The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-14 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL
,(Continued from our Afternoon Edition )
Mr. OSBORNE said, as there was a great difference
amongst the Learned Members of the House as to what
constituted the offence of treason, he wanted to know how
the people were to ascertain how to act when the doctors
disagreed? The Act was a retrogressive one.—(Hear.) It
really was too bad for the Government to come down to
the House of Commons in the nineteenth ceatury, when
every country in the world was making rapid progress,
to ask for powers to render " open and advised speak-
ing" a felony.—(Hear, hear.) Let the Govern-
ment bear in mind that a similar Bill to the
one now before the House caused a split in
the strong Government of 1792.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman had made some allusion to a state-
ment he supposed be had made with respect to the Duke
of Wellington. It that Noble Duke was a member of
the Cabinet, he should speak of it with respect. He
had called the Government " an old woman "—it was an
old woman's " Cabinet in his opinion ; but it was for
the House to judge whether the old woman was the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the
President of the Board of Trade, or any other member
of the Government.—(Laughter.)
Sir DE L. EVANS supported the motion for goine
into Committee on the Bill; at the same time, he wished
to know from the legal authorities in the House whether
or not the law as it now stood was sufficient to enable
the Government to put down seditious speaking. He
objected to the introduction of the new principle of
speaking into the legislature of the country. He had no
objection to granting extraordinary powers to the Go
vernment it it were shown that they were not already
possessed of sufficient powers. Unless such necessity
were shown, he should feel it his duty to move an
amendment in Committee, leaving the severe punishment
only for a second offence, if committed within a month
after the commission of the first.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said, that if the
opposition to the Bill were a factious one, he most
sordially approved of that opposition, and thought
it had been productive of considerable good, inas-
much as several mitigations of the severity of the
Bill had been obtained. He thought it would be a very
good proposition, considering the great difference which
existed upon the subject of treason, that all the lawyers
in the House should be sent up stairs to a Committee in
‘)rder to define clearly what treason and sedition was,
Ind until they had decided upon the question the fur-
ther progress of the Bill should be retarded.
Sir W. CLAY thought that the Bill as it now stood
placed in the same category, and inflicted the same
punishment upon crimes of a very different character
criminality.—(llear, hear.) There was a great
aifference between words spoken and excited in
he heat of debate and an article deliberately
prepared by a person, and afterwards printed
Ind circulated, for the purpose of exciting the
people to provide themselves with arms, and entering
fully into the details of the mode of using and procuring
them. Both reason and experience showed that the
wiser course for a Government to adopt was to be
lenient towards political offences. There was not a capi-
tal in Europe where such language as had recently been
used in this country would have been tolerated for a
.uoment, and what was the result? all those other powers
tied fallen, while Englund alone remained calm and
serene amid the storm. He called upon his Noble
Friend to reconsider that portion of the Bill. It was,
aowevar, most unfair to call the Bill a gagging Bill, or
soercion Bill, or a Bill of pains and penalties, or to
throw anything like aspersions upon her Masjesty's
Government. The measure was one of a mitigatory
character in all its phases, except in that portion which
did not harmonize with the constitutional character and
institutions of the country.
Mr. MUNTZ was of opinion that a large portion of
the people of this country considered this to be nothing
more nor less than a gagging Bill. After the differ-
ences of opinion which prevailed among members of the
Legal profession as to the effect of this measure, it was
hardly to be supposed that simple-minded laymen like
nimself and other Hon. Members should be able to un-
derstand its effects. A great deal kad been said about
dr. Fox and his opinions. The people of this country
were of the opinion that the Foxites had forgotten all
the principles and opinions of Mr. Fox. Now what
:lad this Government done for the country? Their
first measure was an Irish coercion Bill, their second
he appointment of a one-sided Committee to inquire
into the distress of the country, and their third and last
was the present gagging Bill. He was most decidedly
in favour of assimilating the law of treason between the
two countries, but he warned the Government that
if they passed the Bill in its present shape,
they would not long continue to hold tne
reins of Government. It this Bill had been in force
rom the year 1832 and up to the present time, he should
nave been, with the very best intentions, transported as
a common felon. He certainly never would give his
-upport to any clause which would give power to a Go-
vernment to transport any person for speaking his mind
upon the evidence of persons who
cold
and whose testimony might be
openlyo o ug hte aaonsridl honestly,
purchased,
be
bri bribed,
if
they
would only pay them well
enough. There was great distress in the country, and
it was his most decided opinion that where there were
persons able and willing to work, and were not able to
obtain it, it was the fault of the Government of the
country, and if the present Government could not dis-
cover the cause of this distress, the sooner they retired
from the position they occupied the better it would be
ror themselves and the country.
