The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-19 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL MANURE.

Mr. CAYLEY rose to ask the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer-1. Whether the question as to the territorial
right over the Lobos Islands had been laid before the
present, or late, or what law officers of the Crown, and
in what year? 2. And, if there be an etiquette against
making public the answer given by the law officers,
whether there is an equal objection to producing the
caw) laid before such law officers, with a view to satis-
fying the agricultural public of this country that every
means have been taken to give them the great advantage
of a cheaper supply of guano. 3. If the present law
officers have not been consulted on this important ques-
tion, whether there is,any objection to consult them ?
Lord STANLEY said, the question more properly
came under the cognizance of the Foreign- office. On
the first part of the case, involving the question of ter-
ritorial right, a case had been laid before the Crown
counsel in 1834. It was not usual to produce the
opinions of the law officers of the Government; and as
to the case laid before them, it consisted only of the
correspondence which would be presented that evening,
and printed. There had seemed no reason to doubt,
after that opinion, that the Government of Peru had
territorial rights over the islands, and the law officers
of the Crown had not recently been consulted on the
subject.

Yfr. SCOTT rose to ask the Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, whether her Majesty's Government
have applied, or intend to apply, to the Peruvian or
other Governments interested therein, to enter into ar-
rangements for the purpose of obtaining for British
ships free access to places supplying guano? Also,
wnether any instructions have been given to colonial go-
vernors and officers of her Majesty's navy to look out for
islands or other places containing guano, and take any
practicable steps towards securing to the public, at the
cheapest rate, an ample supply of that article free from
adulteration; and whether there is any objection to lay
upon the table any papers relating to that subject?
Lord STANLEY said ho fully recognised thegeroema..t
interest and importance of the question; and
.severalnuovern-
munioations had been addresse,dhteorttohewPitehrunvoitainti.ch.,nw:
ment on the subject, though hi.
ihe s4ut Ip°p
petition.
butcess
h. e
bHeel
iedvi de undervaluedntohtebest
means t theutilityco irlaoseio_frif
„rot
ly
of guano was by resorting to the
Psnwnore sent out
period instructions were for9:•ti
°leer
ail their tAntthtle)eapdrracisreaniat
and
efforts to dis-
stationia directing them to
,rtlesse,
supply of guano could
cover localities whence
rt
other
a instructions were sent to
be procured. and 6f" ;e0 understood the Noble Lord,
:t ilun the correspondence he had
colonial goveraers. co_.?„.c-tlt to hear distinctly.) The
who, however, -brought up
Noble Lord then
BSsiv-fipouilAr.t Fh eRLTrid sT.blrioEugLhOt R:tSt.ie follow-
referred to.
t'Which their Lordships had agreed:—
dford, and Halifax Junction Railway, wish-
Leeds,
out amendment.l Board of Health, w:tii an amendment.
Genera h
Flax
r lA,
en( messts, .
r
North Brit's COMparly (Claussen's patent).
0 ne, Yeovil, and Weymouth
Fe:
ktilway (No. 1).
Clitussen's Patent Flax Coa„pany.
Lid-teard
Nene Valley Drainage and Navigation Improvement.
Great Western Railway (No. 1).

Stockton and Hartlepool and Clarence Railway s ad
Hartlepool West Harbour and Dock Companies.
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway ( To.
2), with arnendirtenta.
SUGAR MANUFACTURE.
Mr. FORBES rose to talc the rresident of the Borden
of Trade whether, if the Patent Law Amendment I
should be passed in its present stete, he will be prepavec
to advise the Crown to withhold the extension a •
pet
those possessions have had an opportunityente to the sugar colonies until thoeo interested ix
of expressitt
their wishes?
Mr. HENLEY unewered that he had deemed it Iti a
S ;
duty to offer such advice to the Crown.—(Hear).
SO:AERSET HOUSE.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS wished to know if the Jew
buildings at Somerset House had been sanctioned by the
House, or if the Noble Lord opposite was prep:treat t°
come down and ask the House to vote the anrount
required fur them, and had they any estimate of the
expense?
'fbe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER s Eli' 3'
that as the lion. Member had only given a general n 1 )"
Lice of his intention to ask for information reaper tg
Somerset House, his Noble Friend (Lord J. Man her (1).
was not aware of the particular information req' sire
but as he (the Chenceilo: of the Exchequer) hat 'Peneci
to be acquainted with the facts, he would state, it I rel.' if
to the Hon. Member, that it was not the inter aion of
her Majesty's Government to ask for any vote for the
buildings in question. An extremely wise arra' 3 gen°, f:
had been matte by their predecessors in otlieo
the
object Government was prepared to carry (nee and he
object of the new buildings was to bring aril the "braec.he!
of the Inland Revenue Department under cno rnol
without which a real consolidation was irepossiblo.-n
(Hear, hear.) While there was a local dietri'oution: of
offices they could have no real consolidatit rx arf atlY cite:
partmont, and for the sake of economy ned of I"'
public service,, Government were carrying to it the Pr!'
more than the expense soot arrangement. As to the question of expense, he
had great pleasure in telling th 1-ion. Mem. ber that the
pen s see I
incurred
buildings and offices
solidation.—( Rear.) geuurisrheedd
bwyouelfidobetei
nwoortthhoWenet
Mr. HUME wished to ask if the GOY ernrnent bad
followed the recommendations of the Cot watittee W“!.1,
regard to the residence of the First Naval Lord, and
they were prepared to carry out, for the saki of ecenonl
and the public service, the removal of the offices, so 65
to bring them all under one roof?
Mr. WILLIAMS said the Right Hon. Ge ntlernan ;113d
not answered the most important part of ta se questftsn.
He objected to making any outlay of public none,' cv"-i
out the sanction of tho House, and wanted to know 1
the Government had had an estimate of the expense?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEctt TER replied
that of course neither the present nor the l ate Govern-
ment would have taken such a step without; an esthete?,
and repeated the statement ho made in :tin saver to the
Hon. Member's fleet question.
Mt. WILLIAMS—I want to know what is the Bents
—(Order, oreer.) I want to esk—(Cries of " Order,
order," amid which the Hon. Member sat di wn.)
The subject then dropped.
EDUCATION.
Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice, of
that, on flaw repot
the Consolidated Fund Bill, he should bring,'before the
House the recent minute of the Committee of Pi
Council relative to educational grants. The Nob!
Lord afterwards asked when that report would be
brought up? as
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
h®
the Noble Lord wished to make some obtervations on t.
occasion, and the House were always anxious to hear tna
Noble Lord, he should propose to bring up the report 0n
Monday, at six o'clock. ter of
Sir H. VERNEY moved for a copy of the char
incorporation of the Nadonal Society for Promoting the
Education of the Poor on the principles of the Bso
lished Church throughout England and Wales.
