. They lived in the same house with the pri• soner. Three sister and a brother slept in the same room with the prisoner. The eldest is fourteen, the youngest is 9.ig. On the 25th of June last her husband returned from his work about seven o'clock, and they went to bed about nine. Heard her father and mother talking. Heard her father say to her mother, " ff you don't speak I'll throttle you." He then called out at the door, "Is your party in bed Are you listening to me ?" He was not answered. Heard her mother fall on the floor. Her sister Ann ran in and called to witness's husband. Witness ran in first to her father's chamber, and her husband followed, but he fell down stairs as be went. On going into the room, saw the bed clothes on the floor. Her father had hold of her mother. The deceased struck her father, and took her mother from his arms. Deceased told her father to sit down, and tell her civil what he meant to do. He said, " I have told you, and I mean to do it to-night." He then went up to the deceased, and took him by the feet, and threw backwards. They both fell, the father uppermost. De ceased scratched his father's face, while witness, her mother, and sister, endeavoured to draw him off; but could not move him. In two or three minutes he got up and went down stairs, and deceased get up. He threw his arms round his mother's neck, and said, " Oh mother, mother, he's done for me." He then took w it ness roun d the wa i st, and said, "Oh dear, I can't see you; I can't hear you," and fell dawn in sensible, and never spoke afterwards. A surgeon was fetched, but he died betbre tie surgeon arrived. There was no cause 91quarrel between him and her father, who had several times gttf-Mptea to destroy himself. In the month of May he hack attempted to cut his •throat, but was prevented ty th,e de-. ceased. Ann Marriott, a sister of leis witness, corroborated her testimony. Mary Gollitr4 3 neighbour, proved her being seat fox on. the night in question. Found deceased on the floor with.. his head in his wife's lap. Appli e d var i ous remediv In die hope of restoring him, but without effect. He lived- about an hour. Saw the prisoner that night; his face was covered with blood. Mrs. Plowright, on being recalled, said while her husband was on the floor her father said, " Get out of the way and let me kick his brains out." Mr. Simpson, a surgeon, of Stamford, attended the de ceased a fortnight before his death, when he was said to be in a fit. Witness considered it arose from drinking. He was kicking and biting. Witness slapped him sharply in the face, and he soon recovered. On the night of the 25th he was called in, when he found Plowright dead. Made a poat mart= examination. Considered-his death arose from a rup ture of the lungs. Several persons, members of the county police and other wise, gave the prisoner a good character for being an honest, sober, and industrious man. He was found Guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' im prisonment. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 17. CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice CnEsswEr.t.) Young Ward was put to the bar, to take his trial upon an indictment found at the summer assizes for 1843 against him, a woman named Greenough, and three other men, for a burglary in the house of one John Atkinson, at Hunslett, in the parish of Hunslett, on the night of the llth of April, 1843, and stealing therein sundry articles of apparel, two silver table-spoons, six silver tea-spoons, one silver caddy spoon, a pair of silver sugar-tongs, and other articles, the pro perty of the prosecutor. Mr. Hall, Mr. J. H. Hill, and Mr. Monteith, conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was not defended by counsel. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor and his wde, that on the evening of the 1 ith of April they made up the house quite safe, and retired to rest about ten o'clock. About midnight they were awoke by some noise, and on rising to discover the cause, they found that the house had been entered, and the articles named in the indictment, stolen. Butterfield, Lindley, and the womten Greenough, were shortly after taken. The two former were tried and convicted at the summer assizes for 1843, Greenough being emitted to give testimony against them. The present pri soner escaped for the time. The woman Greenough was not now forthcoming, and some difficulty, was experienced on. the part of the prosecution in connecting the prisoner with the other three. It was proved, however, that the prisoner was with Greenough and the other men, at Wakefield. on the 12th of April, the day after the burglary —that the woman stated in his presence that ha was her second husband, and that they passed • the night together as rn and