Mr. H. GRATTAN did not believe that if the present
Bill were passed it would have the effect of giving any
greater security to the Crown and Government than was
now afforded by the existing laws. He was sure that
the effect of revolutionizing Ireland
f
s
The Irish were not, he was happy to
satt
aahgiyiai measureitisrttawouldhaveiEtonrgslaoiri wouldd. ail, but if it did not, he was err-
rebels,
but they were agitators for the
purpose of improving their coudition.—(Hear, hear.)
What was that condition ? why, starvation and misery.
He believed the law, as it at present existed, was quite
strong enough to secure peace and good order, and he
cosaulnecessity for so stringent a measure
He thought that the Irish people
complain of the way in which they
ah
dt
the
e great notpre seescei
cause
nu
tsaeßn
had been treated; everything that had been done of
the Government was done after an English fashion.
Englishmen had been preferred for every appointment
in Ireland, and Irishmen overlooked.—(Hear, hear.)
Such being the case it was useless to attempt to unite Eng-
lishmen and Irishmen as lung as they were severed by the
law and the constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He recollected
well upon one occasion having an interview with the
Marquis of Wellesley, when Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
on which occasion he used these memorable words—
" The system in Ireland must be changed, or the time
will come when Ireland must be governed either by the
military or the mob."---(Hear.) lie trusted the time
was far distant when such an event would take place.
Mr, MOWATT wished to know from the Attorney-
General whether it was the intention of the Government
to retain the 36th of George 111., so far as related to
that part of it relating to the compassing the life of the
Sovereign, which required the evidence of an overt act ;
and whether they intended also to retain that part of the
57th of George 111. which made it high treason to
imagine or compass the death of the Sovereign which did
not require the proof of an overt act
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said it was proposed
by the Act to mitigate the punishment of high treason,
and to preserve the enactment that had been referred to.
There was no intention by the Act to jeopardise the
liberty of the subject.
Mr. WAKLEY thought this Bill was a most atrocious
libel upon the people of England He could not see
how the Government could, after the people had acted
as they had done within the last few days, endeavour
to shorten their liberties by the Bill. He warned the
Government from trusting the support they got on the
measure from the other side of the House.—(Hear.)
They might say what they pleased, but if ever there was
a gagging Bill, this was one. Out of doors the middle
classes were astonished at the acts of what was called
a Liberal Government. The Government were adopt-
ing harsher measures than ever were adopted in the worst
of times. If these things were persisted in, it would be
the Government that was undermining the constitution
of the country, and not those
this who
unis h to Bill were asking
the
for
nd and Scotland for the sufferings
of Ireland.—(Hear.) If a Tory Government were to
p
people of England reform. It was proposed by
adept the course of the present Ministers it would not be
tolerated now because the present Government had
come into power under false colours. He trusted that
tolerated for a moment by the people, and it was only
Honourable Members would not allow the objection-
able words in this clause to be continued in it, for
although they might be in a minority on that point,
there was a course warranted by the forms of the
House which would enable them to compel Members to
allow the words to be expunged.—(Hear, hear.) He
hoped the Government, ere it was too late, would con-
sent to the erasure of the objectionable words in the
clause; if they did not, he would offer every opposition
in his power to the Bill, let that opposition be designated
however it might.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY appealed to the Government
whether, after the discussion that had taken place and
the opinions that had been expressed against them, they
would still persevere in retaining these words in the
clause.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committees
Against it
Majority for going into Committee --254
The House then went into Committee.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether Government
bad any objection to adjourn for an hour.—(No, no.)