PE FITION FOR PARDON OF THE IRIS:LI Extr,-
Mr. F. FRENCH said as a rumour had been eil for
lated to the effect that the -recent petition praytna
the release of Mr. Smith O'Brien and his fellow pri-
soners Nod been got up at the desire of the Irish ?'4
vernmentoand that emote.; others who had et/mot:reef blo
from a disposition to accede to its object wets the k
Lord the Chief Secrethry for Ireland—he fished to ask
that Noble Lord if there was any truth in the report?
Lord NAAS begged to assure the Hon. Gentleman
that there was not the slightest foundation for the stat.:
meat that had been made. He never, directly or inahle
rectly, by word or by letter in public or private, Ph',
any one the least reason to suppose that he er any
member of the Government were favourable to that me-
morial; morial; furthermore, he was in no way cognizant of ,e
preparation of the memorial, except through the accounts
he saw in the public newspapers.—(hear, hear.)
THE REV. MR. BENNETT.
On the motion that the House at its rising do adjourn
till Monday,
Mr. HORSMAN said he should detain the Hotise.
but a few minutes; but considering the interest they had;
felt in the case of the Rev. Mr. Bennett, and the well.
,
advised decision to which they had come, he conceived
it to be his duty at the earliest moment to state the
course ho proposed to adopt. It would be better to do
that than to let the motion for a Committee, and the
motions connected with it, to stand on the votes night
after night, so as to make it appear that the subject was
about to die a natural death, and that the interest which
it had excited had abated. Since the vote to which the
House had come he must say -that the interest had not
abated but rather increased, nor did he find, in the
opinion of the majority who came to that vote, anything
but a desire to give effect to it. The House would feel
the difficulty he had to deal with in nominating a Com-
mittee so late in the session. It was not his tault that
the discussion bud come on at so late a. period of the
session. He first brought forward the subject in the
mouth of April. Seven weeks elat sed, owing to circum-
stances over which he had no control. The decision of the
House was taken on the Bth June, late at night, it being a
Tuesday. On Wednesday he was in the House at twelvo
o'clock, and actively employed to get gentlemen to serve
on the Committee. He obtained the names of thirteen
gentlemen that day. The name of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford
was placed on the Committee without his permission
being asked, as it was considered that he had acted as
the authorised advocate of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, and if ho refused his consent it was thought that
his reasons for doing so should be stated to the House.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for the
city of Oxford would not consent to serve; but as it
was then nearly six o'clock, and it was important that
the Committee should be nominated that day, he (Mr-
Horaman) asked him to allow his name to remain, 011
the understanding that it would be withdrawn before
any evidence was taken and another name substituted.
Fourteen Members agreed to serve; two of whom were
struck out, and others substituted by the Government.
He stated this in order to show that every pains had
been taken to nominate the Committee. On the Thurs-
day, when ho moved for the Committee, a difficulty was
started by the Right Honourable Gentleman the Home
Secretary, who said this was too grave an inquiry to
be conducted by an imperfect Committee., Ho
(Mr. Horsman) did not find fault with him
for it; but, while the matter was proceeding, an
Honourable and Gallant Member, who was a friend of
Mr. Bennett broke up the discussion, by moving the- ad-
journment of the House. On the Monday, he completed
the list to the number of 15. In nominating the Com-
mittee, he had found no difficulty made on the Inert of
the Government, though they had opposed the
inquiry, spoken against it, and divided against
it; bat, when the decision went against there,
there was no disposition on their part to impede
the nomination of the Committee. But a difficulty wag
interposed by the Right Eon. Gentleman the Member
for the University of Oxford. He proposed that after
the Committee had been Dominated that he (Mr. llors-
man) should be ordered by the House to lay on the table
certain articles or heads of charges. The Government
was ready to allow him to proceed with the nomination
of the Committee provided there was not to be a long
debate, which he (Mr. Horsman) did not propose, huV
the Right Hon. Gentleman told the House that he should
not only propose an amendment, but that he should
make a long speech, and the House made its arrange-
ments accordingly. The Government in the state of
public business declined to give way; as there were 35
orders on the papers the discussion must have come on 50
late in the evening that it would have been impossible to
nominate the Committee. It was his duty to exelsia
why be had not agreed to the suggestion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, which would have enabled him to have
had the Committee appointed.—(Hoar, hear.) Ile felt
that he, as an individual Member of the House, had no
right or power to do so. There was no precedent for
laying on the table heads or articles of charges in acioase
where no impeachment was intended. The Right Hon.
Gentleman would not deny that except in cases or an
s precedeunt
peachment avowed and intended there wa
did the propomuon
for such a course. In that case what
of the Right Hon. Gentleman amount to but that the
motion had been made and the decision
of the Bishop of
of the majority
m
given, with a view to the imp
construction of the motion he
Bath and Wells? That
e disregarded, but had no right
to commit the 156 gentlem(Mr. Horsman) might havee
n
who composed the majority
to the fact that they intendedHe had the
the impeachment of
Bishop of Bath and Wells. no right to do so
without their concurrence. He believed that of the
• :ty not one
who voted in the majority 156 Members
wished the Bishop
to be impeached, and it would
have been unjust for him, in his individual capacity,
to commit them to such a course. So far as he was per-
sonally concerned, the drawing up heads of impeach-
ment would have very much facilitated his object. In'
deed, after the Right Hon. Gentleman suggested that
course he did draw thew up, and had it been the plea-
sure of the HOllBB he should have immediately
them, but he felt that he could not do so without the
concurrence of those who voted with him. Another
reason why he did not do so was that it would in his
opinion have established a bad precedent. If it had mace
been
settled that a complaint was not to be made against
a bishop without being followed by impeachment the re-
sult would have been most injurious; and if in the next
Perliament a Member had brought a complaint against
the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Exeter, or any
other prelate ho might have been stopped at once by an
inquiry whether ho meant to propose an impeachment.
He had told the Right Honourable Gentleman that
whatever might be the decision of the House, he would
cheerfully assent to it; but, considering the state
of public business, considering that there was 00,
probability that he would have the opportunity or
nominating his Committee within
to the difficulties
the next thties
ree
or four days, and having g tee
ard also
which had been thrown in his way, he did not feel it his
duty to move the nomination of the Committee.—(Hear,
hear.) But in making that announcement, he felt that
he owed some explanation to the Hon. Gentlemen who
had voted for inquiry, as regarded the false position in
which they Were placed with regard to the Bishop of
Bath and Wells. The House would recollect that he
stated the Bow delayed the prooeetibge of the Ff 149117.

