The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

brook-court, Basinghall• street; Pittendreigh and Steven-
son, South-square, Gray's Inn.
William Silcock, jun., victualler, Crawley-street,
Oakley-square, St. Pancras, Dec. 22, at half-past one,
and Jan. 29, eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green,
official assignee, Aldermanbury; Scadding and Son,
Gordon-street, St. Pancras.
George Clarke, carpet manufacturer, Ishr.m-mills,
Northamptonshire, Dec. 23, at half-past two, and Jan.
25, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards,
official assignee, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry; Watson
and Broughton, Falcon-square, Aldersgate-street.
Edward Callow and Mark Taversham, stock brokers,
Cornhill, Dec. 27, at one, and Jan. 31, at half-past eleven,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee,
Old Jewry-chambers ; Lewis and Lewis, Ely-place.
Richard Chaplin, straw plait dealer, Wetherfield,
Essex, Dec. 21, at one, and Jan. 27 at half-past eleven,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official-assignee,
Coleman-street; Brown, Finsbury-place, Sewell, Hal-
stead.
Daniel Taylor Perrott, grocer, Bristol, Dec. 31, and
Feb. 1, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol. Acraman, offi-
cial-assignee, Bristol; Perkins, Bristol, Brittan and Son
Bristol.
Joseph Stelfox, share broker, Manchester, Dec. 24,
and Jan. 14, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court.
Hobson, official assignee, Manchester; Vincent, King's
Bench-walk, Inner Temple; Simpson, Manchester.
William Jabez Davies, plumber and glazier, Manches-
ter, Dec. 24, and Jan. 14, at twelve, at the Manchester
District Court. Hobson, official assignee, Manchester ;
Hall, Mourilyan, and Rowsell, Verulam-buildings, Gray's
Inn ; Aspinall, Ridgefield, Manchester.
Lancelot Hepworth, shopkeeper, Manchester, Dec. 29,
and Jan. 24, at eleven, at the Court, Manchester. Pott,
official assignee, Manchester; Hall, Mourilyan, and
Rowsell, Verulam- buildings, Gray's-inn, London; Lcem-
I ing, Manchester.
James Wade, draper, Lisson grove, Dec. 21, at two, '
and Jan. 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Pennell, official assignee; Hardwick and Davidson
Weavers'-hall, Basit.,,hall- street.
Nathaniel Barnsdall, timber merchant, Nottingham,
Dec. 24 and Jan. 21, at twelve, at the Birmingham Dis-
trict Court, Nottingham. Bittleston, official assignee,
Nottingham ; Wadsworth, Notiingham ; Cares and
Stuart, Gray's Inn.
Eli Spooner, butcher, Hanley, Staffordshire, Dec. 23
and Jan. 22, at eleven, at the Birmingham District
Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birmingham; Challinor,
Hanley; Smith, Birmingham.
Joseph Alexander Clarke, china manufaeturer, Long-
ton, Staffordshire, Dec. 28, and Jan. 16. at twelve, at
the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official as-
signee, Birmingham; Mason, Stoke-upon Trent.
John Barrett, tanner, Horsforth, Yorkshire, Dec. 28
and Jan. 22, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court.
Stansfeld, official assignee, Leeds ; Singleton, Great
James-street, London ; Barret, Leeds.
William Spink, butcher, I'urston Jacklin, Yorkshire;
Jan. 1 and Jan. 22, at eleven, at the Leeds Distr.' ct
Court. Stansfeld, official assignee, Leeds; Lever, King's-
road, Bedford-row, London; Messrs. Clough, Pontefract.

Oxfordshire against the admission of Jews into Parlia-
ment.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented a petition
praying the House to do away with Jewish disabilities.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Bir-
mingham to the same effect.
Mr. HENRY BERKELEY presented a petition in
favour of the claims of the Raja of Sattara.
Mr. LABOUCHERE and other Honourable Mem-
bers presented petitions, praying the House to pa.s a
law empowering boards of guardians to grant retiring
allowances to parochial officers.
Lord BROWLE presented two petitions from War-
wickshire against the admission of Jews into Parlia-
ment. _ .