Sir G. GREY said, the Hon. Member for Nottingham
having given up his motion, he proposed that the House
should sit en
till they got through this Bill.—(Cheers.)

On the question that " open and advised speaking"
stand part of the Bill,
Mr. MO WATT rose to oppose it. lie said he had I
no sympathy with the fools and madmen who spouted
sedition either in Dublin or at the so-called National
Convention, but he did not think that their insane
ravings werepassing
any justification for the of such a
clause as this.—(Bear, hear.) He admitted, with the
Noble Lord who introduced this Bill, that they lived in
extraordinary times, but he could see nothing in them
to justify this retrograde policy.—(Hear, hear.) In
1792, when the French Revolution had had the
effect of almost overturning the institutions of the
country, and when the life of the Sovereign was openly
threatened, Mr. Pitt introduced a similar clause, but
Parliament even then refused to pass it.—(Hear, hear.)
Wny, then, should they at this advanced period 01
enlightenment attempt to inflict upon the public such a
measure? The law as it at present stood was amply
sufficient to meet all cases, and he for one never would
consent to the creation of this new offence.—(Hear.)
He thought the Government was perfectly justified in
pressing this Bill in order to put a stop to the seditious
proceedings of certain persons in Ireland. Ile objected
to the clause before the House, because it merely had
reference to the deposition of the title of the Queen, and
not to the regal state and dignity of the Crown. Why,
after this Act, it a man, at a public meeting or at his
own dinner-table, stated that he thought the time had
arrived when the union with the sister country should
be put an end to, and that consequently the
Queen should no longer reign over it, he would
tender himself liable to punishment for felony.
The Government might depend upon it that so soon as
the reaction of public opinion set in upon this question,
they would most grievously repent their indecent hurry
in pressing forward this measure. The two main consti
tuents of the British Constitution were freedom of speech
and the freedom of the press, and this Bill would
violate those fundamental principles. He wished to
show to the House the dangerous effect which this
Bill would have in exciting the sympathies of one portion
of the people in favour of those who would be most
grievously oppressed try its operation, and most earnestly
hoped that the Government would not press forward the
obnoxious measure.
The Marquis of GRANBY thought that there ought
to be a wide distinction kept up between the person who
should sit down and advisedly write sedition, and the
person who in the excitement of public speaking might
make use of expressions tending to the seine result.
It was also to be borne• in mind what was the
vast power which eloquence had over the human mind.
He thought for the reasons he had stated that it was
necessary that the words " open and advised speaking"
should remain part of the clause. While he stated that
he regretted that Ministers should not have contio ued their
confidence in the loyalty of the people, instead of rely-
ing it on their forbearance in bringing forward the pre-
sent measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAY agreed in the general provisions of the Bill
because he thought a measure like it was required for the
peace and safetyuf the country; but he never could con-
sent to the retaining of the words in the third clause of
" open and advised speaking." He did not think it wise
to brand with felony two offences that were totally
different, that of writing and speaking. Ile could
not believe that it was wise or judicious in them to leave
a hole in the law for a court of law to fill up, and he
therefore thought these objectionable words in the
clause ought to be struck out. In his opinion,
however, it would be utterly impossible for
a court of law or a jury to decide whether words
spoken had previously been premeditated, and every
friend of humanity was called upon to oppose a clause
which was calculated to lead to much doubt and injustice.
lie hoped Government would not content themselves
with the precautionary power proposed to be given to
them by this clause, but, for God's sake, that they would
turn their attention to those remedial measures which
were calculated to remove the di,content which prevailed
amongst the working clases of this country.—(Hear )
Mr. EWART really did not think there was any
necessity for retaining the objectionable words, and he
should therefore, out of justice to the people, support the
am relment for their expulsion.—(Hear) Ile would sug
gest that the clause should be amended by the insertion
of the words " public speaking," and that a man should
not be prosecuted for any sentiments he might have
uttered, unless he had spoken them more than once.