strants, by keeping them in correspondence until he had
taken his own measures for the institution of Mr. Ben-
nett, and that he at length hurried on the institution
and defeated their endeavours to lodge a caveat through
anticipating thorn by half an hour. That was the most
serious part of his statement, because it showed the
animus with which the Bishop acted. His Honourable
and Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, got up and
made a statement on that point which surprised him,
• and no doubt influenced the votes of many Members
of that House who gave credence to it; observing that
while they were asked to pass, by implication, a
veto of censure, the Right Rev. Prelate had in fact done
nothing more than he was required to do by law. Now
he (tlr. Horsman) would show the House that the case
was not as it was thus represented. He had felt it his
duty to take the opinion of two authorities of Doctors'
Commons, end thosedopinions he would now read. The
statement made by his Hon. and Learned Friend was
understood by the House to amount to a declaration that
the Bishop of Bath and Wells was beund to institute
Mr. Bennett within 28 days after his presentation. Now
on that point he had put this case to De. Twiss:—" 'The
late Vicar of From() died on the 26th of November, 1851.
Mr. Bennett was presented (say) the 29th of December
following. Was theßishop bound to institute him so seen
as the cenonicei 28 days had run out; or, how long might
he have lawfully delayed institution?" The answertwas
us f Mews:—" The bishop is not bound to institute a pre-
sentee to a benefice as soon as the canonical 28 days have
run out. The canon is directory, and it was held by tho
Arches' Court, in the case of Gorham v. the Bishop
of Exeter' (9 Robertson's Reports, p. 28), that the
bishop is not bound to commence the examination of a
cauditlete fur institution within the canonical 28 days,
hut that the meaning of the 28 days in the 95th canon
is, that after that interval the biehop may be called
upon to assign a reason, if he delays to institute. The
decision of Sir Herbert Jenner Fast on this point was
not impugned before the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. It is also settled law (Hobert's Reports, p.
317) that a bishop may take competent time to examine
the sufficiency and fitness of a presentee to a benefice,
and ho is not bound to institute him until he is satisfied
of his fitness. Six months is the only limit mentioned
by canonists, within which the examination must be
concluded, so that the right of patronage may not lapse.
In the case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter,' the
presentation took place on Nov. 2, 1847, and Mr. Gorham
formally applied for institution on November 8, but the
bishop did not commence his examination of Mr. Gor-
ham, as a candidate tor institution, until the lith day
cf Dscember, after the canonical 28 days had ex-
pired. The Court of Arches held, overruling Mr.
Gorham's protest, that such delay was not impro-
, per on the part of the bishop, although at-
tended with inconvenience to Mr. Gorham.—(Signed)
TR,iVERS Twiss.—Doctors' Commons June 16, 1852.
Such was the opinion of Dr. Twiss. Ile had taken se-
parately the opinibn of Dr. Paillimore; but as it was
rather long he would only read the last paragraph :
" I am of opinion, however, that it is competent to the
Bishop to institute the clerk at any time within the six
months after presentation so as to avoid a lapse; for the
Words of the 95th canon are directory only, and nut
prohibitory, and have E 0 been adjudged to be. And I
conceive, in the event of a caveat having been entered,
a bishop (although the common law takes no notice of
it) would not, consider himself bound to institute within
the eighteen days, if the proceedings consequent en the
eavaat commenced during the twenty-eight days, ex-
tended beyond that period." He brought forward the
opinion of these two eminent authorities because he felt
that if it had really been the case, that the Bishop was
bound to institute within twenty-eight days, and that, as
Was represented by his lion. and Learned Friend, so far
from using undue haste, he had shown extreme inclul-
a,ence by delaying institution for that period, he would
have been justly censurable, not only for his ignorance
and carelessness about the law, but for want of
caution and consideration in making statements
in that House.—(Hear.) Ono of the most remark-
able ecclesiastical cases of late years was that of Mr.
Gorham against the Bishop of Exeter. In that case
this very point was raised, and Sir Htrbert Jenner Fust
decided that the Bishop had a right to commence an in-
quiry after the lapse of 28 days from the time of pre-
sentation. Considering how familiar all lawyers were
with that case, ho was certainly surprised that his Hon.
send Learned Friend the Member for Oxford should have
misl,nd the House; for there could not be the smallest
doubt that his opinion did mislead the House, and,
that, in consequence of hearing it, many who had
intended to vote for the motion voted against it.—
(ilear, hear.) Now, he repeated that he did not
thiuk that in the present session he ought to endea-
vour to pursue the inquiry. But he could not sit down
Without expressing his sense, not merely of the import-
ance of the subject itself, but of the importance which had
tbeett given to it by the proceedings in that House, and
by the vote to which the House had come. He could
Only say for himself, as a member of that Church in which
along with the majority of that House he had been edu-
°ated and brought up, and from which he had never
oterved for a moment either in allegience or attachment,
that he felt it to be impossible to overrate the importance
of the vote which was come to the other evening. The
Country had now been told in a manner which was not
to be mistaken, that in whatever quarter abuses might
exist in the Church, there was a Parliamentary tribunal
that would take cognizance of them,—(Hear, hear.) It
had been told that wherever the offence might be, how-
ever high and exalted the offender, there was a Parlia-
mentary jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence,
and to inquire into the circumstances attending its corn-
taiesion.—(Hear, hear.) That was amongst the last, and
We; in his opinion, by far the most important of tho
decisions of the present Parliament; it was a judgment
deliberately recorded as a legacy to future Parliaments.
,
trto believed there had been few votes in that Route
Which would give more satisfaction to the country; and he
Was sure that, the attention of Parliament having been at
last
roused by one great scandal of the Church, which
44d been increased and aggravated by the impunity
,ahich it had hitherto met with, a promise bad, in effect,
given to tho country that impunity should not con.
tinue and that wherever a case of grievance was al-
eged', like that which it had been his duty to bring
Before the House, Parliament would endeavour to pro-
'fide redress.—(Cheers.)
hMr. GLADSTONE said the few words to which the
".°l3. Gentleman had announced that ho would limit his
Observations had expanded in his hands into a speech
nonsiderable length, containing as much of criatina-
„.°l7 matter as the Hon. Gentleman found it convenient
'a`)ltttroduce.—(fiear, bear.) The Hon. Gentleman had
eferred that night to such portions of his charges against
the Bishop of Bath and Wells as he thought would bear
repetition. He had reminded the House that he charged
`"e Bishop with undue haste in instituting Mr. Bennett;
stuttt he (Mr. Gladstone) must remind him of the full ex-
tent of his wn charges. The Honourable Gentleman
did not say merely that there was undue haste, bat he
Charged the Bishop with a deliberate violation of the
.i4ra in not subjecting Mr. Bennett to due examination,
`' receiving him without the usual certificate, and
;
Itttituting him with haste and precipitancy,
,',9,titrary to the usual course, for the purpose
't defrauding the parishioners of their just
and lawful rights. On the other hand, it had been
stated that if the Bishop had not examined Mr. Bennett
htwould not have broken the law, but that he exer-
-Ised his discretion wisely, and did examine him. [Mr.
taorsealen here made some observation which was in-
tt.tdible. The stateent of a Member of Parliament in
place] was evidenmce.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Glad-
'n) had made that statement, and he invited and
Challengedees the Hon. Gentleman to disprove it. He as-
tatlea that, so far as the law was concerned, the Bishop
't precisely the usual course; that he was bound to
(14,,ninister the law, and that he was not authorised to
i„e.teY instituting on account of any informal and extra-
Zuieial step which might have been taken. What
4"ecttild they say of a judge in Westminster Hall who, on
thationnt of representations made to him privately, de-
ed to administer the law in any case which had come
rt7ore hirae—(Elear, hear.) The Honourable Gentle-
-441 said that the Bishop entangled the parties by
tbeaing into a correspondence with them. No such
l'at. The parties sent to him a request that he
~,cald not institute Mr. Bennett; and he told them
r:sainly that he had satisfied his own mind on
t'gr,ll legal question involved, and that ho was re-
itttved to institute. He did not evade the point
the least, bat simply refused to accede to the petition.
