The Sun. — London, England, 1847-12-11 00:00:00

IMPI,; 4 I=tIA.i , PAitLIAIVik,'N T. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Dec. 10. The. SPEAN.EIt took the Chair at Four o'clock. The Hon. Captain DUNCOMBE took the oaths and his seat. _ _ Mr. STRUTT brought up several returns from the Railway Commissioners. Sir R. INGLIS presented several petitions against the admissibility of Jews into Parliament. Several other Hon. Members presented petitions to a similar effect. RAJA OF SATTARA. Petitions in favour of an inquiry into the case of the Raja of Sattara were presented by Mr. Lloyd; by Mr. Bright, from the boroughs of Westminster and Finsbury; by Mr. G. Thompson, from Finsbury, Poplar, and several portions of the Tower Hamlets ; 'and by Mr. Wakley, from the parish of St. Mary, Islington, and the borough of Finsbury. SECRET POISONING'S. Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition, signed by the clergy and inhabitants of Lincoln, stating that the increase of secret poisonings was most alarming, and praying the House to pass some enactment under which a heavy penalty should be levied upon the retailer of poisonous drugs in any quantity, or to any individual, without some person well knowing the individual applying for such drugs, and stating for what purpose they are required. COERCIVE MEASURES FOR IRELAND. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Man chester, signed by 20,000 persons, praying the House not to pass any coercive measures for Ireland, but to ' adopt such remedial measures as might give the labourers that right upon the land which they ought to vf,ossess. kr. F. O'CONNOR presented petitions to a 'similar effect from Leeds, Preston, Southall, Paisley, Wakefield, and Staleybridge. The Hon. Member also presented a petition signed by the re latives of the six persons who were shut up in a mine in consequence of the eruption of the waters of the river Douglas, into the mine in which they were at work. There was reason to believe that those persons might yet be lingering in their misery, and the petitioners prayed that the Secretary of State would adopt some immediate measures in order to accertain whether any relief could be afforded to the sufferers. THE CASE OF MR. WILLIAMS. Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Mrs. Lucy Williams, complaining- of the conduct of one of the police magistrates. He regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not present in order that the petition might at once be brought under his notice. The petitioner stated that her husband had for the last two years occupied the Coach and Horses public-house, in Drury-lane; that he was recently summoned before Mr. Jardine, the sitting magistrate, at Bow-street, for having sold a small quantity of spirituous liquors before one o'clock on Sunday. The magistrate convicted him upon the sole evidence of the policeman, unsupported by any corroborative evidence, and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment with hard labour; he also inflicted upon him a penalty of five pounds. The petitioner stated that she was advised, and believe that the penalty imposed was contrary to law, as by the 72d clause of the Metropolitan Police Act, under which the conviction took place, the magistrate could not impose two penalties for the same offence. This was the first occasion upon which a licensed victualler had been sentenced to imprisonment for the offence of which the petitioner's husband was charged. It had had the effect of ruining him, and the prospects of his family. The petition stated that the petitioner had been obliged to leave the house, and that she was unable to to carry on the business herself. Her husband was also treated as a common felon, obliged to wear the felon's dress, and he was not allowed to hold any corn ' munication with her. The case had excited the greatest sensation among the whole of the licensed victuallers, and the petitioner prayed that the Secretary of State would cause an inquiry to be made into the circum stances of the case, or appoint a Committee to in quire into the same. The Hon. Gentleman gave notice that he would, on the earliest occasion, move that the petition be printed with the votes. WEST GLOUCESTER ELECTION. Mr. WAKLEY also presented a petition from 130 electors of West Gloucestershire, complaining of the in terference of Earl Fitzhardinge at the election for West Gloucestershire, and praying either for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the allegations of the petition, or that it might be referred to the Commit tee appointed by the standing orders to consider the privileges of the House. As the petition was one that related, in a most material degree, to the privileges of the House, he considered he should not be out of order if he entered some little into detail with respect to the allegations of the petition. Tne petitioners stated that they were electors of West Gloucestershire, and they begged the House to understand that they did not live in feudal times, and were not serfs or bondsmen. — (Hear, hear.) They considered that the free election of their representatives was one of the dearest and most sacred rights of Englishmen, and that according to the standing orders of the House it was a high crime and misdemeanour for a Peer of the realm to interfere with their rights and privileges. —(Hear.) The petitioners complained of the in terference of Earl Fitzhardinge at the election for West Gloucestershire, and stated that that Noble Earl had coerced his tenantry in order to compel them to vote for Mr. W. Grenville Berkeley, and had also offered a large pecuniary reward to Mr. Grantley Berkeley not to offer himself at the last election for the choice of the electors of West Gloucestershire. The petitioners also stated that Earl Fitzhardinge had paid large sums of money for the purchase of votes, and asserted that great bribery and corruption had taken place at the late election. These were only some of the allegations contained in the petition, which prayed for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject, or that the petition might be referred to the Committee of the Privileges of the House. The Hon. Member gave notice of his intention, on Mon day next, to bring forward the whole subject for the consideration of the House, and he would, therefore, move that it be printed with the votes.—(Hear, b ear.)—Agreed to. RAJA OF SATTARA. Mr. ANSTY presented a petition from the • Liberty of the Rolls praying for an inquiry into the case of the late Raja of Sattara. NEW PARLIAMENTARY DISTRICT. Mr. B. OSBORNE presented a petition form liammerstnith, praying that, in consequence of the disfranchisement of Sudbury, the district of Ham mersmith, Chiswick, Kensington, and Chelsea might be constituted into a borough.—(Hear, hear.) AWISSION OF JEWS. Mr. HENLEY presented a petition against the admission of Jews into Parliament. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that some day next week he should move for the appointment of a Committee to consider generally the present state of the New Palace of Westminster, with especial refer ence to the accommodation of that House. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice that next week he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to suspend portions of the Act relating to the government of New Zealand. ORDNANCE MAPS. Mr. lIUME gave notice that next week he should ask some member of the Government what steps had been taken with respect to the Ordnance Survey, for providing the public with copies of the plates and maps already published at reasonable prices ? IRISH CORPORATIONS. Mr. REYNOLDS gave notice that after the recess he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to place the municipal corporations of Ireland upon a more equal footing with the rights and privi leges of those of England and Scotland. PRISON DISCIPLINE. Lord NUGENT, seeing the Secretary of State for the H ome D eparsment i n hi s p l ace, begged to put a a question to hi m o f w hi c h h e h a d given notice. It with reference to the Act sth and Gtb of Victoria, teed regulation which gave power to magistrates assem bled sessions to frame codes and rules for which Z u o l f d the prisons within their jurisdic tionsanctioned by the become law after they had been Departm„t: The Secretary of State for the Home whether the on he wished to put was powe question Act, foboth Prisoners convicted and given by that r of imprisoning separately, prisoners Waitin g the consideration or ti r i . Hon. Baronet, and .Rtrial, had come under whether it was his inteenCight cation of the Act, so as T o n t t a o k Propose any moditi- Nthoeble Lord had imprisoning separately. e a way the power of Sir GEORGE GREY said the Noble correctly stated the provisions accordance with these provisions, regulations Act an d i n been framed relating to separate ,mprisn had which had received the sanction oinletni' e Home-office. It was certainly not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration of the Act, but he might