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
WEST GLOUCESRSIIIRE ELECTION.
Mr. WAKLEY, in rising to move the consideration
of the petition of the West Gloucestershire election,
complaining of an undue interference on the part of the
Earl Fitzhardinge with the rrecent election, said, when
he mentioued the subject yesterday to an hon. relative
of the Noble Peer, he stated that he was authorised to
announce to the House that the Noble Peer would have
no objection to the appointment of a Committee of
Inquiry into the matter.
Captain BERKELEY—What I said was this ; if the
House thought proper to institute an inquiry into his
conduct, Earl Fitahardinge would have no objection
to it.
Mr. WAKLEY said that was precisely his impres-
sion, and consequently there was no objection on
the part of the Noble Earl ; and now the
public would have an opportunity of seeing whether
there was any objection on the part of that House. The
allegations of the petitioner were not loose or ill defined
They were of the most specific character, and there
could be no misunderstanding them. There was no
beating about the bush, while he might remark to
the House that the petitioners were prisoners of
the highest respectability in the county of
Gloucester, and the manner in which they
spoke of the transactions that occurred at the last
election was such, that if that House desired in the
slightest degree to protect the electors of the country
in the exercise of their franchise they would not refuse
to institute a searching inquiry into the circumstances
of the case.—(Hear, hear.) In askiug for a
Committee of Inquiry he did not think it was
his duty to make any charges against the Noble Peer in
question. He had not the honour of the Noble Peer's
acquaintance, nor did he ever exchange a word with him.
He merely acted in this case as an independent Member
of that House, into whose hands a petition, respectfully
worded, had been placed ; he considered it to be
his duty to present such petition, and to bring it
under the notice of the House. He thought he done
no more in that respect than discharge his duty as a
Member of that House. Now with respect to the
Noble Peer he coold have no private feeling whatever,
but he did think the charges in this petition were most
serious, and if such charges were allowed to pass un-
noticed all that he could say was, that all freedom of
election in this country was at an end. In fact, if such
charges as these were tolerated they would be guilty of
fraud on the country if they suffered that standing order
to remain on their books which declared it to be an in-
fringement of the liberties of that House for a Peer of the
realm to interfere with the election of its Members.
Now what were the charges of these petitioners? It was
unnecessary loss through the whole of them, and he
would simply mention these that were the most ruinous.
He regretted that there should be any family strife or
contentions between the noble pair and an honourable
relative in that house, and far be it from him to
widen the breach that existed between the
parties, but he thought what had transpired
could not at all redound to the credit
of one party at least. Still such cireumstancei as
these ought not to deter them from the discharge of
their duty. Now, the chief charge was, that a Veer
of the realm, in direct violation of the standing orders
of the House, had interfered by bribery, ihtimidation,
and corruption, with the election of a Member of that
House; that he had interfered to prevent the electors
from discharging the duty which that House called
upon them to exercise, and that being one of the allega•
lions, he asked Hon. Members how they could consist-
ently discharge their dnties if they allowed such state
nients as these to be made without instituting a strict.
searching, and scrupulous inquiry into the truth of
them. He had received a communication from one of
the electors, in which it was stated that at one
place, by order of Earl Fitzhardinge, wine was
carried to the electors in buckets, as well as brandy and
water, and ho asked whether it was right ? whether
they could discharge their duty to the public if such
allegations as these were to remain uninvestigated ?
Why, if that statement were true, and no inquiry was
to be made into them, of what use would their
standing orders be ? They would be a perfeat
nullity, and if these statements were to be
allowed to pass unnoticed and uninvestigated,
the House itself would become a party to these abomin-
able scenes, they would encourage them from one end
of the kingdom to the other, and it would be tantamount
to an invitation to wealthy men to come forward and
interfere with the rights of the electors, who were in-
vited to return Members to discharge the duties of that
House. He said to .refore that their allegations
were entitled to their calm and serious deliberation.
and as the Noble Peer had no objection to an inquiry, be
begged leave to move that the petition be referred to a
Committee of Inquiry. Some Hon. Members might
ask, " Suppose your friend, the Noble Peer, guilty, what
will you do with him ? What punishment can you
inflict upon him when you have no power
to inflict any ? He did not know what
punishment the House had power to inflict.
out this he did know that public opinion, in these cases,
was seldom appealed to in vain, and if they had no
power to inflict a punishment, the Noble Peer might
be left to be dealt with by public feeling and public
orinion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ seconded the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after a short pause,
rose and said, he bad been anxious ascertain what was
the opinion of the House upon this subject before ho
related the result of his inquiry into the matter; but as no
Hon. Member seemed disposed to address the House on the
subject he was anxious to point out the difficulties they
would get into if they adopted this motion. Now,
if he understood the motion, it was founded
upon what was alleged to be a breach of the
o'ere
priviliges of the House. which privileges
were established by the Standing Orders proposed at the
first
case of
each
Nedow complaining the
case he found in the books of this nature, occurred so far
oback
the
interferenceasli 80,svhe
of the Duke of Chandos with the n a petition
titi Parliament.
wasliam presented
sent
elec-
tion of a Member of the County of Northumberland. That
petition was very properly referred to the Committee of
Privileges, who subsequently reported their opinions to
the House on the subject, when a motion was made and
carried, to the effect that the consideration of the report
be adjourned sine die.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY—That was before the Reform Par.
liament.—(Hear, and laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—The next
case took place in the same year, and was reported in
page 530. It was a similar application against the
Duke of Bolton for interfering in the election for the
county of Southampton. The question was re-
ferred to the Committee of Privileges, but
the House, warned by the former case, take no further
steps in the matter. On the same page ho found a
motion instructing that Committee to report upon the
matter ; but it was subsequently withdrawn.
There was a farther motion respecting the
interference of a Bishop in the same election, but the same
course was takeu. In 1841, an application of a similar na-
ture was made in consequence of the interference of Lord
Cawdor in the Carmarthen election, through the agency of
his steward. The then Member for Bridport (Mr. War-
burton), a great supporter of the privileges of the
House, was a member of the Committee, and he and
the Hon. Baronet the
... Member for Ripon (Sir J.
N
Graham) and the Noble Lord (John Russell)
took a part in the discussion ; but it resulted, in
no motion being made. Since that time several cases
had occurred. On the 4th of April, 1845, an applica-
tion was made against the Duke of Marlborough, on
the strength of a petition from Woodstock ; no mo-
tion was made. In September, 1845, a petition was
presented, complaining of the conduct of the Marquis of
Salisbury, the petition was printed, but it led to no
result. In 1833 and in 1826 similar petitions were pre-
sented against the Duke of Marlborough, praying for
inquiry with fh? sameretilt; and such was the case with
respect to a petition against the Marquis of Hertford in
1820. The House felt that it had no remedy in its
hands, and nothing was done in either case.
Mr. WAKLEY—You may dismiss Earl Fitzhardinge
from the lord-lieutenancy.—(Hear. hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was coming to that
part. If the facts alleged were true, the Earl could be
proceeded with in a court of justice—(hear) ; and look-
ing at the precedents he had quoted, it appeared to him
that an inquiry by a Committee would be prejudicial to
the ends of justice. It was not stated that he was
guilty of the conduct complained of in his capacity of
Lord-Lieutenant of the county.—(" Oh, oh 1") If he had
persuaded his tenants to withdraw their support from
his brother, the captain of the militia, as their land-
lord, and not as the Lord-Lieutenant, it could not
be said that he had departed from the duties of his
office, but if he had done so it would be a ground for
proposing a recommendation to the Queen to dismiss
him. He wished simply to set the House right on
the law.
Captain BERKELEY sought the indulgence of the
House for a few moments. He could not do better to
show that the charge was trumped up than to read the
words of his noble relative. (The Gallant Gentleman
produced a letter). He stated that the charge was the
vilest falsehood that ever disgraced any set of
tenants, ?r
of men. As
he had never interfered in any In
way with
with any other person with respeq to the election in
question. He (Capt. B.) formerly believed this statement,
He hoped the House would deal with his Noble relative
as it thought fit. As for himself he should withdraw
from that discussion.—(The Hon. and Gallant Member
hurriedly walked out of the House.)
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY rose and was
(LEFT sretAtartG.)
a CR

Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL presented several petitions
from places in Ireland, praying the House to pass an
Act to amend the present law of landlord and tenant.
Mr. WALPOLE presented a petition from some of
the electors of Cheltenham (as we understood), com-
plaining that the recognizances they had submitted to
the examiner for prosecuting the petition presented
against the return of the sitting Member for their
borough had been rejected, because, by an over-
sight of the party who drew up the recognisances,
they had been made only " joint,' whereas they ought
to have been " joint and several." The Hon. Member
gave notice that to-morrow he should move that the
petition be printed with the votes, with the view of
founding a motion upon it on Thursday.
CARLOW ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had re-
coived a report from the Clerk of Elections, stating that
the recognizances for prosecuting the petition complain-
ing of the return for Carlow had been completed.
PETITIONS. _

Mr. GLADSTONE presented a petition, signed by se-
veral of the clergy, against the admission of Jews into
Parliament.
Lord G. BENTINOK rose to present two petitions,
one from Trinidad and the other from St. Domingo,
complaining of the conduct of the Home Government.
lie said the petition from Trinidad was signed by 500
persons, comprising nearly every planter in the island.
That from S. Domingo was signed by the Speaker and
several of the Members of the Assembly and Council.
They complained that the planters were suffering
great distress in consequence of the non•fulfilment
of the promises held out to them by the Go-
vernment, of furnishing them with facilities to
obtain free, instead of slave labour—of admitting
sugar and molasses and they laid great stress
upon molasses into the breweries and distilleries
of this country, and of equalising the duty on British
rum. They stated that their produce had in con-
sequence been reduced one-third in value, and
prayed that not a pound of sugar the produce of
slave labour might be admitted into this country, and
that vigorous measures might be adopted to put in force
the various treaties with foreign countries re
specting slavery, and of forcing slave-growing
countries to give up those slaves, who, the petitioners
asserted, had been feloniously imported into Cuba and
Brazil. They both alleged that in consequence of the
present price of their produce it wa-, impossible to carry
on the cultivation of sugar in the British colonies with
anything like a profitable return.
The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition against
the admission of Jews into Parliament.
SUNDERLAND.