(Hear, hear.) Tne Hon. Gentleman had sought to
throw upon him (Mr. Gladstone) the responsibility of
laving interfered with the nomination. Ho was sorry
Hon. Gentleman had forced the House into a discus-
c:4 of that question; but, as he had charged him with
Feding the nomination of the Committee by an un-
til and unprecedented proceeding, he would tell hina,
reply, that he regretted that he had not either ori-
rated himself, or, having omitted to do so, adopted,
tt the suggestion of another, a course which was iu
gformity with the plainest dictates of justice. Let the
%rase consider, for a moment, the position in which
Lacl were placed. There were 658 gentlemen elected
tta three gr four hundred constituencies through the
'''),Llatry—allPbody containing the greatest varieties of
ict4rt acter, capacity, and inclination, and there was
kts, one amongst them who was not authorised. to
subject of
1411,4 t any charge be pleased against any
Majesty, and to lay it on the table of the
Ouse without incurring any
Vlll4 personal responsibility
tre tever. Now he asked the House to consider what a
(pendous power it was that was thush wielded.—
a dear, hear.) What a power over public officers, what
power for the destruction of private character.—
,iaaear hear. ) This power, being totally unfettered by
•
ettae legal checks and remedies wnich applied in othert
vie; and which influenced those who were disposed
dto
1414Perate others, what was there to restrain it? fie
ew of no restraint except the invariable rule of the
he 2c—a rule which, even in the worst times, so far es
was able to discover, had not been broken—that it
*told entertain no criminatory charges unless they
so,' placed on some definite basis, so that the party
4413. ed, though he might have no remedy or redress for
se accusation, might at least be able to say " That
Wasalti, with which I was charged, and that it was of
t6e.p,l have been acquitted." As to the statement of
h° Ilan. Gentleman that he did not intend Impeach.
eattetaeitt he (Mr. Gladstone) must tell him that in that
tjtt a° did not understand his own charges or his oblige-
-6 a 3 a Member of Parliament, If a Bishop and a Peer. in.
aria, deliberate violation of
the 'tent had been guilty
apit'a."; and had defrauded tolafeapsetessubject.ed. to his
there
etialcit4tal oversight of their jest and legal rights,
na an case for impeachment, that was one. The
Gentlemanstanh said the people of Eoglatel would now
CC that there was a tribunal to take up abuses in the
koll„rich• He would tell the Hon. Gentleman that the
Uteri(' of England had not first learnt from his mouth
tiee elltiledaratntal principles of the constitution and jut-
-44,7' the House of Commons.—(Hear.). It was not
it 'vet' for the
year 1852 to
teach the nation that that
use wusthe grist irqutst for the grievances of the
a•, and entertain complaints
gq,se that it was ever ready to en
Net laigh functionaries and officers of State an tne
and modes which the constitution Pointe4 out'

That was no new discovery. But he hoped the Hon.
Gentleman would discover that that House was no
willing to entertain charges like that which he had made,
unless they wore brought forward its a distinct shape;
end indeed, were the case otherwise, the House would
become the refuge of licensed libel and defamation.—
(Loud. cheers.) Now, the Honourable Gentleman was
entirely wrong with respect to the practice of the
House on the subject of impeachment. He (Mr.
Gladstone) did not say that when a complaint was
made, articles were invariably exhibited; what he said
was, that when there was to be a criminatory proceed-
ing,
.tha Howe always proceeded on the defined basis of
a cruninatory- document. In the e,IS"J of the ship money
in the reign of Charles 1., the matter complained of
being perfectly notorious, the House at once entertained
the question, and proceeded to vote impeachment; but
where there was no ouch notoriety the House always
proceeded on something of a documentary character;
sometimes on a petition, and sometimes on a document
of some other kind. In the case of Sir Jonah I3arring-
ton, the report of a Commission accidentally brought
to light the grounds of accusation; and the case of
.Lord
Melville arose in the same way. In both cases docu-
mentary evidence formed the basis of the charge. The
Hon. Gentlemen said the charges were never exhibited
except in cases where impeachment was intended. On
that point he was entirely wrong. The Hon. Gentleman
seemed to think that impeachment depended entirely on
ishitteaent of individual Members of that
Ileuie. It was no such thing; they could nut spesk
of a private member impeaching, except by a looseness
of language which did not express the mind of thihcon-
stitution. If the Hon. Gentleman thought that written
charges were never exhibited in that House, except in
cases of impeachment, he would recommend him before
he next introduced such a subject to refer to the
ease of the Bishop of Worcester, vol. 14, p. 37, of
the Journals. The Right Hon. Gentleman then read
the case in support of his view. If it were the prac-
tice of the House, as appeared from that case, to re-
quire written charges when evidence was to be taken
at the bar, much more necessary was it to require
them when it was to be taken before a Select Com-
mittee, composed of a small number of Members.
The Honourable Gentleman's objection did not touch
the principle, which was that when there was
criminatory matter against a party, the House should
proceed except on the basis of written documents
er of facts which were notorious. That principle
he challenged the Hon. Gentleman to shake. Had the
Hon. aid Learned Gentlemen proceeded according to
precedent to justice, and bad he intended to abide by
his motion, the heads of charges ought to have been
drawn up. If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did
not do so in a matter which he (Mr. Horsman) had
stated warranted impeachment, it would have been com-
petent for any other lion. Gentleman to hare taken the
case out of the Hon. and Learned Member's hands. But
whether the case was one calling for impeachment or for
any other class of criminal proceedings, he (Mr. Glad-
stone) thought he had shown the House that the prac-
tice, even in former times, had invariably been to show
to the accused that shelter, that though they might
have no remedy or redress against accusations
made in Parliament; yet that they should have
such a defence that serious injury might not be
done to their characters by Honourable Gentlemen going
into Committees of the House, and fishing for informa-
tion criminatory to the accused, producing new, and
omitting other portions of that evidence, as they pleased.