He objected to the punishment of transportation for
such an offence, and would rather see imprisonment in •
them! in lieu of that severe punishment. He recommended
Government to expunge the objectionable words "open
and advisedly." By doing so they would do an act
which would prove satisfactory to a great number of
their supporters.
Mr. AGLIONBY also objected to the words in the
clause, and as one who had supported every stage of the
Bill, he recommended the Government to expunge them.
He intended in Committee, however, to move, should
the omission of these words be agreed to, the insertion
of, after the words " be guilty of misdemeanour," " and
be liable to be committed to prison, and there
to be kept without bail and mainprise until
delivered in due course of law ; and any per-
son who shall be convicted of that offence
shall upon being convicted by the Court before whioh
such person shall be tried shall be liable to be im-
prisoned with or without hard labour for any time not
exceeding ( ) years. lie thought that that amend-
ment would meet with the almost unanimous opinion of
the House.

Mr. BAINES was happy to see that some modifica-
tions had been introduced into the Bill. It was
originally proposed as a permanent measure,
and no degrees of punishment were intro-
duced into it, so that the person who should be
convicted of open and advised speaking must, under the
Bill, be liable to the great punishment of transportation,
the period of the duration of the Bill bad been
limited to a comparatively short period, and
the amount of punishment considerably mitigated.
He could not adopt even as a temporary measure the
clause in its present shape. Because the temporary
measure of to-day might be the temporary measure
of a twelvemonth hence. He was not to be told that
there were precedents this measure in the statute-
book of the State Trials; that would be no ground
with him for the adoption of such a measure as
this ; before he consented to such an Act he must
look to the time and :the circumstances under
which it was brought forward; and looking at
the times and the circumstances, he did not see any-
thing to justify such a clause as the one now under
discussion. He thought that all the statutes in existence
were evident proof of the injustice of such a clause.
The authority of Mr. Pitt, Lord Granvi,le, and Lord
Eldon, against placing open and advised speak-
ing upon the same footing as writing.—(Hear.)
Hun. Members one atter the other had expressed their
difficuty to understand this clause, and he would venture
to say that the most practised lawyer in West.
minster-hall would nut understand it till ho had
read it over most carefully three or four timt 5.
(Hear, hear.) Wast it not, therefore, highly desirable
that the clause by which it was proposed to
establish an offence that had never before existed,
should be rendered as intelligible as possible.—
(Hear, hear.) Words of themselves had never till now
been taken as sufficient evidence of a compassing or
imagining the death of the Sovereign, and looking at
the severity of the punishment with which it was pro-
proposed to visit this new offence, namely, trans-
portation for life, he thought some further time
ought to be allowed fur consideration before
the clause was agreed to. Let the Commit-
tee remember the stigma that attached to
the name of a convicted felon ; not only, how-
ever, was the name of a convicted felon stig-
matised, but his goods and chattels were for-
feited, and he was decidedly of opinion
tnat the House would be acting most unjustly and most
unconstitutionally if it inflicted the severe punishment
of transportation for life upon the almost harmless
offence of " open and advised speaking."—(Hear.)
Believing that they would violate a principle of the
constitution of England, by adopting the clause
as it at present stood, he should support
the striking out of the clause the words " open and ad-
vised speaking."
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD considered it the impera-
tive duty of the Committee to retain the words in the
clause, because he considered them just.
(LEY'T SPEAKING.)

Captain William Mitchell, paymaster for many
years of the 2d battalion of the Ist Royal Regiment of
Foot, died on the II th inst. at Camberwell. He went
through some rough service, having accompanied the
regiment to the Cape, Monte Video, the Peninsula,
Sicily, Holland, Flanders, and during the Waterloo cam-
paign. He was in his 72d y ear.