IMPERIAL PAR LIAM L',NT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the
Lord Chancellor, took his seat upon the Wooliacl•: at
Five o'clock.

On the motion of Mr. 'rUFNELL a new writ was
orrlered to be issued for the election of a Min:ober to
repres.mt this borough in Parliament, in the room of Mr.
Barclay.

JEWISH DISABILITIES.

The Bishop of DURHAM presented a petition against
the removal of the Jewish
RELATIONS WITH ROME.

The RIGHT REV. PRELATE also presented a petition
from certain of the clergy, praying the House not to
sanction the entering into any diplomatic relations with
the Court of Rome.
RAILWAYS BILL.

Messengers from the Commomi brought up the Rail
ways Bill, which was read a first time.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition against the
removal of the Jewish Disabilities.
CASE OF F. A. BROWNS. _

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr.
Anderson. a solicitor, relating to the case of Frederick
Augustus Browne, who had been convicted of bigamy,
and sentenced to transportation, and whose sentence bad
subsequently been commuted. He had no knowledge of
the case, except what he derived from the
petition. Mr. Browne had in 1844 married a
Miss Copeland. After the marriage the latter
discovered that he had married a certain Mary
Bowen, and Mr. Browne was given into custody, and
tried on a charge of bigamy. His defence was that, at
the time of the first marriage, he was under age, and
that the woman to whom he was married had a husband
living at the time. He was tried on the 11th of April,
1846, convicted, and subsequently sentenced to seven
years' transportation. He was permitted to re-
main in Kilmainham gaol until February, 1847,
in the Master Debtors apartment. The petition coin
Iplained of this long delay in carrying the sentence into
execution; but there must be an answer to that, because
previous to his conviction a suit had been commenced
of nullity of marriage against him. Upon sentence of
nullity of marriage being pronounced, he entered an
appeal to :the Court of Delegates, and that Court did
not pronounce its sentence until February 8, 1847,
' therefore he did not complain against the authorities for
retaining him during that time in Kilmainham Gaol.
After this Mr. Browne thought fit to become the prose-
cutor of his first wife for bigamy, but he did not think
I fit to institute this suit until after his own conviction.
The trial came on, and to the no small surprise of all
present she pleaded guilty, and she was sentenced to
two mochs' imprisonment. The sentence of nul-
lity of marriage condemned Mr. Browne in the
costs, and he also owed Mr. Anderson certain
costs, and a detainer was lodged against him at
Kilmainham from these costs. He was removed from
Kilmainham to Smithfield gaol, the convict prison of
Dublin, which is out of the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs
of Dublin. Mr. Anderson, therefore, applied to the
Government, as he had been informed that a pardon
had been expedited by Mr. Browne, and he did not
complain of the pardon, that a reasonable time might
be granted before the expediting the said pardon, to
give him an opportunity of arresting Mr. Browne,
for costs. The answer was that Mr. Browne had been
pardoned upon certain conditions only, and because,
from the state of his health, his life would have been
endangered by further confinement. The answer went
on to state that he had been pardoned upon conditions, '
and when they were complied with, he would be dis-
charged from custody. He had been removed to Kil-
mainham, and Mr. Anderson lodged a second detainer.
Mr. Browne was again removed from Kilmainham
to Smithfield, out of the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs.
Ile again applied, and was informed that so soon as the
conditions should be complied with, Mr. Brown wonid
be discharged. The pardon came and was sealed, and
the whole might have been perfected on the 16th of
September, but which was delayed until Saturday, the
18th of December, when the patent was sealed, and,
contrary to usual custom, it was enrolled the same day,
instead of being enrolled on the Monday following,
which would have been the usual practice, and
the order for Mr. Brown's discharge was sent
direct from the secretary's office, the govern or
refused to discharge him at four o'clock on the
Saturday, but discharged him the next morning
Sunday, when he could not be arrested, so that Mr
Copeland and Mr. Anderson were deprived of their
. costs.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the case of
Mr. Brown was a most extraordinary one. He had
been remanded to Kilmainham gaol to abide the deci-
sion of the Ecclesiastical Court when that had been given
against him he was removed to the usual convict depot.
and retained them until the surgeon reported that his
life was in danger, and he was then removed to Kilmain-
ham for his health to a ward, which, under a recent act,
had been made a convict depot, and was out of the ju-
risdiction of the sheriff. He was pardonded on giving a
bond that he should absent hiaieelf from her Majesty's
dominions. He was removed from Kilmainham to
Smithfield at his own desire. On Tuesday, the
14th September, it was reported that the conditions had
been complied with. on Thursday the Lord-Lieutenant
signed the pardon, on Friday it was enrolled, on Sa-
turday it was returned to the Secretary's office, and on
the afternoon of that day Sir William Somerville
wrote the usual order for his discharge, and as
far as any Mamber of the Irish Government was con-
cerned, the affair was conducted according to the usual
course, and he put it their Lordships whether it would
have been proper in the Government to have given any
information to Mr. Anderson to enable him to arrest
this man upon his discharge from gaol. The Govern-
ment pursued a straightforward course as regarded this
convict, as they would with regard to any other convict,
and there was no ground for accusing them of par-
tiality.
Lord BROUGHAM and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE
mutually explained.
PENINSULAR MEDALS.