—(Cheers.) Such a proceeding was more worthy of a
southern meridian than that in which we lived, and one
which he was sure that House would not sanction.
Mr. LIORSAIAN explained that in the case of Sir
John Pakingtun and the Bishop of Worcester, to which
the Right lion. Gentleman had alluded, though the al-
legation against that Prelate was drawn up, heads of
charges against him were not exhibited.—(oh, oh)
Mr. GLADSTONI would not quarrel with the lion.
Gentleman about the term heads of charge.—(Hear,
hear.) The principles which he sought to establish mere,
that a lember of the Ileuse accusing a great officer of
State of any offence against the law was bound to put his
accusation in a defined and written form in conformity
with the principle arid practice of the !louse, and with
the principles of British and universal iustice.—(Efear.)
misapprehension
of Sirwh what be
or.h
WadOstOatDedwwoiuthld rco frerreecetcca to the law of the
case. Ha denied that he had, in the face of the judg-
ment in the case of " Bishop of Exeter v. Gorham', made
tiny statement in that House diametrically opposed to
that judgment. He would show there was not a word
in his statement but what coincided with that judgment.
He bad never said any thing so absurd as that the Bishop
could not institute after 28 days. He had said the
Bishop was protected for 28 days from a quare impedit.
The law watched jealously over the conduct of the Bishop
in the matter of institution, on account of the double
office held by him. A.ll he had asserted was, that in
order to protect himself against costs, the Bishop had
only 28 days allowed him—formerly the canon law gave
two months—now it only gave 28 days. He was there-
fore correct in what he had formerly etated, that the
Bishops 28 days, and that ho was protected
from costs
hadforostsonly
non-institution during that periods With
regard to the common law on the subject, which was
contained in an Act of Henry VII., it was staged' if an
ordinary had not examined a clerk, it was a good excuse
to plead that he had public business to attend to.
The common law therefore protected au ordinary
for non-institution on certain stated grounds. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman titre quoted a
case from Hobart, in support of his statement of the law.
After the 28th day the Bishop would not have a good
defence to an action by only saying ho had not examined
the clerk. That was the case he had formerly put be-
fore the House. The case of Gorham was this, that it
was pleaded the examination was a nullity, because not
gone into before the expiration of the 28 days. This
was en absurdity. He admitted that the Bishop was
bound to finish his inquiry within 28 days, if bie com-
menced it, unless he could fairly plead public business
as ion excuse for delay. He repeated that he .had not
stated the Bishop could only finish the inquiry in the
28 days; what he said was, that parties had no sight to
throw on the Bishop the costs of proceedings to which
he ought not to be exposed. Then with regard to ex-
penses, it was laid down in " Burn's Law," t hat in a
duplex querelcz, if Judgment was pronounced ag tinst the
Bishop, the Bishop was condemned in expenses. He did
not make any complaint on the matter, becau so he did
not think that any one had any right to m eke corn-
plaints if they were in a situation to make replies.—
(Hear.) He had denied that the charge of indecent
haste was correct, and be now asserted that his state-
ment was borne out by facts. His purpose in rising was
to justify himself to the House; the propositions he
then laid down he adhered to, and he should have had
no justification had he misstated the law on the. case.

The CHANCELLOR of tho EXCHEQUER here
rose, and trusted that the subject would be dg erred to
the next Parliament. There was no regular di. tcussion
before the House. Ho would not interfere be ore, be-
cause the matter had assumed a somewhat ioeportant
character, in consequence of the way it had ;been put
before the House by the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth. He trusted the House would support hien in his
desire to confine the speaking to motions regularly
before the Houst, otherwise it would be imp°. ssible to
carry on the public business; for no public business
could go on if Hon. Members would persist in availing
themselves of the privilege of introducing quetitionable
matters on motions which were for the dispatch of busi-
ness. It was his painful duty to make a respeutful re-
monstrance against Hoe. Members using that privilege
to the obstruction of public affairs. He would take the
opportunity of saying, with reference to the subject
under discussion, had the Right Hon. Member for the
University of Oxford proceeded with his amendment, ho
should have felt it to be his duty, in conformity with the
principles of justice, to support it—(Hear, hear.) It
was useless, however, to recur to the past. The ques-
tion of law was, however, left in such an unsatiefactory
state that it will be the duty of Government to take it
into consideration, with the view of remedying this
grievance of the present law of instituting clerks by
bishops.—(llear, hear.)
Sir A. COCKBURN would not impede the wish of
the House to proceed to business. He must, however,
not be understood as implying by silence conttest to the
legal doctrines laid down by the Right Hon. Ge ntleman.
—(Hear, hear.) To those doctrines he begged to say he
dissented in tote.
Mr. NEWDEGATE must take this opportetnity to
clear up a misapprehension which prevailed widely with
respect to the opinions of many of those who voted for
the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Goldman
the Member for the University of Cambridge, upon the
motion of the Hon. Member for Cockermoul h, and
on that account were held to have voted directly
against the appointment of a Committee to inquire into
circumstances connected with the institution of Mr.
Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, and thereby to have
concurred with the Right Hon. Member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford in expressing their approbation oft he con-
duct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells for instituting Mr.
Bennet.
h He (Mr. Newdegate) begged distinctly to state
ritp.haet eHrl Bennett,o
ui nse whichth e
although
hisaadp
hphereoebhnaat
had preferred
expressedof the
institution
th
ea that
ohioo majority
participated
rotli
the amendment of the Right Hon Gentleman the M Mem-
ber for the University of Cambrido
the Hon. Member for Cockermouth, toand
thehad mvo,ttioo of
voted for
f or
the amendment, and therefore against
and Wells
ltemotion. In
his opinion, oopatinoinonw,iatheeditisr
discretion
of Both
hadinstituted etxheercßiseevd.
whenon
Mr. Bennett to thehovi vicarage of From() but he knew,
that in so doing, the Bishop had acted in accordance
with the latitude of discretion allowed him b
was not therefore legally culpable; and he (11(r. law, and
Newde-
gate) voted for the amendment with a view to amend
the law, in preference to the original motion; because,
ho,vever sincerely he deprecated the manner in which
the Bishop had ex, roised the discretion . allowed him by
law, he did not wish to see that House constitute itself
a court of appeal in ecclesiastical cases, or arbitrarily
interfere with the legal exercise of the discretion en-
trusted to bishoMß.
Mps in suchATHER'S CASE. ear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY rose, he said, to call the attention of
the House to the principle upon which Lord Malmes-
bury represented himself ae acting when called upon to
interfere for the protection of British subjects when in-
jured by foreign powers. He begged to call the atten-
tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
9
Exchequer to the dispatch of Laud Maimesbary of the
29th April. The Right lion. Gentleman bad promised
that papers which had been moved for should be fur-
nished to the House months ago, but the promise bed not
been redeemed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here
rose, and said the Hon. Gentleman had a retoludon
on the subject for .the 29th inst. He did not think he
was in order in making a similar metion now. A 3 for
the papers promised,.9le head to reply that the negolia-
cions had been rtlsuesed, and the papers could not be
pt et! lived. Negotiations were now terminated, and they
would be laid on the table in time for the lion. Gentle-
man's motion on the 29th.