THE CHARTIST3,—LIVERPOOL, THURSDAY.—The
Chartist meeting announced at the close of the last
assembly of that class of politicians for last evening
proved a failure. But a few hundred idle ♦agabonds
attended, and not even one speaker was present to re-
lieve the nausea of the public mind. The vigilance of
the authorities did not slumber, however.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 13.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions
praying that the Odd Fellows' societies should be
placed on the same footing, with regard to legal
privileges, as other benefit societies.
REMOVAL OF ALIENS BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second
reading of this Bill, and said that the Noble Lord (Lord
Beaumont) bad not convinced him that he was wrong in
bringing forward the measure. He wished to afford an
unrestricted hospitality to all foreigners, but there might
be exceptional cases, and to those cases alone the Bill
applied. There were no means of ascertaining the
number of persons who came to this country, still less
could it be discovered who might come fur legitimate
and who for illegal purposes; and therefore he could not
present any statistical details to their Lordships. But
the observation of all who walked tt.a streets of the me-
tropolis or elsewhere must have convinced them that
there was a great increase of foreigners in this country,
and no doubt a great many bad come with a view
of taking part in the civil dissensions of this country.
The Bill did not ask for any indiscriminate
authority to send such persons away, neither
would their conduct elsewhere, but their conduct
here alone, be taken into consideration.—(Hear,
hear.) His Noble Friend said that the events of
last Monday proved there was no fear of the people of
this country acting under the instigation of such per-
sons. Fortunate as had been the result of the proceed-
ings on Monday, not only evincing as they did the
extent of the loyalty of her Majesty's subjects, but that
they were determined not only now, but hereafter, to
preserve order and maintain the peace, yet he was not
prepared to say that there was not in other parts of the
kingdom a disposition to obtain that assistance.—
(Hear.) Many weeks had not elapsed since the proof
was afforded of persons in Ireland endeavouring to ob-

e'ain the assistance of foreigners for the destruction of this
ountry, were it in their power.—(Elear, bear.) It was, f
herefore, necessary for the Government to be on the-ir •
guard, and they proposed the Bill only for a period of
one year.—(hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis then
detailed the provisions of the Bill, and said the discretion
as to the removal of foreigners might be safely entrusted
to his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, subject to the control of Pat liamouts
He intended to propose some slight modifications in
Committee.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought that one of
the greatest benefits that could be conferred on this
country would be the burning of every copy of Ilan
card, and not looking to what had been said as to past
cases, regarding only the present evils, and the remedies
necessary to be applied to them. Ile thought the mea-
sure was not sufficiently stringent. If the Noble Mar-
quis could cot tell the number of aliens in this country
the Act would be inoperative. The Alien Act of 1836
obliged every captain of a ship to give the number and
names of aliens whom he might bring into this country;
but he had no means of compelling them to give their
names. It was true the foreigner was to produce a pass-
eort, but if he did not do so he was only liable to a
fine of forty shillings ; and how could they tell
an alien to leave the country if they did not know
his name ? Unless this Bill were accompanied by
the most stringent measures of registration and pass-
port, it would be quite ineffectual. The Noble Earl then
recited the provisions of the Act of 1836, and contended
that the measure of the Noble Marquis was a mere
fractional part of the Alien Act, and likely enough to
deter foreigners from coming here, bat very ill adapted
to send them out of the country after they had arrived.
Ile believed we never before had so little regarded a re-
volution as that which had recently occurred in a neigh-
bouring country. On former occasions the minds of
Englishmen were horrified with the bloodshed of the
French revolution; but that had not been the case yet
with reference to the last: ruin had certainly been the
result, but it had been gradually operative. It was well
to guard against the influence of French Republicans in
this country, but be believed the Bill before their Lord-
ships would be ineffectual for that purpose.