mention that prisoners separately con fined, who were waiting their trials were allowed greater privileges and indulgences than were enjoyed by •,:hose who had been convicted. COjPYHOLDS AND CUSTOMARY TENURES. Mr. AGLIONBY, pursuant to notice, asked the PaghtHonourable the Secretary of State for the Home ekepartment whether it was the intention of Govern 'inept to introduce any measure for the compulsory enfranchisement of copy hold and customary tenures Sir G. GREY said the Committee originally ap pointed to enquire into the subject were preparing a Bill to accomplish the object which the Hon. Gentle man had an had in view, though it would not go to length he. proposed ; and when that Bill had been transm - fitted to him he should be prepared TRH EUN I ______,AJOIVI3OI4I, _ SATUaDAY - BYEINING, fiEtii4IVAXA ii, lAA to give the Lion. Member a satisfactory and definite answer. PRIVATE BILLS. Mr. AGLIONBY, pursuant to notice, asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any measure for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on Private Bills of last session, and for enabling towns, or parishes, or districts, to adopt the provisions of the general Consolidation Acts, without coming to Parliament by Bill for that purpose. Mr. LABOUCHERE said, with regard to the Consolidation Acts, he had to state that a Bill was in preparation for consolidating the two Acts ; but with regard to the latter portion of the Hon. Member's question, he doubted whether it was expedient to in troduce any Bill for the purpose the Hon. Member had in view. With regard to the recommendations of the Committee generally, he could only say that the repert had but recently come into his hands, and he could assure the Hon. Member they should have his best attention, and the best measure should be adopted for carrying them out. Mr. GOULBOURN wished to know if the Right Hon. Gentleman had any objection to lay upon the table a return of the expenses which were incurred last year on account of private Bills. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he had not the least objection. ROME AND ENGLAND. Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to ask the Noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there was any truth in the report, that a convention had been signed in Rome by the Earl of Minto, Lord Privy Seal, on the part of her Majesty, with any authority of the see of Rome ? He understood that the Noble Lord to whom he referred had been for some time in Rome, and as it had been publicly stated that he had gone thither for the purpose of entering into negotiations with the see of Rome, he wished to give him an opportunity of denying it, as he (Sir R. Inglis) believed the state ment untrue. Was the Noble Lord's colleague, the Keeper of the Privy Seal, in Rome with the authority of the Government? Lord PALMERSTON was glad to have an early opportunity of replying to the question. It was well known that for some time Lord Minto, who held the Privy Seal, had been in Rome. That Noble Lord was not in Rome in any official capacity. —(llear, hear)—he had received no instructions to enter into negotiations with the Court of Rome, nor had he been sent thither as the organ of the British Government. The statement, therefore, to which the Right Honourable Baronet referred was utterly destitute of foundation.—(Hear.) It was unnecessary for him to say, that so long as doubts were entertained as to the legality of diplo matic relations with the see of Rome her Majesty's Government had too much respect for the law to do anything which could by any possibility infringe it. The misunderstanding chiefly arose from the mis construction put upon the word "communion." This country was not in " communion " with the Court of Rome. Until the doubt which existed with respect to the term was removed by the House, he was authorised to state that no step would be taken with respect to any diplomatic relations be tween the Court of Rome and this country. mander-in-thief in this country, and the Home Secretary, were of a strictly confidential nature, and he should be acting most improperly if he answered any question upon the subject of their opinion as to necessity of proclaiming martial law in Ireland. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. On reading the order of the day for going into Committee of Supply. Mr. E WART wished to know from the Chancel lor: of the Exchequer whether it would be in the power of the Government to take any general view of their whole system of taxation, for the object of simplifying and reforming it, in the present session of Parliament. The subject was one which excited a considerable interest throughout the country, and be should there fore be happy to hear from the Chancellor of the Ex chequer something of the plan to which he had alluded in the last session of Parliament. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not aware of having alluded to any plan last ses sion, or having held out any expectation on the subject referred to by the Honourable Member. While the Honourable Member pro posed to bring the subject of taxation under the view of the House, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated that in the present state of the country it would be necessary to renew the income-tax, or at all events to deal with that question. It was ex ceedingly inconvenient, and not very advantageous to any one, that he should answer questions with respect to the intentions of the Government with regard to measures which it would be his duty to propose in the beginning of the spring. Govern ment usually reserved its determination on these subjects, and then announced their intentions when they were prepared to do so, in order to prevent any undue expectation or disappointment. Mr. HUME—Can the Right Hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the Budget will be brought forward ?—(Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER — In reply to that question, I can only give a general answer, that it will be brought forward after the recess.—(Cheers and laughter.) THE CASE OF THE REV. DR. RYAN. Mr. MONSELL said that, although he was aware that it was not strictly in order to allude to anything which had occurred in a former debate, he hoped the House would excuse him if he a ll u d e d to a charge which had been brought against the Right Rev. Dr. Ryan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick, last night by the Hon. Member for Bridport. That Hon. Member had said that Dr. Ryan came under the "description of an accessory before the fact, for he was the instigator of crime," that crime being murder. He (Mr. Monsell) was not going to speak at random about that Right Rev. Prelate, but he was about to state what he knew personally, and which was believed by all classes in the country to which he belonged. Dr. Ryan had distinguished himself by his active endeavours to support the law— (Hear, hear)—and had subjected himself to much obloquy on account of the peaceable and tranquil course he had thought it his duty to pursue. The accusation against him was founded on some words contained in a charge delivered by him at a confirma tion held in his diocese, in which he referred to the misdeeds of many among the upper classes. He (Mr. Monsell) had not got the charge with him, but fortu nately in another place Lord Farnham had quoted from it, and spoke in the highest terms of Dr. Ryan, and of the spirit in which that charge was uttered. It was most unjust, therefore, to take some words from the charge on which to found an accusation of such magnitude, for it would appear that he only referred to the misdeeds of one class, and not to those of the others ; whereas no one ever spoke more strongly than he did against those crimes which he was accused of being accessory to. He (Mr. Monsell) had stated his opinion, and he would appeal to the Noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, to the Right Hon. Gentle man the President of the Board Trade, and to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamp ton shire, who lived near Dr. Ryan, to bear their tes timony to his character ; and he hoped that would be some reparation to that Right Rev. Prelate's feel ings after the wanton attack which had been made upon him. The Earl of LINCOLN said, after what had been stated by the Honourable Member for Limerick, the near neighbour of Dr. Ryan, it was almost unneces sary for him to add a word; but he had no hesitation in:responding to the appeal which had been made to 'him. He had not the honour of Dr. Ryan's acquain tance, but during his shore connexion with Ireland the character of that prelate had been more than once brought under his notice. There was great distress in Limerick and Clare, and there were several occa sions in which he had heard of Dr. Ryan, and he could state his belief that there was no individual whose character stood higher.