Mr, ANSTBY said, if the House was then in exist-

once, he should bring the whole question before Par-
liament. At present his purpose was limited to call-
ing attention to the dispatch of Lord Malmesbury of
the 29th April.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appealed
to the Chair, to know if it was competent for the Ron.
Member to bring forward a question now of which he
had given notice for the 29th?
The SPEAKER replied in the negative.
Mr. ANSTEY would withdraw the notice of the 29th,
and would now go on with the question which he wished
to bring under the notice of the House.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member would not be
in order in so doing. He had given notice for the 29th,
and he could not bring it on now.

Mr. ANSTEY would take the opinion of the House as
to the present notice and the notice of the 29th being
identical. The Hon. Member here read his present mo-
tion and his motion for the 29th.

The SPEAKER said it appeared to him to be the in-
tention of the Hon. Member now to call attention to a
part of the question of which he bad given notice for a
future day. IC that were so, the ion. Member was not
in order.

THE WINE DUTIES.
Mr. ANSTEY said he had a question to (Pk on
another point. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Ciren-
cester had slaked a question of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, on the subject of the wine duties.
Ile (Mr. A nstey) was the chairman of the Com-
mittee on that subject, and as the evidence had not
been laid on the table yesterday he wished to know wise-
tiler the Right Hon. Gentleman was in order in referring
to it ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—What
le your question ?
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether the Right
Hon. Gentleman had been correctly reported, and whe-
ther he was in order in referring to evidence not before
the House?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho
had been asked yesterday by a Member of that House,
whether there was any foundation for th© rumour that
the Government were going to lower the duty on wine
to ls. a gallon. That question was asked without any
reference to the evidence taken before the Committee.
He had made answer that he had not heard of the ru-
mour; but he had not referred to the evidence. Subse-
quently, and in answer to an Hon. Gentleman who was
interested in the commerce of London, he had expressed
the opinion of the Government on the subject more fully,
because he felt it was of the utmost importance to per-
sons engaged in commerce to know that no reduction
was contemplated. He had again to state that Govern-
ment did not intend to recommend any alteration of the
duties on wine, and that, in his opinion, the assumption
that there would be an increase in the consumption of
wines in this country if the duties were reduced rested
on the fallacy that a total change would take place in
the tastes and habits of the great bulk of the population.
He would also repeat, that if it ever should be in the
power of the Government to reduce taxation, it would
not be taxation on wino, but that on articles more largely,
consumed by the people which would demand their con-
sideration.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion that the House at its rising adjourn to
Monday was then agreed to.
ADMIRALTY.
Mr. HUME gave notice of his intention to ask
whether Government intended to apply to the Admiralty
the system of consolidation which had already been car-
ried out in the department of inland revenue.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of
this Bill,
Mr. V. SCULLY rose to oppose its further progress.
He said he had a strong preliminary objection to the
Bill in the period chosen for its introduction when the
majority of the Irish Members were necessarily absent.
He objected to it also because it was unaccompanied by
any remedial measure. He contended that the Bill was
of the most coercive and unconstitutional character, and
that it would be most injurious in its effects. Did he
think it calculated to suppress crime and outrage he
should be the last to oppose it, but he believed, on the
contrary, that it would only annoy peaceable people,
prene a mloft
while the guilty would have no difficulty in escaping its
provisions. As it
aswsiansg a
was renewal Bill,atte r i
mcoigurhste,nebuntoni;
con-
sidered that its
should be reoollected that we were now in a very altered
state of circumstances. Besides, he thought its in-
troduction most inexpedient on the eve of a general
election. The former Bill was introduced by a remark-
able royal speech, setting forth a state of great disorder
in ireland., '
and there was no doubt but that, immediately
after the failure of the crops, there was considerable dis-
order, while the insurrectionary movement that subse-
quently broke out was getting prominent, But now, the
country, with the exception of one district of about eight i
miles n diamete-, was as peaceable as any part of Eng-
land. If the Right Hon. Gentleman had brought in a
Bill for that particular district the House might have a
reason for entertaining it; but all the information they
had was the report of the crime and outrage committee,
only two pages, and the report of Major Brownrigg dated
3d of April, 1852. These documents showed some in-
crease of crime in certain districts of Armagh. Louth,
and Monagan, but in other counties formerly prominent
for disturbance there was a more than commensurate de-
crease. In Limerick and Tipperary the decrease was
remarkable, and surely these cases formed as good an
argument on the one side as the cases of Armagh, Louth,
and Monaghan made on the other. The fact was that
the proposed measure was a coercive one, framed with a
view to the coming elections.
An How. MEMBER here moved that the House be
counted, but more than forty Members being present,
Mr. SCULLY resumed, and on our return to the
gallery was explaining the provisions of the Bill. Per-
sons having arms in their possession in districts under
the operation of this Bill were liable to be prosecuted
for misdemeanour, and the Lord Lieutenant had discre-
tionary power to increase the police force in such dis-
trict. Mr. Meyer said that the provisions respecting
arms were inoperative, as the persons who intended to
use them criminally contrived to conceal them, while
the farmers who were obnoxious to the secret tribunals
were disarmed and left wholly without defence. At pre-
sent this Act was in force in twenty-one counties in Ire-
land, and, in addition, the two Whiteboy Acts, which
were known to have a most coercive character. Both
Acts were embodied in the Bill before the House. The
lion. and Learned Gentleman proceeded to describe at
length the character and machinery of the previous
Act, his object being to show that
it was unwise, with
a view to the effect upon the public mind in Ireland, at
election time, to place at the disposal of the Secretary
for Ireland such monstrous powers as that previous Act
conferred, and as this renewal would also convey. The Bill
would apply even to election addresses; and would enable
the Lord-Lieutenant to burden any district momenta-
rily excited by electioneering with the heavy charge of
police. Local magistrates might send up to Dublin a
highly-coloured account of an exceptional outrage; and
then the district in which the offence was committed
would be at
the Lord-Lieutenant's mercy. This act
must be tested by the answer to this question; what
would Englishmen say were myth an Act applicable to
England? It had been said that the principle of taxing
the hundred for the crimes committed within it was an
old Saxon law; but that was totally untrue; for that law
was a Norman invention' to punish the Saxons then kept
down (as Irishmen were now kept down), and who were
guilty of assassinating Normans wherever they could do
so secretly. Such a law was arbitrary and unjust, and
was totally opposed to the Constitution of England.