wife. The witnesses did not know her peraen ,, ally, but having been at the trial of the other men at York last summer, they swore that the woman who then gave testimony under the name of Greenough was the same woman, and that the prisoner was tlie same man. It was further shown that on the 18th of April, only six days after the burglary, the prisoner sold the six tea-spoons and the caddy-spoon to a working man for 15s. The man borrowed of him (witness) half-a-crown, which he paid down, and he was to come for the remaining 12s. Gd. the next week. In the meantime they were challenged. The prisoner, in his defence, said that he Gould wall his mother and sister to show that he was at home at ten o'cloek on the night of the robbery. At his desire she was put into the witness-box, but said she k new not hi ng about its and could not tell when he came home. Th e s i s t er w as not walled: The prosecutor, it appeared, was his uncle. . The Learned JUDGE summed up the case, and the jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty. A previous conviction for felony was then proved against him.—Sentence deferred. NORFOLK CIRCUIT. —Huntingdo n , July 17. The business of this county began to-day at one o'clock ) being two causes in the Nisi Prius Court, and five ptisoners in the Crown Court. CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAms.) GOODLEY V. JACKSON. Mr. Prendergast and Mr. O'Malley were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Gunning appeared for the defendant. This was an action in which the plaintiff, who is a poor labouring man, living in Ramsey Fen, sought to recover damages from the defendant, a large farmer, residjng in Middlemore Fen, in the same parish, such sum as the jury might think he was entitled to for his conduct towards the plaintiff's daughter, per quod servitium accusit.' As might be expected, the details of this case were not of a character to be made public. It may suffice, therefore, to say, that the chief witness for the plaintiff gave a plain and straightforward account of herself, her conduct, and her sc. quaintance with the defendant, and entirely denied all othdr imputations on her character, which was assailed in various quarters. On the part of the defendant, it was contended that she was not to be believed on her oath, and several men, both married and unmarried, were put into the box to swear to their own disgrace and that of the plaintiff's daughter. Mr. PRENDERGAST having replied with great force on this evidence, which he characterised as base and unmanly, The jury, after a quarter of an hour's deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff with 201. damages. The other cause was referred. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron AmEnsox.) ARSON.—Samuel Baxter, a respectable little boy, aged ten years, and not unlike the celebrated General Torn Thumb, having pleaded guilty to a charge of firing four straw stacks, the property of Robert Daintree, of Hemiagford Ab bots, on the 11th of May, Mr. WELLS, on the part of the prosecutor, begged to re commend the youthful incendiary to mercy. His father was hill farming bailiff, and had filled that position for eight years with the greatest credit. The prisoner himself was always considered a very deserving boy, and every one was surprised at his having confessed to the perpetration of this crime. His LORDSHIP then called before him the prosecutor and the father of the prisoner, neither of whom could in any way account for the transaction. The boy himself when asked to assign any reason fer hip conduct, professed his inability to do so, denying that he had ever been incited to the deed by any one, or that he had any motive. The prosecutor, however, said that he had told hint that his reason for doing so was a wish to live in the village, and that he thought the house would be burned as well as the stacks, in which case he and his family must all have gone into the village. To accomplish this wish it would appear that he had thrust a lighted stick into min of the. stacks. Mr. Damtree earnestly begged for mercy on the box whom he said he had known from his extrema youth as well us his father. Mr. Baron ALDERsos—Weil, I do not know what to de with him, but I shall not pass sentence on him just now. The boy was then removed, crying bitterly, as won as lois. poor father, but having been shortly replaced on a chair he the dock, His LORDSHIP thus addressed him—Samuel Baxter, vow case has given me great pain and difficulty indeed, .but I cannot exercise any discretion as ajudge. It is for the Ctrowii to do that. We must make the same example for boys as we would for men who commit such an offence as that to. which you have pleaded guilty. What circumstances there may be in your favour which her most gracious Majesty the Queen may see, I know uot, but her advisers may see some such which may induce them to recommend the display of mercy towards you. I can only say that you shall have the benefit of my most favourable recommendation to mercy. At present I cart exercise none, but must pronounce the -sentence of the law, whit* is, that you be transported for fifteen years, and I hope that other boys will take notice of it. COURT CIRCULAR. WINDSOR, THDRSDAY.