—(Hear.) He had heard but one opinion of him from persons of all po litical tenets, parties, and creeds, and he was stated to be exemplary in every respect. So far from his being likely to be subject to a charge of being accessory to any crime whatever, he (Lord Lincoln) belie v ed that he had studiously devoted himself to the duties of his sacred calling, and al ways stood aloof from political parties, and invariably advocated the preservation of peace and order.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. L ABOLT HERE, after the appeal which had been made to him, would say a few words, although he felt it to be unnecessary after what had been said by the Noble Lord and the Hon. Member for Lime rick. He (Mr. Labouchere) was absent from the House when the Hon. Member for Bridport used the words in question, but if he had been present, although he was not personally acquainten with Dr. Ryan, he knew enough of him to have indu7ed him imme diately to rise, and bear testimony to the excellence of his conduct and character. While he (Mr. La bouchere) was in Ireland he had had opportunities of knowing the character of Dr. Ryan. He knew that he had studiously avoided taking any part in poli tics, that he had always upheld peace and order, and that he was incapable of instigating any one to crime. They had heard much in these debates of the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy, and of language used by them. He (Mr. Labouchere) condemned that lan guage as criminal and dangerous in any one, and more especially in a minister of religion. All such ex amples of the misconduct of the Roman Catholic clergy were published in the newspapers and pro mulgated. He did not regret that it should be so, or the reprobation which it met with ; but he did regret that the House and the country did not know the conduct of hundreds of the Roman Catholic clergy— (Hear, hear)—who were exposing themselves to obloquy, and losing their popularity with their flocks, because they exhorted them to obedience to the law. If the whole truth were known, it would appear that the country owed a large debt to the Roman Catholic clergy ; and he hoped the House and the country would not run away with the idea that, as a class, they were chargeable with the obloquy which had partly fallen on those who had used the language which had been adverted to in these debates. The lion. Member for Bridport must be quite ignorant of the character of Dr. Ryan, or he never would have used the expressions which he did, and accused him of being the promoter of misconduct.—(Hear.) Mr. A. STAFFORD said it gave him great satis faction and pleasure to bear his testimony to the worth and excellence of so good a man as Dr. Ryan. —(Hear, hear.) He had an advantage over the Noble Lord (Lincoln), and the Right Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Labouchere), for he was personally ac quainted with him. He had witnessed his conduct in circumstances of political excitement, of difficulty, of disease, and of famine, and he would truly say that his conduct was that of a real Christian. He (Mr. Stafford) could not find the charge from which the extract in question had been taken, but if he could have found it he would have read it to the House, for nothing could be better as an exposition of the duties of a Christian.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped, if the Hon. Baronet the Member for Mary lebone had that charge, he would read it. Mr. B. COCHRANE said it was painful to him to be accused of wantonly making an unjust charge against any gentleman, and more especially a minis ter of any church. He could only say that after what had been said by the Hon. Member for Limerick, and those other Hon. Members who had borne testimony to the character of Dr. Ryan, he could not doubt but that gentleman had been hur riedly led into using the expression which he had quoted, and which, as some Hon. Members were not present when he quoted it, he would again read, in order to explain the grounds on which he accused Dr. Ryan, not of instigating to crime, but of using language calculated to excite to its commission. What he quoted was as follows :—"The higher classes were forgetful of their Christian obligations ; they treated the poor like cattle ; they were cold and callous to the voice of humanity, dead to all feelings of compassion, untouched by the cries of fa mine, the wailings of hunger, the lamentations of women and children, and the terrible condition of the poor men ; they exercised over their victims a system of heartless cruelty, calculated to bring down ven geance from heaven upon them." Dr. Ryan might be an excellent man, but still, as a Member of that House, he (Mr. Cochrane) maintained that this was not language such as a minister should utter. Sir li. HALL said that what had been read by the Hon. Member for Bridport was part of the charge de livered by Dr. Ryan. He (Sir B. Hall) had in tended to address the House last night, and answer the charge which had been made against Dr. Ryan. He thought it is duty to do so, because on the first night of the session he said that he hoped that the Roman Catholic hierarchy would impress on the minds of part of the priesthood and on the lower classes what was their duty to their country and the laws. He had iatended last night to have read tfior h s e t charge night of of P ther Ryan session. ssion was T a h another pa r t o f th e c h arge delivered by Dr. Ryan, as the p ar t rea d b y the Hon. Member for Bridport. T very differ en t thi ng a speech which he (Si r B. H a ll) had quoted on the The ikon. Baronet then read a portion of the charge in question, which was to the following effect :—" While viewing the state of the upper classes we must not forget the middle and the lower classes. Complaints were made by ' tenants against their landlords, and their misfortunes were attributed to them, but were the tenants what they ought to be ? While consulting their own happiness, did they take into consideration that of the landlords? Where not the tenants knavish and apathetic, and apt to think the land belonged to them selves alone ? If the land was cultivated by indus trious tenants and generous landlordsit would produce four times as much as it did. It was said there was no sympathy for the people ; but thousands sympa thised with them—the bishops, the priests, the Legis lature sympathised with them. The Legislature had created laws for their assistance, and had passed a poor-law—the most important law which had been passed for a hundred years —a law which he had always wished to see enacted. But so long as murder and disregard of the laws of God and man continued, their best friends must blush for them."—(Hear.) Viscount MORPETH did not wish to prolong this discussion, but he thought it due to Dr. Ryan to state that though he was never personally acquainted with him, he had testimony borne to the conciliatory character of his conduct, and that he had always devoted himself to his functions as a Christian bishop ; and Bishop Jebb, the Protestant Bishop of Limerick, in his correspondence, bore his testimony to the fact of the Roman Catholic Bishop having proved a zealous coadjutor in all Christian duties. Sir J. WALSH thought this might have been a hasty expression by Dr. Ryan, but it was an unfor tunate one in the present state of Ireland. It was important to the character of the priesthood that they should in the strongest and mo=t public manner dis avow the expressions used by some of their body, which, rightly reported, were deeply criminal, and which urged their flocks to be guilty of assassination. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the Honourable Baronet had attacked the Roman Catholic clergy on mere report. There was no proof of the accusations which had been made against them, and he lectured them in a manner which the bishops and clergy were not likely much to regard. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) could bear his humble testimony to the conduct of his Lordship, Dr. Ryan, and it would be the more weighty because his Lordship had always kept free from political parties. He was loved and respected by all who knew him, and he was the last person he should have expected to have been attacked. Another prelate had been spoken of by the Hon. Member for Bridport—Dr. M'Hale. He was attacked simply because he had congratulated the people on the unexampled patience with which they had borne the calamity which had befallen them.—(Hear, hear.) Would any one deny that that was the case ? The Noble Lord (the Member for Marylebone) had said last night that all the mur derers went to the priests and obtained absolution, the fact being that they were wretches who had been long out of the pale of the Church; and it was rather too bad to have it said that with such persons the priests profaned one of the most solemn sacraments of the Church. Mr. REYNOLDS complained of the attack which had been made on Dr. Ryan, when it appeared that all he had been guilty of was a statement of facts de scribing the neglect of the lower orders by the higher in his diocese. Allusion had been made by the Hon. Member for Marylebone to the speech of Dr. Laffan, at a meeting at Cashel. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not justify the expressions that Rev. Gentleman was re ported to have used; he condemned them, and re gretted that they had been used, and assuming that the report had been furnished to the Hon. Member by an Irish correspondent, he was prepared to exone rate him from the sin of garbling it. He did not charge the Hon. Member with suppressing any facts, but he had referred to the speech delivered on the occasion in question by the Very Rev. Mr. Laffan, and he had found that the Hon. Member had not given the Rev. Gentleman credit for the expressions which immediately followed the objectionable passage which had been quoted. With the permission of the House, he (Mr. Reynolds) would read an extract. The Rev. Mr. Laffan said, " Did he stand there in defence of murder ? God forbid. He had ever preached as far as his humble intellect directed, and with all the sincerity and energy with which his soul was animated, that the blood of man cried to heaven for vengeance, and that sooner or later the murderer would come to his own destruction; that if he avoided the consequences of his crime in this world (as was almost impossible), assuredly, on passing the frontiers of eternity, the Lord of all justice would deal to him that eternal judgment which they were told awaited the murderer." Now, admitting that the expressions used in the early part of the speech ought not to have been used, he (Mr. Reynolds) thought he was justified in stating that the Hon. Member for Marylebone ought, in common justice, to have given the rev. speaker credit for the expressions which followed. At the same time, he (Mr. Reynolds) was of opinion that no man, whether dressed in the garb of a clergyman or any other costume, ought to use expressions to the peo ' ple that could by possibility be miscon strued.—(Hear.) If the clergy of any sect or deno mination of Christians had been so virulently attacked as had been the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, he should feel it his duty to stand up in their defence. He had heard the Roman Catholic clergy much im peached in that House, and he regretted to add, that those who had brought charges ag ainst them had failed to give them credit for those deds of peace and order that they were known to have performed. Let him remind the House that the present Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland had instructed his secretary to convey a special vote of thanks to the Right Rev. Dr. Kennedy, Roman Catholic Bishop of Killaloe, for his exertions, and those of his clergy, to preserve and maintain the peace. In the county of Limerick, within the last six weeks, a disorderly and lawless mob of 1,500 persons, in the broad daylight, attacked the workhouse, put the guardians of the poor in fear of their lives, seized the cattle and corn of the gentry, and carried away their booty into the mountains. Three Roman Catholic clergymen followed them, and succeeded in getting all the cattle and corn restored, and by their preaching had si nce res t ore d t h a t part o f peace.—(Hear, h ear .) was then read, and the p d e a a y ker do now leave the chair," q t h u e Tes C ht o ieo ll no n r t d 7 Tr t h o oaft pe tt r hh f e e e e s t having been put, Sill IL VERNER rose and addressed the House, but in so low a tone as to be scarcely audible in the gallery. The Hon. Baronet was understood to say that however much he was rejoiced that her Majesty's Government had thought it right even at this late period to propose any measure calculated to relieve the well-disposed and peaceable portion of the popu lation, and to preserve life and property in Ireland, still he could not avoid expressing his regret that all the remonstrances which had long since been made on the subject of the growing evils of Ireland should have remained till now unnoticed. Early in the present year he had raised his voice in an endeavour to convince the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, and those acting with him, of the inevitable consequences which would ensue if those remonstrances were neglected. At the same time he had moved for returns which, though granted, had not been made, which would have shown that arms had been eagerly pur chased in Ireland by men from whom they ought to have been withheld, and the truth of his anticipations on the withdrawal of the Arms Bill in 1846, had been fully borne out by the events which had fol lowed. By the abandonment of that measure by the Government in 1846, permission to possess arms had been given at a most unseasonable time. At that period the bad and evil-disposed were demanding maintenance and support from the landlords and farmers. The two parties were at issue, and this had been the period chosen by the Government for the establishment, in Ireland, of free-trade in arms.— ()ear, hear.) On th e 10th of August, 1846, the Arms Bill came in for a second reading, and on that occasion the Noble Lord said, " The question is, whether all persons whatever in Ireland should be at perfect liberty to have any arms they please, to introduce any quantity of gunpowder they please into th e country, an d t o se ll th a t gun powder and th ose arms i n t h e i n t er i or , on th e coast, and i n all parts of Ireland. If you gave an entire licen se t o the people to h ave w h a t th ey c h oose, my belief i s th at you will b e g i v i ng encouragement to outrage, and that there will be more offences against life than if you allowed this Bill to continue. I have no doubt that the throwing out of this Bill would encourage many of those malefactors in Ire land who go about selling themselves to commit murder." Such were the opinions expressed by the Noble Lord on that occasion, and the second reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of 33 in a House comp ose d of 79 Members. On the following Monday, however, the Noble Lord at the head of the Government came down and announced the abandon ment of the Bill, but "assured the. House that the Government were still determined at all events that security to life and property in Ir eland should not be diminished." Connected with 'this proceeding there was a circumstance which had at the time created great alarm in Ireland. A gentleman • now no more, but for merly of great power and influer Ice in Ireland, for whose memory he should not utter a wv rd of disrespect (the lute Mr. O'Connell), announced tat a repeal meeting in Dublin the withdrawal of the Arms Bill, on the very same day that the announcoment was made in this House by her Majesty's Gov ernment. The connexion between Conciliation Hall :ind Downing-street was held to bode no good to Ireland, and the result was that the moment was seized. upon by the people to arm themselves. And what had been the conse quences ? Why th e Ri g ht Hon . Baronet on intro ducing the present Bill detailed a long catalogue of crime, and on concluding his speech admitted that in every case he had detailed the crime had been com mitted by means of fire arms. Nothing could pal liate murder, and yet the attel npt to do so had been made in the course of the discussion on the present Bill. Murders had been committed, and the widows and orphans of those whose lives had been sacrificed cried aloud to the Noble Lord, not for vengeance, but for that protection which had been denied to their husbands and fathers. On these grounds he should give his support to the Bill now on the table. - Mr. ANSTEY was desirous, before the Speaker left the chair, to express his sentiments on the subject before the House, and to justify the vote he had already given. It seemed to him that the measure was based upon two equally false assumptions ; first, that the people of Ireland could not safely be entrusted to pre serve the peace of Ireland ; and, secondly, that the Castle authorities in Dublin, or of the Treasury here, might safely he trusted with an unlimited discretion over the property and liberties of the Irish people. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had signally failed in establishing these two propositions; though he had succeeded in proving that all former systems of governing Ireland had failed. This failure was attributable to the gradual withdrawal of the gentle men and yeomanry of Ireland from the care of the public peace, which had been entrusted to paid officials. The measure before the House was a step further in the same bad direction. A few years ago the district he represented, and other districts of Ireland, were attached to the cause of order ; they had a direct pecu niary interest in keeping down disturbance; but, by the consolidation of all the magisterial jurisdictions in Ireland in the vice-regal authority—by the system of mulcting the whole community instead of the par ticular district for the costs of disturbance—by creat ing a standing army, in the shape of a constabulary force, at the direction of the Lord-Lieutenant—there had been engendered the indisposition to act in the repression of crime, of which so much complaint had been made. Well might such a system fall ; and it was most astonishing that the Right Hon. Baronet should propose to remedy this failure by an extension and augmentation of the same vicious system. He (Mr. Anstey) yielded to no one in his abhorrence of the crimes that had been perpetrated in Ireland ; but he must object to this Bill, believing that it would be wholly ineffectual for the repression of such crimes, and that it would engender a state of things scarcely less objectionable than that which it proposed to re medy. It went to withdraw the whole magisterial authority of Ireland, and to vest in the Lord-Lieute nant a jurisdiction of an entirely different character. Even were Lord Clarendon an angel of light, the proprietary might be doubted of investing him, or rather the Right Honourable the Home Secretary —for, after all, the matter would rest with him— with powers so vast and extensive. He had lis tened in vain for any fact from an Irish Member, tend ing to show the necessity of this measure. True, there was the disposition to carry arms; but was not this accounted for by the way in which the tenantry and peasantry had been treated? Had the Bill pro posed to allow the use of fire-arms to none but those who paid rates and taxes he might have consented to go into the Committee; but it actually prohibited the bearing of arms, in proclaimed districts, to all but those contained in some few specified exceptions. This was not only unconstitutional, but a reflection on the loyalty and good-feeling of all classes, gentlemen, magistracy, and the people at large. Even the right of licensing to hear or possess arms was taken away from the local magistracy. The Bill not only took away the means of self-defence, but imposed a lasting and indelible stigma on all classes. Irish Members were told, " You must either accept this measure, or propose a better in its place." He denied the obligation ; he denied the necessity for any such measure; for all the evils had arisen from a departure from the ordinary course of law, whereby gross injustice had been inflicted on Eng land and Scotland, through the calls made on the consolidated fund. Let Government go back to the ancient principle of laying the burden of crime on the district, whether a county, a barony, or a town land; let them he made answerable for the support of the families of persons who were assassinated ; let the local administrators of justice, the grand juries, be armed with full powers of defence ; and let the system of rural municipalities, which the late Sove reign proposed for England, but whose application was intercepted by the Melbourne Ministry, be esta blished in Ireland. The best effects would follow, agrarian disturbances would be removed, and the people at large would hare a direct interest in the preservation of order. If a division took place on this stage, he should vote against the Bill going into Committee; he had offered it no factious opposition, having given way on many points; and he felt that a resort to all the means of opposition which the forms of the House supplied could only be justified in very extraordinary cases, of which he did not conceive this to be one.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. P. SCROPE rebutted the implied charge against himself of inconsistency, in having opposed the last coercion Bill, on account of the widely different circumstances in which Ireland was now placed. Former Governments had not only ignored, but denied, the real causes of Irish discontent ; agitation had been assigned as the cause ; but it was now pretty generally admitted that the inse curity of tenant-right lay at the root of all these evils. The Noble Lord at the head of the Govern ment, in opposing the last coercion Bill, had declared his opinion that ejectment from land was the great source of the distress of Ireland ; and, acting on this belief, the Noble Lord had passed what might be called the great charter of Ireland—the poor-law. This was the first of a great series of measures which Government evidently contemplated for the re dressing of Irish grievances ; and no doubt a measure for improving the relations of landlord and tenant would form one of the number. The Govern ment had evidently arrived at a right conclusion as to the cause of the evils ; but he much doubted whether the public at large were so well informed on the subject. The outrages had been represented as temporary and local; but this was not true, or only partially so, for they were outbreaks of a long existing and deeply-seated malady.—(Hear, hear.) One main reason why disturbances had been more frequent and serious in the south and west, than in the north of Ireland, was the fact that in the latter tenant-right was almost generally recognised—in the former not at all. In Tipperary, for instance, there had been more clearanc es an d less recognition of tenant-right than perhaps in any other county of Ireland. In support of this statement, the Hon. Gen tleman read some extracts from the evidence given before Lord Devon's Commission expressive of the opinion that the want of tenant-right was the great grievance. He trusted that the danger of absolute starvation was at an end, now that Ireland possessed a poor-law ; and thus one great source of discon tent and disturbance would be -withdrawn. Lock at the state of the occupying tenant who had de pended so greatly on the potato—how was he to pay his rent in arrear, or the rent of this year? It was estimated that sixteen millions had been lost by the failure of the potato crop in 1846--a sum equal to the entire rental of Ireland. He thought the charges against the priests had been greatly exaggerated ; but they were not the only persons who o had used repre hensible language. Lord Fitzwilliam had said in a pamphlet which he had recently published, that the great evil of Ireland was that there were 7,000,000 of cottiers occupying small portions of land—an evil which the State must at once proceed to remove— that was, to destroy the only means of subsistence of 7,000,000 of people.---(Hear, hear.) Such language was enough to alarm the people, and make them desperate. The great evil in his (Mr. Scrope's) esti mation was, in not putting it within the power of the peasantry of Ireland to improve the land ; and the remedy was, to give that security of tenure which would enable them to do so, and place more at the disposal of the peasantry the means of improving the waste lands of Ireland.-: (Hear, hear.) The most distressed district in that country might be made to maintain its population if such means were adopted. In Glentees, for instance, with a popula tion of 47.000 to a rental of 16,0001., there was waste land enough, as proved before a Committee of the other House last session, to maintain all the po pulation if it were cultivated ; and in Mayo the quantity of arable land might be absolutely doubled if all the waste la n d were t a k en i nto cult i vat i on. Nothing more was wanted to remedy the miserable condition of the peasantry of Ireland and prevent agrarian out rages th an t h e removal o f t h e ev i ls which he had pointed out. He did not oppose the Bill before the House; he only wished to press on the Government mid the Legislature the necessity of taking vigorous, permanent, and thorough measures for entirely putting an end to the crimes which all must deplore.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SCULLY defended the Irish priests, and de clared his conviction that the Bill would fail in its object. He must admit with horror that many mur ders were perpetrated in some parts of Ireland, but thought the ordinary law would have been sufficient for the repression of crime if it had been put in force. In that part of Tipperary which he represented, there were 350 prisoners in the gaol of Clonmel, and 10 of them were charged with murder. These cul prits would have to wait until February or March before they could be tried—why, then, was not a special commission issued ?—(Hear, hear.) Before the Government applied for extraordinary, they should have tried the ordinary powers of the law. (Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman then read some portions of the evidence taken before Lord Devon's Commission, in order to show that two-thirds of the outrages in Tipperary arose from the system of letting the land, and the great number of ejectments. They should, therefore, first find out the causes of crime, and then apply the proper remedies for the evils which produced it —(Hear, hear.) So long as the present law of landlord and tenant was left unaltered there would not be perfect peace in Ireland. The two great evils of Ireland were want of capital and want of employment. He admitted that the habit of allowing unemployed and poor persons to bear arms was likely to be abused. He would not, therefore, be opposed to refusing a license for carrying IMAM Ha die but think It right that those who were innocent should be obliged to pray the expenses of the constabulary who were sent into the disturbed districts. They ought to be cautious before they gave the large powers con tained in the Bill to the Lord-Lieutenant. Above all, he thought that the liberal Members of that House should pause before they consented to give such powers to any one. He was not opposed to the clause respecting the bearing of arms, but would resist the other clauses. He would not, however, oppose the motion for going into Committee.