By whom were, these crimes in Ireland committed? Ac-
cording to a letter of Sir Mathew Barrington, addressed
in 1842 to the late Sir Robert Peel—Sir Mathew's ex-
perience in the matter being very considerable—these
agrarian murders were invariably committed by non-
residents, by
vagabonds, and never in any case by
the farmers and settled inhabitants of the district.
All the evidence they possessed on this subject was
to the same effect. To tax a district, therefore,
for acrime committed by none of the inhabitants of
the district, was absurd. But there was evidence to
show something more. Ib was clear that all these coer-
cive Acts were failures even as Acts of police. They
failed because they were unaccompanied by those reme-
dial measures which would go to the root of the state of
society whence these crimes proceeded as inevitably as
effect followed cause. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man then went on to contend that this admission had
been made by Mr. Disraeli, in his speech on a former
coercion measure. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said
the other day, in reference to that speech, that his ob-
jection to the measure in question was founded on the
curfew clause. Bat the Right Hon. Gentleman had
never said a word about the curfew. He had said dis-
tinctly that he was opposed to all such legislation for
Ireland, unless it were accompanied by reformatory
social measures. The Government were boasting that
they had lying perdu their remedial measures. But
where was the Landlord and Tenant Bill the Attorney-
General (Mr. Napier) bad spoken so much -of? Why
was it not produced? Not having been produced, the
inference was not favourable to this panacea in re-
serve. Deere were other measure of which the Go-
vernment had given some, hints. Why were
they not frankly laid on the table, in order that they
considerationmigh t be co n s
oi considered etrheed
Billi n
beforethe
House,R eturhniensgaid that
othaut
the measure was produced backed by no recommendation
from the Committee which had sat to consider the whole
dealing with such a
question of Irish ()rime. And was the last fortnight of
the session tho proper period for
Bill? It was a period at which Irish Members were
compelled to be absent; and certainly its introductionjust now looked like a settled and rather suspicious plan
on the part of the Government. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time
this day three months.
Mr. LAWLESS congratulated Irish Members on the
Government having thrown off the mask, and shown
what their intentions were. The Hon. Gentleman ex-
pressed his belief that Lord Eglinton wished well to
Ireland, but was controlled and thwarted, as Lord
Anglesen was,
b y the present Premier, then Secretary
for
_lreland, under Lord Grey. He complained of the
pepod at which this Bill was brought in, and of its
radb
esue
whichg eueegrdd;
wtonwhonf
ietetetrhrel7so
alleaf ri3tl
Bill?th fith ere epTi
thatnr
hot measures
thetn, esl
intentions
isotouhnnrsose
osfw T hf
tur
Governmentel
yeel relating
nnoogv opposition.
tonohsmai
dte
importantn:
tnei
al.
wadt
atodyhe_,
in Ireland, was at hand. Would this Bill be used to put
down Orange processions, as well as to put down Rib-
bonism? He believed the Ribbon Societies had done leas
harm and caused fewer murders than the Orange asso-
ciations.—(Oh, oh.) Let Ribbonism be put down if
they liked, but put down also the Orange societies,
which went through the country rousing the passions of
the people —(Oh, oh.) As to the argument of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, which was the only one which
was at all in favour of the Bill, that many criminals now
imprisoned under its provisions would be released, that
might easily be remedied. The country was now more
peaceful, and crime was becoming less and less every
year; therefore let there be an end of coercion Bills, ane
let the Government trust to the ordinary powers of the

law in Ireland. Ho would recommend the Government,
for their owe sakes, and with a view to the approaching
election, to give up this Bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that the Government felt it
to be on imperative duty to prorose the continuance of
this Bill till next year, or to the end of the next session
of Parliament, for the reasons which had been stated at
length by his Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General
for Ireland. Since his Right Hon. Friend addressed the
House a return, moved for by the Right Hon. Member
for Louth, had been laid on the table, which showed the
amount of crime which existed in Louth, Monaghan, and
Armagh, from the year 1849 to 1852. No impartial
man could read this return without coming to the con-
clusion that the ordinary law was not sufficient to cope
with offences of the character and description mentioned
in it. No less than 136 gentlemen, belonging to these
three countries and of all politics, asked for additional
measures of protection beyond this Bill. This Bill did
not take away the trial by jury or any of the consfitu-
tional safeguards of the subject. All that it did was to
protect life and property, from a conspiracy, the object
of which was to take away human life, in order to subvert
law and order and government in Ireleud.—(Hear,
hear.) He solemnly believed that was the object in ,
view, and he confessed that his sympathies were with the
!eyed end well-behaved, and not with those who de-
sired to subvert and destroy all late and order. There
were persons now in prison under the Act, and they
must be liberated if it was not continued. This Wi3 an
additional reason why the r
-Luse should pass this Bill.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, who introduced
several topics into the discussion not connected with the
measure before the House, asked
wont the Government
had done for Ireland. His
answer was that they had
not time to do much fur Ireland but they gave assist-
ance to railways; they reduced the rate of interest.—
(Hear, hear.) Beeides, there tea, a measure prepared
and ready to be brought before the House, for the
amendment of the Court of Chancery in Ireland; but
they felt that there would be no
use in bringing in such
a measure in the present Parliament. There were other
measures also in preparation for the improvement of that
country. He could assure the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman that the present Government was not the Go-
vernment of a clique or a party, but the Government of
a nation; and that they would treat all—whether Pro-
testant or Roman Catholic, Orangeman or Ribbonman—
with the same justice.—(Cheers.)
- lt was with that
object—to protect the well disposed
asand to punish the
guilty assassin—that the present meu re was proposed.
ile Government would endeavour to give peace and
justice to Ireland, by which, as
Lord Bacon said, the
prosperity of that country could alone
be secured.
Mr. FRENCH said that, while admiring the great
eloquence of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had
just spoken, he could not concur in many of his conclu-
sions. He had rightly described the
provisions of the
Bill. It bad now been tried in Ireland
for three years,
and had not at all improved the state of society there.
The army and the police bad uniformly failed to protect
life and property in Ireland; that would be done by the
people themselves if they were allowed the means. The
provisions of the Bill could only be
required at present
in part of the counties of Louth and Monaghan. In the
former county, two cases had occurred where,
after the
agents had been shot, reductions of rent had
been made.
It was impossible to contend against
such a state of
things as that. In the county he represented (Roscom-
mon), threatening notices having been eent the occupiers
e
had combined for their own defence, and the result h
He thought
on its own
that if the country at large were thrown
re-
sources the benefit would be equally great.—(Hear.)
to restore the most perfect tranquillity.
Captain MAGAN was opposed to the
continuance of
the Act. He denied that there was any necessity for it.
