The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-01 00:00:00

IRELAND.

Lord PALMERSTON brought up the Report of the Con.
mote, appointed to inquire into the causes of the distnrhances in
Ireland.
Mr. A BERCROM BY was desirous of °lnterring, on the bring.
Pig up of the report, that it came from the Committee nose-,
companied by any observations on the cvidcn:e taken before it.
From the protracted period to which the exalt:ins:ion of witnesses'
had been carried down, it wan inipmaible to expect any detailed ob-
serrations upon that evidence; indeed, it was not drawable to hate
a commentary upon all The points of local arrangement.. and the
variety of topics brought l'efore the attention of the Committee;
neit"er wan it nectarine, perhaps, to bent their obiscreatians upso
that most important subject, the CatholicQuestlon, after site ample
discussion It had so trequently undergone in drat Houser but it
would be very dairable, in hie opinion, that that Committee
should be reappointed Pent Session of Parliament. add be called
upon to famish their oheerratinia on enure of the topics in the re.,
pert to be speeilied tot their consideration.
T he report was then Iteenght up.
E PIA/I'M ENT OF THE PEOPLE.
Mr. 8. RICE presented a petition from the county of Limerick,
praying for the employment of the distressad people of that district.
livinurable Member presented a similar redden from due
county of Westmeath.
CA !MILE.
Ilr. BROUGHAM presented a petition from Richard Carllle,
oomnlaining of hardships and undee severity, and n. a conviction
for a blasphemous libel. The petitioner was :it present confined In
the goal of Dorchester. He had been convicted In the year 181 n,
and then sentenced to a fine of and to there years' imprison.
meet. He had not paid the tine, and his imprisonment was con.
tinued, and if it were to continue until that fine were paid, it would
amount to a perpetual Imprisonment. There was the greater
hardship in the e.‘se of the petitioner, as a difference of opinion pre.
yrled amongst the most eminent authorities, rrhAher or not the
oflrrce fiat which the petitioner suffered, was or was not punishable
at cornatoo law. Sir llatthew Hale, an eminent and a high
authority, sated that it was so. Lord Coke, in titter and a higher
autfterity, said that it was not, and in the eminicration of cfl'onces,
it was made cognisable, not at common law, but before an ecelesi-
mtical tribunal. Ile (Jr. Brougham) wished to disclaim partici-
pation to Me opinions and principles of the petitioner. (Hear, hear.)
He felt it to be hie duty, however, to present the present prition,
and although he did differ widely from hint, he thought all
puniabrnenta for the free entertainment of opinions were most ob.
ctiittable. Although a person was an Atheist, (if such a thing
there could be) yet it one impolitic, in his opinion, to punish him
for the expression of his opinions or the promulgation of them.
in promulgating them, however, he was guilty of any thing in-1
'leant, then he was liable to punishment for the indecency, far I
I -,at W*4 an offence punishable by common law ; hut for the were
entertainment of capreselon of opinions, ■ person ought not, in
Ira (Mr. B.'s) opinion, he liable to penalty.