The Duke of RICHMOND asked when it was likely
the medals would be given to the Peninsular officers
and soldiers, and if it was intended to extend the grant
of such medals to other officers and soldiers and
sailors who served in the late war. He had hoped
that those brave men who had served under Aber-
crombie in Egypt, and those brave sailors who
had, during the course of the late war, sustained the
honour of their country in skirmishes and in single ac-
tions, would also be decorated. He thanked his Noble
Friends opposite for what they had done, but he thought
that medals ought to have been distributed much more
extensively.

IMINAL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
NEW COURT.
(The case of Barr, Brewer, Ralfe, and Carter, continued
from our Afternoon Edition.)
Counsel addressed the jury at length for each of the
prisoners, and several witnesses gave Ralfe an excellent
character.
The RECORDER in summing up occupied an hour
and twenty minutes, and the jury retired.
After deliberating about an hour and a-half,
they returned a verdict of Guilty against all the pri-
soners, but recommended Ralfe to mercy.
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND and another [lon. Member
took the oaths and their seats.
Papers from the Poor-law Commissioners were pre-
sented.

ETITI ONS
The Earl of ARrI NDEL and. SURREY presented
several petitions against the Roman Catholic Trusts Bill.
Sir It. IL INGLIS presented several petitions against
the admissibility
of Jews into
Roman Carliament, and another
complaining of the
teconduct
daetitio
p of
rnom the
complaining
s
in Ireland in denouncing partie,,:.en iaaltthaorl. ic priests
Mr. FOX pre
operation of the New Poor-law in Ireian, of the
Sir W. MOLESWORTII presented a petition.
t from
Lambeth in favour of the claims of the late Raja “f
Sattarft, and another petition praying the House to pa
an Act to empower boards of guardians to grant retiring
allowances to parochial officers.
Mr. HEYWORTH presented a similar petition.
Captain HAYTER presented a similar petition.
Mr. HENLEY presented two petitions from places in

--------
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS. Dec. 13.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the
Bill after their Lordships had been waiting two hours
and a half
On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, the Bill
was read a first time and ordered to be printed. No
order was made for the second reading, but we
ofLordships Lansdowne
adjourned
this day
at a Quarter past
un-
derstood, from what fell from the Noble Lord, that
notice of the second reading will be given by the
Marquis
Their
Eight o'clock,

TAR SUN, LON DON, TUESDAY EVEN I N G-, DECEMBER 14, 1847.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Dec. 13.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, I wish to give a notice
with respect to the business of the House. In the
event of the Royal Assent being given to the Crime
and Outrage Bill at as early a period as we expect,
it is my intention to move, on Monday next, that the
House at its rising should adjourn until Thursday,
the Id of February.—(Hear, hear.)