The Solicitor-General for Ireland had
stated that it
threw the expense on the guilty; but this was not the
case—it had precisely the opposite effect. He was in
favour of the Act being carried out as regarded the pri-
soners now in gaol; he would not turn them loose on
society. He denied the statement of the Learned Gen-
tleman, that the Lord-Lieutenant had won all hearts in
such an end,
unless his advocacy of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill
could be supposed to contribute to it.--.(A lau b.) By
g
the Act which it was proposed to renew, the
Ireland. He had done nothing to gain
Lord-Lieu-
tenant had power to proclaim certain districts. That
was enacted by the preamble.—(Laughter,) His great
objection to the Bill was that it revived the provisions
of an obnoxious Act of George 111., which
re-
pealed, as far as the punishment of
death was con-
cerned, by an Act of William IV., was
highly objec-
tionable. He doubted whether a poor
Alan, carrying a
pitchfork or other agricultural implement, might not be
t though
brought within these provisions; or even those harmo-
nious gentlemen who blacked their facts and
masque-
raded it in the character of Ethiopian serenaders.
Captain ARCHDALL said he held a
high office in
the society of Orangemen, and could not allow the at-
tack that had been made on that body to Pass unnoticed.
Ho must protest against the imprudent and Stupid abuse,
the infamous statements of the Hon. Member
for Oen-
mel (Mr. Lawless) with regard to the Orangemen of
Ireland. Whatever might be the opinions of the Hon.
Member, that body would continue to act upon their
principles, and to be distinguished by loyalty
and obe-
dience to the law.
Mr. F. SCULLY said that in very recent times the
body of which the Hon. Member acknowledged and
boasted himself a member had been condemned by reso-
lutions of both Houses of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
It was the duty of the Government to watch very nar- '
rowly the proceedings of that body, in the north of
Ireland; for it was a society possessing signs, pass-
words, and other marks of a secret association; and, in
his eyes, it was just as exceptionable as a Ribbon so-
ciety. He (Mr. Scully) Was opposed to the Bill, be- '
cause it proposed to apply to the proclaimed districts
the most atrocious enactments of the Whiteboy Acts.
In other parts of the -United Kingdom, the police could
not break into a man's house without good cause; but, in
Ireland, that would be done on the merest rumour. He
also objected to the Bill, because it would tax the in-
nocent population in a very cruel and oppressive manner.
On comparing the returns
crimes committed in Armaghand Monaghan,
• Down,
bore no proportion to thoseparts of in the other
Ire-
land; and therefore there Was no reason why the Bill
should be applied to those counties, He complained of
the Governmeat for postponing
He very much regretted that they
so important a Bill till
such an advanced period of Divide.)
the session-4
, he found that the agrarian
adopted the policy of their
, Predecessors in smuggling
important measures relatin .
and through the
House. The Right Hon.
Gentlemanopposite had al-
luded in sarcastic terms to his (Mr. Scully's) friends,
but a very short time would show who were the most
popular men in Irela,ncl•—(criet
of
6 "Divide.") It was
all very well for the Right Ron. to talk
Gentleman
about putting down religious.
Processions; but be (Mr.
Scully) was not aware of any
in Ireland that were of a
character to give offence to -- the Protestants. But if
there were, the Government gave their sanction to si-
milar processions in the colonies, where the military
Ireland. The Government would never gain
were ordered to attend at them. He considered the
port of the people unless they brou ht in in
should have
Proclamation as a wanton insult
upon the people of
the
different character character from coercion Bills. The Irish po-
pulation had no confidence in
, and were
their rulers
leaving their country in shoals. If th did not intro-
duce some remedial measures, Ireland would soon really
became what the Premier had called it—" almost a de-
sert"—a country which wouldbut the
contain none
people in the workhouses. Irishmen expected great
things from the present Govere
statements in the Chancellor of the
Ex:l tier's address.
eq
Let him give them an earnwithdrawing
the Bill for the present session
• est by
t and by stating wu
were the measures he intended t t
t° introduce in the next
Parliament.
The House then divided, wheneared--
For the second reading
••• „ 118
Against it ... ... .
...
Majority „, no ••• 16
105
E ENCUMBERED STATES (IREL A ND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time. ,-, ''' tee' question
that it he committed on Monday tin the
Mr. F. FRENCH said her ttt
illa'''Stra Ministers having
opposed a similar measure when ut of office. be was
surprised that they had now introduced this Bill without
observation. Ho wanted to
any know xtraordi-
what e
had taken place in,
One of
nary change their opinion.
the most powerful OPPOLIenta of she whole system was
the Attorney-General for Ireland,
and the President of
the Board of Trade was strongly anthut it.
Nearly
every member of the Governnaent, iu 6"
tact, was pledged
against the principle carried out. 111
't la was this mea-
sure proposed? Had not Ireland
Suffered enough?
Was it not sufficient that hale the
gentry had been
swept away, and many parts of the
c'z'untv
The Hon. Member for Montrose eera Ydepopulated?
asked
the Government the other evening whJe Properlye
cant
permanently to supersede the ordinary
trtln_ r theyl
meant
hoped
hoped the Government would now neswel_buna s, an . .
It was his intention to oppose the measure
the question-
most, and though ho might be beaten,
there
to (hod uta
fight in another place which would astonish would be
ment.—(A laugh.) the Govern-
Mr. NAPIER said the reason why he
had before was that he thought it best to wait to
hear the
spoken
ob-
jections to the Bill. He believed that the
introductionhear the
of this measure was the very best course whe
vernment could take with reference to the h the Go:
the landed proprietors of Ireland. Whatvvinterests al
state of the case? When the Government east the real
office they found that the period for presentin came into
would expire in July; and if the period Were not ex-
ofpd, which Must
'lreland
a very great _ietons cation
proper landed property in 'lreland. N
—e admittuecreciation
proper remedy in the first instance Would have that the
reform the Court of Equity; but the truth been to
reforms were delayed too long both for the t that law
for ho profession—(Hear, hear)—and t,_public and
Chancery, as at present regulated, yeas not at
Court of
to the effecting of sales. 4 a all suited
Mr. J. STUART had hoped the Government
that t
before premeeding with this Bill, and would
that it be committed that day six months. lie moved
because the Bill had enormously depreciated did so
of land in Ireland. The petitions present9d underthe value
ferred to property valued at 28 millions of rao it re-
the property sold, to the 'amount of five millions Of
the price received had not been more than four-' onely,
years' purchase. Such a state of things was or Dye
dented in the legislative or economical history nprece-
country in the world. This result had been pr of
tmY
by many Hon. Members who had opposed the ,p ,e
he thought that it ought not to be continued , and
longer. Thu tribunal before which these ease fora day
and which MS the instrument of fraud and cone came,
scation,
ought at once to be abandoned, and he should take the
opinion of the House on the subject.
Mr. WHITESIDE submitted that the argument of
his Hon. and Learned Friend was not a just one. It
was difficult to aholith a tribunal which had existed for
some years. Besides, the Encumbered Estates Court
was already wearing itself out, as was shown by the
diminution in the number of the Petitions laid before it.
share r after
f taepr
ptheeaseuxrceesi
excellent
at