---The queen and Prince Albert, accompanied by the Princess Roy-al, walked in the pleasure-grounds of the Castle this morning. Their Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and tbn Princess Alice, accompanied by the Dowager Lady Lyt telton were taken an airing In the forenoon in an open carriage. Sir 'Robert Peel took his departure from the Castle this morning. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent left h.el residence, Progmore Lodge, at half-past nine o'clock, for town, Her Royal Highness was attended by Lady Anna Maria Dawson, the Countess Wratislaw, and Sir George Couper, Bart. The Earl and Countess Delawarr, and the Lady Mary Sackville West, left the Castle to-day. In the afternoon her Majesty and Prince Albert left. the Castle for a drive in a pony phaeton; the Equerries in Waiting, Colonels Buckley and Bouverie, attending on. horseback. The Countess of Mount-Edgecuthbe (Lady in Waiting), and the Hon. Misses Paget and Liddell (Maids of Honour in Waiting), following in an open carriage and four. The royal party returned to the Castle shortly before seven o'clock. The Royal Family were taken airings in the after noon. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, attended by Lady Anna Maria Dawson, the Countess Wratislaw, and Sir George Couper, arrived at Clarence House about half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning, from Frogmore. Her Royal Highness visited the Duchess of Glaudes— ter yesterday. The Royal Duchess, attended by Lady Anna BfrAria Dawson, the Countess Wratislaw, and Sir George Conger, honoured the Italian Opera with her presence last evening.. _ _ _ The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the Here ditary Grand Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz, honoured the Earl and Countess of Beverley with their company at dinner yesterday, at the resi dence of the Noble Earl, in Portman-squere. Sir Robert Peel arrived at his residence in Whitehall gardens yesterday morning, from a visit to her Majesty at Windsor Castle. The Attorney-General for Ireland had an interview yesterday with Lord Wharncliffe, at the Council-office. Mr. John Wood, Chairman of the Board of Excise, had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. Mr. Higham, Secretary to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, transacted business .yee terday with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Stanley left town on Wednesday night, for Knowsley Park. HER MAJESTY'S ;lifEATRE. Lucrezia Borgia was to have been played last night, and great curiosity was excited as to the success of Moriani in the part of Gennaro. However the following notice, which nal peered at the top of the Opera bills, showed that such cusi osity was not to be satisfied : " It is with great pain that Signor Moriani is compe'Jed respectfully to announce to the nobility, his friends, ari d d the public, that a severe catarrh and hoarseness, under wtfich he is suffering, has increased to such an extent, as to render it impossible for him to sing this evening, and, instead of the opera of Lucrezia Borgia, will be presented Dunisetti's cele.. brated opera of Don Pasquale." As the audience had probably been gathered together chiefly by the prospect of Moriani 's singing, it was quite " on. the cards" that some dissatisfaction would be expressed. In deed, had a less favourite opera than Don Pasquale been sub stituted, or had that been performed by less eminent artists, the chances would have been in favour of discontent. As it was, Grisi, Mario, Lablache, and Fornasari, charmed as much as ever, and Von Pasquale was followed by loud applause, without a murmur of disapprobation. The quattet in the second act, and Mario's serenade were encored. The Pais de trois, from Les Houris, by Cerito, St. Leon, and Ferdinand,, was introduced between the acts, raising an agreeable doul,t as to which was, most fascinating, the grace and elegant groupings of the slaw movement, or the energy and spirit of the quick v i r,e.. This pas created general enthusiasm. R EPE A L MOVEMENT IN GLASGOW.—The Union on, behalf of a rep ea l o f the Legislattve Adt of Union between Ireland and Great Britain, laid J.own for signature in . this city during the last week, wp.s sipped in four days, by no fewer-than 40,000 inbabitvatti. - - r