Earl GREY said the provisions of the Alien Act were
not sufficient to obtain a perfect registration of foreigers
coming to England, and he was afraid it was impossible
to contrive a system of passport which would not be highly
offensive to parties who had no criminal intention.—
(Hear, hear.) This Bill would give a power to the Go-
vernment, if information were obtained that any parti-
cular emigrants were inciting disturbance and resistance
to the law, to remove them, and he thought foreigners
could not so conduct themselves without the fact being
ascertained. He firmly believed the Bill would be effec-
tual for the purposes for which it was designed, and he
should not like to see introduced a system foreign to the
customs of the country .—(Hear.)
Lord BEAUMONT regretted, in the present state of
the continent, where it was clear that the Governments
of Europe must be remodelled, that a personal attack
should have been made by a Noble and Learned Lord
opposite (Brougham) on certain Princes of Europe,
who had been abused and caricatured by the Noble and
Learned Lord in no measured terms. He did not hesi-
tate to defend the conduct of the King of Sardinia,
which had been condemned by the Noble and
Learned Lord in language so objectionable and
unqualified. It was well known that for the last ten
years, in consequence of the conduct of Austria, many
of the states of Italy were deprived of their indepen-
dence, being in fear of that power; and if they had
given their people the rights which they were entitled
to claim, it was known the Austrian Government
would have invaded their territories to put
down the march of freedom. The states of
Italy had long sought for independence and free
institutions, which they had been afraid to claim
from fear of Austria. The revolution in Vienna had
weakened the Austrian power, and it was felt that she
could no longer crush any attempt at insurrection in
Lombardy. Sardinia and the Roman States had not
taken any step until Milan had declared her independ-
ence, arid then they interfered because they had no
choice but to do so, or place themselves in danger by a
war between France and Austria. Austria had long
dictated, in the proudest and most insulting terms, to the
states of Italy. She had laid neighbouring states waste,
and broken the treaty of Vienna, but her power was
now shiveting to atoms—it was now crumbling to pieces;
and had not the King of Sardinia, the Pope, and the
Duke of Tuscany, a right to look to their own interests
and protect their subjects ? This they had done, and
he contended they had done no more.—(Hr, ar, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble Friend had cer-
tainly made a very eloquent speech, but of all the figures
by which it was distinguished, dislocation was the most
remarkable.—(A laugh) When the Alien Bill was not
before the House, he made a speech on it ; now he had
dwelt on other subjects.—(Hear, hear.) It was a saying
that it was good to leave well alone; and perhaps it was
as well to leave ill alone for fear of making it worse.
He thought the Holy Father—if as infallible in
temporal as he claimed to be in spiritual matters—
would not thank his Noble Friend for his defence.
He (Lord Brougham) believed the King of Sardinia to
have acted out of fear of his Genoese subjects, and from
a desire to make himself king of the north of Italy.
To the Holy Father he ascribed no worse a motive than
the vain and pernicious desire to make himself popular.
This had given the impetus ; but his subsequent motive
had been the basest that could sway a ruler—the fear of
the Roman populace. If anything could draw down
contempt on those entrusted with temporal power, it was
the fear of doing their duty, lest it might render them
unpopular.—(hear, hear.) The history of Europe for
half a century had shown the evil effects of succumbing
to a mob, and betraying a solemn duty to popular
opinion. He was sorry to accuse Pius IX. of having
acted thus. As to Charles Albert he did not doubt his
capacity for effecting that movement technically called a
retreat ; this he would doubtless effect very quickly, and
get out of the enemy's way. He must either do this, or
conquer Rsdetzki before he could possess Lombardy.—
(Hear, hear.) After the treaty of Vienna had existed
a quarter of a century, and become the statute law of
Europe with regard to territory, it became the most
imprudent thing to disturb it ; but if without such
disturbance the freedom of Italy could be assured, no
one would have a right to complain. It was the
greatest mistake to suppose that the Austrians were not
justified in doing what they did at Ferrara. Had the
Pope, instead of appealing to considerations which
might increase his popularity, merely insisted on the
Austrians keeping within the fortress, they must have
done so; for Austria had as perfect a right to that for-
tress as the Pope himself had to his castle of St. Angelo.