THE BANK OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. URQUHART rose to support a statement
which he had made the other night relative to a
speech which the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tainworth delivered in 1844, while supporting
his Currency Bill. The Hon. Gentleman read se-
veral extracts from the Times of the period, to show
that the Right Hon. Baronet had expressly stated that
the Bill was not to apply either to Ireland or Scotland.
The Right Hon. Baronet had no ground for saying
that he had stated that which was destitute of founda-
tion. One part of the Right Hon. Baronet's speech
contradicted the other, and how could he judge cor •
rectly from aggregate statements thus contradictory?
He left the matter in the hands of the House.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was no question
as to the intention of the Government with respect to
Scotch banks, because I had to move resolutions—
(Hear, hear)—which were necessary before I could
have introduced the Bill. Eight or nine resolutions were
moved by which the existing banks of Scotland were
not to be interfered with, as there was a positive
prohibition against the establishment of any new
hanks of issue in that portion of the United King-
dom. Those resolutions were printed, and I was in
constant communication with the bankers of Scot-
land on the subject. I believe those bankers
distinctly understood that their banking privileges
would not be interfered with by legislation in the
course of 1844 ; but it was distinctly understood that
no new banks of issue would be constituted after,the
passing of the Acts.—(Hear, hear.) There could
not be the slightest doubt about the intentions of the
Legislature.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL rose to offer a few
remarks, but the earlier portion of his brief ad-
dress was indistinctly heard in the gallery,
owing to the noise that prevailed from Hon.
Members leaving the House, and from the conversa-
tion of those that remained. He earnestly called
the attention of those who were too apt to vituperate
the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland to
listen to a letter which had recently been
written by the Rev. Mr. 111‘Dermott, the parish
priest of Strokestown, who distinctly and solemnly
averred that not only was Colonel Mahon not de-
nounced from his chapel, but that he had not even
mentioned his name within its walls. He
had also received a letter from the Rev.
John Hughes, stating that the language which had
been imputed to him had not been used by him, but
by a Conservative newspaper, which wished to
cast blame upon those of his sacred pro-
fession. The Honourable Gentleman, after reca-
pitulating what he stated on the introduction of
the Bill, and justifying his subsequent charge of
opinion with respect to it, proceeded to say that the
Government having now obtained their measure
of coercion by overwhelming majorities, all he
had to ask them was this—having secured
coercion, to turn their serious attention to improve
the deplorable condition of the people. The
state of Ireland would not Brook delay. Delay
would be disastrous, because it would be fatal. He
warned them not to rely upon the poor-law, and as-
sured them, if they did so, that they would lean upon
a broken reed. Let them approach the evils of
Ireland in a sincere and peaceful spirit ; and
although the late Mr. O'Connell possessed an
influence over the people never equalled—they
might by acting in a conciliatory spirit ob-
tain a share of the affections of the people
almost equal to that possessed by the deceased
gentleman to whom he had referred. A good
beginning was half the battle. If they acted in the
spirit he had indicated, they would solve the problem
of Ireland's government—that government being, in
his opinion, one of a peaceable and conciliatory
character. He concluded by moving that the Bill
be read a third time this day six months. He im-
plored the Government during the recess to devise
remedial measures, and to bring them forward imme-
diately after the recess.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN seconded the motion.
He said he was sensible that the House was
thoroughly wearied of these repeated discussions—
(Hear, hear)—and he should therefore confine what
he had to say in as brief a space as possible.
There was no maa in the House who felt a greater
horror of the outrages committed in Ireland, but he
trusted that when the bad government which had
produced that state of thing should cease, that then
those outrages would cease also. With respect to the
measure before the House, he did not see through-
out the whole of it one single proposition calcu-
lated to produce the effect sought to be obtained by
this measure. He should say that the safer and
more effectual mode of suppressing those outrages
would be by the establishment of a sufficient
moral force to overawe the people.—(Hear, hear.)
The present Government had obtained office by op-
posing a coercion Bill for Ireland; and with what
grace could they now come forward and ask for such
a measure ? The relief which they had afforded to
the people of Ireland was lamentably insufficient, for,
although large sums had been expended for food,
hundreds of thousands of the people had died, who
might have been saved if the Government had adopted
more judicious measures. As to the poor-law he had
predicted its fate ; he had said that the machinery ef
it would not work well, and that prediction had been
verified. He always had declared it would be ineffec-
tive, and it was now proved to be so. It was true that one
million and a half of money had been expended as an
indemnity to landlords, but the grant was of no prac-
tical service in mitigating the general distress. Out
, of that amount not more than 31,0001. had been ap-
plied to relieve the distress of the country. The land-
lords of Ireland had been abused last session, and all
the evils of the country attributed to them, but now
the blame was thrown on the priesthood, and a class
of men had been grossly maligned without whose
efforts Ireland would have been in a state of positive
insurrection. The Hon. Gentleman proceeded at
some length to address the House, but the noise was
so great that he was quite inaudible in the gallery.
11r. ROBINSON attempted to address the House,
but was met with loud and reiterated cries of
" Divide, divide," and was not distinctly heard in the
gallery.
I\ Ir. M. J. O'CONNELL supported the third
reading of the Bill. This was a different Bill to that
of 1846 ; if it had been at all like it he would not
have given it his support, but he thought this a very
moderate Bill, and it interfered as little as possible
with the ordinary law. The power of calling in arms
was certainly unconstitutional, but it was a power
which had been exercised in England, and he re-
joiced to see the Government legislate for Ireland as
had been done for this country.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said he was compelled to speak on
this question. He had presented a petition from
Manchester, signed by twenty thousand persons,
against this Bill ; he must, therefore, state why he
supported it. Had not the Government thought it
absolutely necessary he was certain it would not
have been proposed. The case for the Bill was com-
plete ; the ordinary law was utterly powerless. In
England the people generally supported the law ; but
in the disturbed districts of Ireland the public senti-
ment was so utterly depraved and vitiated that the
law was deprived of its force.—(Cries of " No, no.")
He maintained that it was so. Many of the murders
that had been committed were not regarded as assas-
sinations, but rather as eiecutions. In the case of
Mr. Lloyd, the murder had been committed most de-
liberately. Extraordinary powers were clearly re-
quired. Whether the present Bill would be
effective he could not say. He feared the Go-
vernment had not shown the necessary courage
for dealing with the condition of Ireland.
The recent poor-law was certainly a most advan-
tageous measure ; and the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government had power to pass any measure that
he might propose through that House. He blamed
the Irish Repeal Members for not having themselves
brought forward the remedial measures which they
thought desirable. He had never yet known those
Members bring forward and consistently support any
measures, or, doubtless, they might have carried
them.—(Hear.) He would not imitate their exam-
ple, but suggest some remedy. He ascribed all the
evils of Ireland to idleness; if it could be ascertained,
he believed it would be found the people did not work
more than two days a week. Hence Ireland starved,
and consequently rebelled.—(Hear.) This could only
he prevented by setting their industry in motion, for
their idleness was not their own fault ; they were able
and willing to work, and, when at work, were as ready
as Englishmen to keep the peace.—(Hear.) The
means of employment were extremely small in Ire-
land; there were few large towns or manufactories ;
and in the towns of the south and west, groups of 20
or 30 were to be constantly seen standing idle. This
gave rise to annual emigration, by which large num-
bers of .the peasantry were drafted off to other coun-
tries, and thus the means for producing wealth were
abridged. He doubted whether tenant-right would
be a beneficial measure. The House would never
consent to such a measure as the Hon. and Learned
Member for the county of Limerick wanted. What
was most needed was a measure empowering the sale
of encumbered estates. Why was it not ready ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—It has been ready several
weeks.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know, then, why it had
not been brought forward ? Government ought not
to wait till they were urged to introduce certain mea-
sures. In his opinion much evil had resulted from
the conduct of the landowners. The encumbrances