--(Hear, hear.) Mr. O'FLAHERTY did not think that this Bill would reach the evils of Ireland, which were of too deep a nature to be cured by a measure like the present. Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that if time were given for the expression of public opinion in this country against the abrogation of the constitution, it would be sufficient of itself to stop the further progress of the Bill. It was because the Bill was a violation of the constitution that he had so much opposed the measure, and because the Government had not produced any remedial measures. He thought the ordinary law, if properly and efficiently executed, would be sufficient to put an end to crime in Ireland. He would ask them, therefore, not to arm the 'landlords of Ireland with such a terrible engine as this Bill would put into their hands. He would give his determined resistance to every clause in the Bill. Mr. REYNOLDS said, he did not intend to give any factious opposition to this Bill. He opposed the measure on constitutional grounds, and because he thought it would be perfectly useless to effect the object it professed to have in view. There had been already enacted thirty coercion Bills against Ireland, and that fact alone was enough to prove that a measure of this kind would be ineffectual. He believed it was admitted that there was generally less crime in 1847 in Ireland than in previous years. There were nineteen murders and attempts at mur ders, but of these no less than eleven were directed against farmers. As a body, he could not say much in favour of the landlords of Ireland, though there were many most excellent men amongst them. But they were not exclusively the oppressors. He be lieved that there was greater oppression exercised by the men in frieze coats upon these who were under them than perhaps by any others.—(Hear, hear.) He was disposed to place the greatest confidence in the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and in the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland; but he would not place in the hands of any man the un constitutional powers which this Bill would give them. The Honourable Gentleman then referred to the outbreaks in Wales, and reminded the House that the constitution was not suspended in order to suppress them. Why, he asked, did not the Government try the effect of the ordinary law and issue special commissions ? One of the effects of the measure would be to encourage the spy system, and those who were acquainted with Ireland must be aware that if informers could not find guilty persons they would bring accusations against the innocent to fill their pockets. The fate of the present Bill he knew to be inevitable, and that it would pass in all its integrity; but he felt that it would not disarm the marauder and murderer, while it would disarm the best preserver of the public peace—the farmer. He would have no objection to vote for a Bill to enact that no man in Ireland should be permitted to keep arms unless he were rated to the relief of the poor. He saw no benefit in entrusting arms to men who had no dwellings. But he would go still farther, and enact that no man should be permitted to carry those arms beyond the precincts of his own farm or pro perty unless licensed to kill game. He would also make it criminal for any but a privileged person to carry arms at night. Indeed, he considered that her Majesty's Government had been guilty of great neglect in not applying a legal remedy before now to the pos session of arms, and that if they had done so, many of the crimes they had heard of would not have been committed.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department referred in his statement to the attack in Wales upon Dr. Bowring, and insinuated that the course pursued on that occasion by the people, whereby the offenders were so speedily brought to justice, was not such a course as would have been pursued in Ireland under similar circumstances, but that the offenders, on the contrary, would be secreted and protected. Now he (Mr. Reynolds) could mention a parallel case. Mr. Prim, a paymaster under the Board of Works, was travelling in Kilkenny on a jaunting car, when attacked by highway robbers, with whom he exchanged shots, but by whom he was eventually robbed and murdered. The authorities went imme diately in pursuit of the murderers, and owing to the aid given them by the people, soon arrested them, and they were convicted and executed. He could mention several such cases in Ireland. He had himself travelled through all parts of Ireland, it being known at the time that he had large sums of money with him, and he was never once molested. That showed that the crimes of Ireland were exclusively agrarian, and being so were attributable to the misgovernment of the landlords. He was sorry to see in that House so strong a disposition to screen the landlord and malign the people of Ireland, whereas, if the cases were fairly considered, the crimes of the people could be traced in a great degree to the conduct of the landlords. He would offer no factious opposi tion to the Bill. If it were a good Bill, the sooner it passed the better.—(Hear, hear.) It it were a bad Bill, the sooner it passed, the sooner would his pro phecy as to its inetlctive character fulfilled. - After a few words from Colonel ACTON in support of the Bill, the House went in Committee. On clause 1, . Air. J. O'CONNELL moved to substitute the words "for the prevention of crime and outrage," the words "for the punishment and prevention of crime and outrage in certaiu districts." His object was to limit the operation of the Bill to districts that were disturbed. Mr. R. M. FOX feared very much that the clause would extend crime, instead of checking it, by driving ill-disposed persons from proclaimed into un proclaimed districts, which their conduct would have a tendency to disturb. Sir G. GREY said the object of this clause was to give the Bill a general application, in order that the Lord-Lieutenant might apply it to any part of Ire land in which crime and outrage occurred. The alteration of the words would do no good, and it might do harm. Mr. F. O'CONNOR had said at first that this Bill was only " a wedge," and the Right Hon. Baronet's statement proved the truth of his position. It now appeared that the Bill was to have a general and not a local application.—(Hear, hear.) Sir G. GREY—Where threatening letters were sent in a district, or where conspiracies were shown to exist, the Lord-Lieutenant might find it necessary to declare it disturbed. All he wanted was not to limit the discretion of the Lord-Lieutenant. Colonel DUN NE agreed with the Hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Fox). He could not see why the arms, in a district declared to be disturbed, should not be handed over a hedge into a district not declared to be disturbed, and where they would be safe from seizure. Mr. GROGAN also thought the remarks of the Member for Longford deserved consideration. If the Bill passed as it stood, an ill disposed person passing from Kilkenny, which was proclaimed, into Wex ford, which was not, might bring down on the peace able people of the latter county all the pains and the penalties of this Act of Parliament. Mr. REYNOLDS said that bearing in mind that these boundaries of counties were merely imaginary lines, it was most unjust to subject the people within such lines to penalties for offences committed by per sons living out of them. Mr. FRENCH thought that on the contrary the tendency of the limit of penalty would have the good effects of giving the people of a particular district a peculiar interest in arresting an offender.—(Divide.) Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he should press his amendment, but Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL begged him to withdraw it. If a Bill of this kind was to be passed at all, the less they fettered the powers of the Lord-Lieutenant the better. Mr. MUNTZ had felt some difficulty in voting upon this Bill, becaause, although he could not re fuse a Bill of this sort, under the peculiar circum stances, yet he was bound to look with jealousy on all these infringements on the liberty of the subject. On the suject of the present amendment he must, however, say, that he thought the powers it gave ought to be as limited as possible. The Committee divided— For the amendment 4 Against it •• ... .. 203 Majority .. —199 Mr. F. O'CONNOR moved the insertion of the words " On the representation of the magistrates of the district." Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment, which was then withdrawn and the clause agreed to. Clauses 2 to 7 were, after a short discussion, agreed to. On Manse 8, relating to the levying of the cess, Mr. J. O'CONNELL proposed an amendment, to the effect that the new cess should be divided between the owner and the occupier. Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that if the Legislature made the whole burden fall upon the landlord, there would not be a single crime in Ireland.—(Laughter.) Sir G. GRE Y said that the object of fixing the occupier with an immediate burden was to supply an additional motive for the prevention of outrage. Mr. J. O'CONNELL ultimately withdrew his amendment, and the clause was agreed to. Clause 9 was agreed to without discussion. On clause 10, relating to the delivering of arms to the civil authorities, Mr. F. O'CONNOR protested against this clause as altogether unfair and unconstitutional, and dar e d the Government to pass it. Mims' iti.Wbeli thought the 0:411 040 Vali altogether misapplied.—(Hear, hear.) A eonstltu. tional Government might do anything which was sanctioned by the representatives of the people. The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, after a short discussion, with verbal amendments. On clause 16, which empowers police-officers to require persons to join in the pursuit of offenders, Mr. J. O'CONNELL submitted that the power should be restricted to county inspectors or sub inspectors. The persons called out were required to do their utmost in pursuing the offenders; but who was to judge whether they did their utmost Sir G. GREY said that the limitation proposed would entirely destroy the effect of the clause. It was meant to enable a police-officer to call in assist ance, in order to prevent the escape of an offender; if the officer was required first to consult his superior officer and obtain his authority, the opportunity would be lost. As to whether the parties called in did their utmost to render assistance, the jury, by whom the case was tried, and not the police officer, would have to be the judge of that. Mr. O'CONNOR said, the duty imposed by this clause was already an obligation at common law ; but he thougist the punishment, in case of refusal, ought to be mitigated to six months' imprisonment, without hard labour. A period of two years' imprisonment , with hard labour, though at the option of the judge, would excite a strong sympathy for the offenders. Sir G. GREY defended the clause as it stood, on the ground that the discretion of the bench would prevent too severe a punishment being inflicted. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL did not think the clause would be productive of much good. In England the people aided in enforcing the law, because they bed an interest in doing so, and believed the law to be their friend.—(Hear, hear.) The enforcement of the penalties under this clause, he feared, would have en opposite effect from what was intended. Mr. O'CONNOR moved the substitution of " siz months" for " two years." Mr. AGLIONBY did not think two years impri sonment an excessive punishment for screening mu t " derers. The clause would operate as an inducement to parties to give up offenders when they were in thei r power. The amendment was negatived without a divisions and the clause was then agreed to. On clause 17, Mr. O'CONNOR said this clause was the sting ° f the Bill. It proposed to preserve the 1 and i Wi b ' IV., c. 44, and 15 and 16 Geo. 111., c. 31 (the White' boy Acts), with the exception of such parte of those Acts as were repealed. The effect of this would be , that parties guilty of minor cffences would be sen' tencel to a heavier punishment —seven years' trans' portation—than those who screened the murderers. Some conversation ensued; ultimately, Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said he thought inn e , , r . . good would he done by prompt puni s hment than "J severer punishments after long delays had been allowed to intervene. The plan of speedy punish" ments was found most effectu a l d ur i ng the distur b " ances in Clare; and if speedy punishments were 5 ° effectual, speedy convictions might be supposed to b e effectual also.—(Hear, hear.) Sir G. GREY expressed his concurrence in th e view expressed by the Hon. Member for Kerry, an Mr. F. O'Connor gave way. The remaining clauses were then agreed to. Mr. BAINES moved the insertion of a clause, ba which accessories after the fact might be tried on punished, although the principals might not ha ys been convicted or taken. Colonel SIBTHORI' thought it was quite as 11e ; cessary to punish the accessory before and after th e fact as to punish the principal. He condemned t i ‘e Bill, however, as a milk and water, and even, i f " might be permitted to say so, a cowardly mea sure.—(Laughter.) The clause was then read, and, as was underst ood, agreed to, and the House resumed; the report to 13 * received this day. The House, at One o'clock, adjourned until noon this day. GREECE. In reply to Mr. B. COCHRA.NE, Lord PALMERSTON said that a half-yearly in stalment of the loan made by this country to Greece had been paid. Another instalment, due in September last, had not yet been paid. The entire amount of the loan was, he understood, 990,0001. No immediate demand had been made for the repayment of the money, because, though the Greeks might not be unable to pay it, they might nevertheless be unable to pay it at once. An arrangement would be made for the gradual liquidation of the amount. ADMISSION OF JEWS. Mr. GLADSTONE inquired if the Government intended to proceed with the Bill to legalise the ad mission of Jews on Thursday next ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re plied that he had no reason to doubt that his Noble Friend at the head of the Government would not bring it forward that day. IRISH BUSINESS. Sir G. GREY intimated that he intended to pro pose that the House should meet to-morrow at twelve, to receive the report on the Irish Bill, which he confidently hoped would pass though Committee to-night. THE NEWCASTLE BANK. In reply to Mr. HUTT, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that he did not wish to speak prejudicially of this bank the other night. What he meant to convey was that it had obtained a tem porary loan from a district branch of the Bank of England, which had been repaid. The loan was made to meet a very heavy run, and the application for it he did not consider prejudicial to the directors, who, he regretted, had been annoyed at the statement as construed by them. EAST INDIAN RAILWAYS. In reply to Lord JOCELYN, Mr. C. LEWIS stated that the Calcutta Presidency had consented to the construction of a line called the Indian Railway Company, from Calcutta into the in terior, the terms being that the sections should be executed so that the line should cost no more than 3,900,000/. The Government were to find the land and were to guarantee interest at the rate of 5 per cent., and to have the option of purchasing the line in 25 or 50 years. A similar offer had been made to the Great Indian Peninsular from Bombay, inwards 35 miles in length. No arrangement had been made with the Madras line. Sir R. PEEL inquired if legislative measures were required to effect this purpose ? Mr. C. LEWIS apprehended that the East Indian Railway Company thought they had power to carry out those arrangements without legislative sanction. Mr. BRIG-HT said the cost of the recent failures in Lancashire would have made the Peninsular line. Two years delay had already taken place, and as work could not be done from June to September, another year would be lost, if greater speed was not made. Ile did not think the terms sufficiently liberal to enable the directors to raise money in the English market. He should, therefore, after the recess, move for the production of the correspondence. The subject was most important to Lancashire. Mr. C. LEWIS considered the granting of the land exceedingly liberal. Mr. WADDINGTON inquired whether the . terms had merely been offered, or whether they had been agreed. to? Mt. C. LEWIS said they had merelybeen offered. COMMERCIAL DISTRESS. Lord G. BENTINCK wished to ask the Chan cellor of the Exchequer to postpone the nomination of the Committee to inquire into the causes of the recent distress until a further day. The present ap pointment was not at all a satisfactory one to many Honourable Members in that House. A great number of gentlemen thought that neither Scotland nor Ireland were sufficiently represented in the Com mittee. It appeared to him that due consideration had not been given to those Hon. Members who were op posed to the Bank Charter Act of 1844. It appeared that every Hon. Member who opposed the passing of that Act in 1844 was excluded from the Commit• tee. He trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon. Baronet would postpone the appointment of the Com mittee until some day next week, and in the meantime he would give notice of other names which, if the House should wish, he would propose should be added to the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he had endeavoured as far as pos sible to do justice in the selection of Mem bers for the Committee, and he was most anxious that the constitution of that Committee should give general satisfaction to the House. He had no objection to postpone the nomination of the Committee till Monday. Mr. HUME wished to know whether the Com mittee, when appointed, would commence with their inquiry until after the recess. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it would be fur the Committee, when it met, to decide what course they would adopt. If he were to state his opinions as to what that course would be, he should say that upon their meeting their first duty would be to elect a chairman, and then determine as to what course they would pursue, and what accounts and returns they might require. Having decided upon that point, they would probably adjourn, in order that they might have the returns ready pre vious to the examination of the several witnesses whom they might think it to call before them. Mr. WAKLEY thought that as this was Friday, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer postponed the nomination of the Committee till Monday only, no time would be afforded to the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn to give notice of any other names, and suggested that it should be postponed to a later (lay th an M onday next. It was his intention to move that the name of Mr. Muntz, the Hon. Member for str ' u t e r k . ?fl u ' ir,rn, Lcham, should added to the Committee. the eE list, i n requestedo order e that m hi a s ke na r m oo e m m f( i ) g r h s t om be e arise from an inquiry The C [IAN CELMY other, as he did not that any advantage could pos siblyinto the subject. cording to the the EXCHEQUER said at he should mo t ," of thent. appointment of the be for the -douse then e tohe had given, and decide whether it Committeewould b any and what names should be struck off or added to the Committee.__ REPORTS FROM MILITARY (IRELAND). OFFICERS In answer to a question put by an Ilox, MEajn R Sir G. GREY said the re p orts ma de by .11;, various military offices of Ireland to the Commander in-Chief of that country, and from him to the Corn. RAILWAY SHARE IvIAIIKTS. BRISTOL Dic 10. STOCK EXCHANGE—The sales • Bris t o l and Exeter, New, VA dis.—Taff Vale, par. are— LIVERPOOL, Doc. 10. STdOaCvl :—BirkenheadX Ii GE. haen Lancashire follo wing an w d e re Cheshireth e tranjauancet ti on this 311. Sliares 5% dis.—Glasgow and Dumfries , 7 1 / 1 - 7 1111 „. derafield and ' Manchester Railway and Canal , Pi ---1 - 21 ` -. shire and Yorkshire, Fifths, % p.—London and North -N ei ' tern, 153—Ditto, New Quarters, 6 1 ,4 p.—Ditto , Q uarte (G. J.), 37—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Quill.- ters, No. 1, % p.—Ditto, No. 2, 17%—Ditto (late GrinisbY and Sheffield), 1l!,i dis.—Ditto, 201. Shares, 48/4 diS.,-" Midland Stock, 109—Ditto, 401. Shares, 42% c.--Ditto, llalves, 1 3 4 dis.—Preston and Wyre, Halves (B), Scottish Central, 27 * p.—Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Uue" shire, Preference, Bd a eis B r.vv— g. ieD 9 ki d ,tt .. l,3 p ic .- -ew S i u o u rN t k tE an as t tern and DoVer , N N e ew w' ca N stl o e . , L ard N 1 thd die.— dYllr11:1 (East and West Riding Extensions),B , A p.—Datch Rhenish. 4% dis. MANCHESTER, DEC. 10. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—East Anglian, New' Preference, 1-16 p.—Eastern Counties, 161—Lancashire onl Yorkshire, Quarters, '41% dis.—Manchester, Sheffield, an d Lincolnshire, Preference, lA p.—Ditto (Sheffield and Lin; colnshire), dis.—North British, Thirds. 3-16—Nor th Staffordshire, % dis.—Sheffield, Rotherham, and G o ° 4 2 1 / 2 dis.—South-Eastern and Dover, No. 4, 1 11-16 dig South Yorkshire, Doncaster, &c , _2 1 4 dis. BIRMINGHAM, Dim 10. a STOCK EiCHANGE.—The sales are---South•Eastern sn, D .-yer, New, 1% dis.—Birmingham, Wolverhampton, an' Dudley, 41. Is. 3d. p.—North Sta&rdshirs, die. bury and Birmingham (A), 635. 9d. dis.—Shropshire uw°"' 465. 3d. dis. LEEDS, Dac. 9. STOCK EXCHANGE.—A very trifling amount of hulloes' has been done to-day at the following prices :—East Lan' dis.—Ditto, New, I3i. 11s. 3d. dis.—Dit t° ' cashire, New, pi dis.—Ditto, Quarters, 19s:c. did. —Lancashi;" and Yorkshire, 32/. Shares, 5 dis.--Leeds and Tbirsk, 1. 5 V" dis.—Leicester and Bedford, 3s. Gd. die.—North British , Thirds, 3s. North Staffordshire! p.—Ditto, Extension, lc. p ss. dis.—North- Western, 4% dis.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick, No. 2 (New Berwas), 2% C. p• Preference, 335. ORK, lbw. 9. STOCK Ex - - cwomE.— Y The sales are—Great Northern, 4 4 Ipswich and Bury St. Edmunds (Extension), ScriP ( 11 c • Cambridge and Ely), 1%--North British, Thirds, 2L 3s —Ditto, Quarters, 4 k/." 2 —York, Newcastle, and Berwick, N 0 . ` ~ (late New Berwicks), 12% c.—Ditto (G. N. E. P u rch.), 9 7 0 STOCK ExcHANGE.—The sales are—Edinburg h EDINBURGH, DEC 9. gow, 94—Ditto, New Halves, 6—Edinburgh , Le ith ' ir Grantor, Quarters, 4s. 6d.—Edinburgh and Northern,.t.s. , Glasgow and Ayrshire, 40/. Shares, 41/. 155.--North British. Ditto, .INi Halves, 121. ss.—Ditto, Quarters, ' 41. 10s. Gd.- - Quarters, I Is. 6d.—Ditto, Thirds, 9 /. 4s. GLASGOW, Dac. 9. STO6Z EXCIIANGE.—The sales are—Edinburgh toad GlO - 941. ss.—Stirling and Dunfermline,2/. 4s. and Ghild' nESP . ' TILE IRON TRADE.—REDUCTION OF WA- • - AIRMINGLIAM, FRIDAT.—In consequence of the &Pr e ; sion in this branch of trade, chiefly caused by the su_d pension of railway orders, the iron masters arouß Dudley have given notice to the ironstone miners ftt furnace men that they must submit to a reduction of their wages to the extent of 20 per cent. ; and We 11 % derstand that it is the intention of the coal masters t_ give notice to-morrow evening of a reduction in do wages of the colliers to the extent of a shilling per op This will lower the wages of the collier to 4s. and ths ironstone minors to 2s. 9d. per day. Short time is bei° generally adopted throughout the whole of Sont'e Staffordshire, and many of the iron masters are deer' mined to suspend operations altogether for the preseOb HANSEATIC PRODUCE.—A vessel arri v ed at 01 1 °, 0i ~ the wharfs on the river side, from Hamburgh, u"" brought 97 tons weight of potatoes, and the large qu irl i City of 997 bundles of horseradish. This is on e ° numerous supplies of potatoes, of an extensive cba r a ll i ; ter, at present taking place from Hamburgh, and the %),, large quantity of the 'vegetable known as horsersw „ brought on this occasion from that district, is Al6O V l* ticularly remarkable. -ide° . f On the Bth inst., the wife BIRTHS of R. Read, Esq., - jllo'l. square, of a daughter. d or On the 9th inst., at Glocester-road, Kensington-gs r the lady of W. Logan, Esq., of a son. G pal iC On the Gth inst., at Cro om ' s -hill, G reenw i c h. Uri. -• of a daughter. „ t . tile On the 7th inst., at th e Vicarage, Raynhaul, wife of the Rev. 11. G. Roche, of a daughter. J. On the 9th inst., at Ch oumer t- p l ace , P ec kham. zun" Millard, of a daughter. At Park on Wednesday, Dec. 1, MARRIED. by the Venerable Archdeacon Kcal' Lord Cocbraair at the Britisk En 11)3.11 ; ' , eldest son of the Earl of Dundonald, G. l — n n g . ' to Louisa, d s " ter of W. A. Mackinnon, Esq., M.P. ' Lora On the 9th inst., at St. Peter's Church, Eaton-squa re eldest George Quin, to Louisa Mary Isabella Ramsden, 1,. daughter of the late Sir J. Ramsden. of Byram Hall, VT shire. hf tile On the 9th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, e' Rev. G. F. Lewis, the Hon. H. Elliot, second son of 00:s-rt. of Minto, to Anne, second daughter of Sir E. Antrob DIED. On the 7th inst., in Clifford-street T.isloll' , aged 53, E. EsqOn ~ F the..S. R Bth inst., at his residence in the Albany, Lieu 4t",11,11no; General Sir J. C. Dalbiac, K.C.H., Colonel of th e Queen's Own, Light Dragoons, aged 72. fi r , Vi r • On the 7th inst., at John-street, America-aqtaret Smith, aged 75. On the Bth inst., at Charles-square, Horton, well, aged 77. At Kensington, on the 7th inst. aged 33, C. T. v Esq., youngest son of the late J. Lawson, , Esq., o f Norivii; On the 9th inst., after a short illness, at her house in - u t„ : , ley-street, the Hon. Marian na L a d y C oc kburn, wife of 20J- General Sir J. Cockburn, of Langton, Bart. On the 96th ult., at Ken s i ng t on - squar e,. T. F. Beard, .4's aged 75. -sr& Oa the 2d inst., a ge d 30, A nna Eli za , wife of J, Co y , Esq., surgeon, Barnsbury-park,• On the 4th inst., at Kensall green, ' Mr. H. Bowen. a,,e 93d year of his age; a l so , on the Bth inst., at the same Mrs. Susannah Bowen, his widow. f 0, On the 4th in s t., at Fitzroy-terrace, Kentish - to wn, Mathews, aged 66. b• On the 7th inst., Mr. J. Foster, of Denmark-hill, Cam• well, aged 78. / Of On the Bth inst., R. Fountleroy, Esq., of Wandsen Surrey, aged 82. London: Printed and Published by 111 URDO Y O E N I 'l5 l No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Th e Sue Office, 1 1. a ° ' I Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, iu Ou"'"' Middlesex, SAturciy, December 11, 1647. I 't 1 L