on the estates were wholly unparalleled in this coun-
try. In the province of Connaught, he understood,
not five per cent. of the land was under settlement,
and not one per cent. was free from mortgage. Such
being the case, it was idle for the House to go further
in pursuit of the evils of Ireland ; and the longer a
remedy was delayed the greater the criminality of
the Legislature. It was impossible for the Govern-
ment to benefit Ireland by lending landlords money
at 34 per cent. out of the taxation paid by the inha-
bitants of this country, who were borrowing money
at eight per cent. Let a measure be passed for sim-
plifying the titles to estates in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Let Government also diminish the stamps and other
expenses which hindered the transfer of estates ; and
let the system of entail he for ever put an end to.—
(Hear, hear.) This would be done in England at
some time; in Ireland it was absolutely necessary
now. The absurd system of entail and primogeniture
sacrificed the living to the whims of the dead; if
the system were applied to personal as well as landed
property, the country would be thrown into in-
extricable confusion. Some might say that the
system was necessary to maintain the existing aristo-
cratic arrangements. But rather let such arrange-
ments perish for ever, than that a whole country
should be in the state in which Ireland was now

found. Did the aristocracy rear up their sons with
proper habits of industry and just notions of their
property, the system of entail would become unneces-
sary. Whatever Government did for Ireland, it
would he wholly unavailing, unless it rested on the
foundation of doing away the fetters of the land.
Some Hon. Members might think they had an inte-
rest in keeping up the system ; but it was no such
thing. He lived in a county (Lancashire) which had
been overrun with the pauperism and pestilence of
Ireland, and he protested against the continuance of
arrangements by which such things were occasioned.
The present Parliament was composed very largely
of men of business ; the present Government was
essentially one of the middle class ; and if they would
grapple manfully with the system of the land in Ire-
land, they would be supported by the llouse, and
would lay the foundation of Irish prosperity.—(Hear,
hear.) He should support this measure because he
believed the present law was powerless, regretting
that Government had not sooner brought forward
remedial measures, and believing that if this was not
done soon it would be impossible for any Government
long to stand.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. HUME wished to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government when the Bill for regulating
the relation of landlord and tenant would be laid before
the House ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that
last session the Landlord and Tenant Bill had passed
the other House, and that it would be introduced
again after receiving certain amendments.
Sir B. HALL rose amidst loud cries of " Divide."
He read some extracts from the Freeman's Journal, to
show that the " Committee of national distress and
national safety" had given in their adhesion to the
Bill when it was first introduced. With regard to
the measure before the House, he thought it had been
shown, during the progress of the debate, that there
was an absolute necessity for it.—(Cries of "Divide.")
As he saw that the House was anxious to go to a di-
vision, he would content himself by making a state-
ment which he had received from Mr. Roe, the bro-
ther of the gentleman who had been murdered. The
lion. Baronet then stated that the allegations which
had been made by Mr. Loughnane, in the letter re-
ferred to by the lion. and Learned Member for
Limerick, were contradicted in all the Irish papers
three days afterwards. That contradiction was, he
believed, known to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
But who was this Loughnane ? He was a person
who had been employed on the public works, and was
known, as what in Ireland was called, a " gutter
agent." Did the lion. and Learned Gentleman know
that a very near relative of this individual was now in
prison on a charge of murder ?
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading ..... 173
Against it
Majority. .
On the motion of Sir G. GREY, some verbal
amendments were agreed to. The Bill then passed.
RAILWAY LABOURERS.

.....
On the motion that the order of the day for the
bringing up of the report on the Railways Bill be
read,
Mr. A. STAFFORD said. he rose for the pur-
pose of bringing under the notice of the house the
condition of the labourers employed in the construc-
tion of those railways whose claims had been most
shamefully and dangerously neglected during the
whole course of their legislation on the subject of
railways. They were now about to dismiss great
numbers of them at an inclement period of the year
without the least consideration, and but for his voice
not a single word would probably be heard on their
behalf. Those who came after them might well ask,
when they beheld the great and magnificent works
which had been constructed in this country by the
present generation, how they had acted in respect to
the temporal and eternal welfare of the labourers—
whether their medical care had been attended to—
whether their residences and their religious instruc-
tion had been looked after—and whether they had
towards them borne out the character which they
assumed to themselves, of being a philanthropic
Legislature and a Christian State ? Amongst the
numerous Acts which had been passed on the
subject of railways, only one was to be found, the
Ist and 2d of Victoria, having especial reference to
the labourers, and that was one of repression. He
begged the House to remember that the present was
not the case of those who were old and decrepid, sick
and infirm, but of those who were strong and power-
ful, and who would be able very soon to avenge on
society the evils they had received at its hands. In
order to show what was the condition of railway la-
bourers, the Hon. Gentleman read extracts from the
evidence of the Rev. J. R. Thompson, the Rev. J.
Mason, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Pomfret, and Mr. Chad-
wick, which had been given before the Committee,
appointed at the instance of the Hon. Member for
Kilmarnock, in July, 1846. This evidence went to
show that the habitations of the labourers were of a
most wretched description; that in several instances
men, women, and children, slept in the same room ;
that gross immorality was the result ; that the high
wages received were rather a curse than a benefit;
and that fever and small-pox were allowed to make
their ravages unchecked. Mr. Chadwick stated
that the truck system was most injurious to the
labourers, and he knew of one instance where the
contractors for a piece of work would have lost
by the work itself; but who made 7,0001. profit
))3, the truck of beer and inferior provisions.
They lost twenty and thirty, and sometimes
as high as GO per cent. by the system, at the same
time that they were served with articles of an inferior
description. There was no regular system of
spiritual instruction, said the Rev. Mr. Thompson,
and Mr. Chadwick mentioned the case of a man,
who, having received an injury of the spine from
which he could not recover, requested to have the
scriptures read to him, but was suffered to expire
without receiving the least attention of the nature
he so earnestly besought. They had to deal with
nearly 400,000 persons, and were they to be left in
such a state ? They had not heretofore been treated
as the members of a civilised community. They had
been suffered to go from work to work, receiving
high wages, which they squandered in gratifying the
wants which evil habits engendered, and in a reckless
course of improvident extravagance, insomuch that
their average age did not exceed that of forty. He
could not, therefore, suffer the further progress of
this measure, without raising the voice of notice
against the past, and the voice of warning in
reference to the future. The Honourable Member
concluded by giving notice, that, after the recess,
he should bring the question forward in a substantive
shape.
Sir G. GREY said the subject was undoubtedly an
important one, but as the Hon. Member had given
notice of his intention tolebmit a substantive pro-
position on the subject,
shlould defnowesary,histhoabtsehre-
vations on it. He would on y
thought the Hon. Member had, perhaps, overrated
the power of Parliament with regard to it. Very
much must be left in the hands of directors of com-
panies, of contractors, and of the gentry resident in
the districts through which the line passed.
Lord G. BENTINCK could not quite let his Hon.
Friend's charge against the railways pass without
observation. He really did not think the devil was
quite so black as his Hon. Friend had painted him.
It appeared by the report which had been quoted that
these very labourers were receiving 225. 6d. per week
cwoamgpesa,niaensd he
NN,ere(Loar George) had
td
this
syery
tdea
imehrd that
the
contributing
450,0001. a year to the poor-rate, or one-fifteenth of
the whole assessment of the country.
Mr. A GLIONBY believed that in many instances
railway companies had provided admirably well for
their labourers.
Sir H. VERNEY expressed his gratification at
there being a probability of legislating on this most
important and interesting question.
The report was then brought up, when
Mr. STRUTT said he would state what were the
amendments he proposed to make in this Bill. The
first related to the compensation to landowners. It
was proposed to enlarge the exceptions under the sth
clause, so as to include all cases in which companies
had applied to Parliament to make their line, so that
no parties concerned would be in any way prejudiced
by the passing of the Act, but would have their re-
medy upon their contracts, either at law or in equity,
as if the Act had never passed. Another amendment
related to services of notices upon the landowners,
which must be posted on the church-doors of parishes
through which the lines passed, as well as given
through the medium of local or other papers. There
were some other amendments of minor importance.
The amendments having been read,