Thus much in reply to what had fallen from his Noble
Friend opposite, who, he hoped, would have no difficulty
in obtaining absolution from the Holy Father for this
extraordinary defence of him. The Noble Lord then
referred to something which he had said on Monday
evening in respect to the French Provisional Govern-
ment, and said that he had meant no disrespect whatever
to M. de Lamartine in his remarks on the answer which
he had given to the Irish deputation.
Lord GRANVILLE said he must protest against
the opinion that the politics of the Pope had been
influenced, at home or abroad, by any base love of
popularity.—(Hear.)
Lord STANLEY said that while he gave his cordial
and hearty support to this Bill, he must say the Go-
vernment had not been over hasty in introducing the
measure, nor did he think it was likely to be so efficient
as they desired. It being admitted that the provisions
of the Registration Act were not and could not be
strictly complied with, it was evident that this Bill could
not operate efficiently. To this no answer had been
given by the Noble Lords opposite, who had merely
alluded to vexatious interference with private life. Why,
the Bill itself was an interference—he had almost said
an unconstitutional interference—with the ordinary law,
with private arrangements and comforts, and with the
ordinary laws of hospitality; but, as such it was justi-
fied by the circumstances, of the times, by the necessity
of providing for the safety of the empire, and by the
fact that there were, perhaps, 50,000 foreigners in
this country, though the number was nut material
—their influence and disposition was everything.
These were the grounds on which the Noble Lord
opposite had defended an interference, which was
confessedly inefficient. Either they ought to have
interfered effectually, or to have been restrained from
doing so by the considerations he had cited.
This Bill and another in the other House had been in-
troduced with the view of passing them before Easter;
so that the time was too short to discuss either of them
fully. This measure in particular demanded the most
careful consideration, and investigation of the existing
law. It went to recognise foreigners by name, while the
Government confessed that they had no means of know-
ing those names. This was avowedly a temporary
measure; but the one in the other House was not so; it
was a measure for a great and permanent alteration in
the law of sedition and treason. With respect to this
latter measure, their Lordships had a right to complain
that unless they would consent to pass the Bill hastily,
they might be told they were responsible fur the con-
sequences. Looking to what had passed here and in
the sister island, the Government was highly censurable
for not having brought forward these important measures
until within a week of Easter. They might have been cer-
tain of the support of large majorities in both Houses; they
might even have relied on the cordial aid of their political
opponents to neutralise any opposition from their political
friends; still they had delayed these measures most un-
wisely.—(Hear.) He was fully disposed to support theseic
measures, but he must comaptltaeir. complain °
must complain of another
of Ireland, with the open declaration of the intentions,
I of the
the Government
me He
hopes and desires of a body (not a numerous one, cer-
tainly) in that country—with the recommendation to
ay
ns euefaaeltlutrhieso
fgoon weaponsu n-
the people to arm themselves in resistance to the Go-
cv
he relic
kmeedn, t ,
awn ads
ecyoeini t e
tnot
before their eyes, which could be used for no legitimate
atollosiwtbtheanma
purpose, he must condemn such a course.—(Hear, hear.)
For the first time, not only since the union, but for a
much longer period, all restrictions on the carrying of
arms in Ireland bad been removed by the present
Government; and hence the difficulty in which they
were placed with regard to the measures necessary in
that country. He regretted that no new powers were
asked for by Government, and that even no efficient
steps were taken for carrying out the provisions of the
Bill passed before Christmas. The number of arms
hitherto given up was extremely small compared with
the number that had been manufactured. If there was
to be an outbreak there, it was inconceivable folly not to
take steps for securing a well-armed population in sup-
port of Government and order, and to disarm the
disaffected, especially with the full warning that had
been given. To the Bill before the House he offered no
tevniteiowntotopraeysetantte
tohf
et things
as
lo far
ramu
nhgt wt
hi taht
opposition; but he thought it his duty to call their
evil,g
Lo Lordship;' swhiiyt
'thate
was going on in Ireland.—(Hear.)
Lord DENMAN said the Bill before the House had
his cordial support. Still he must express his regret
that powers so extensire and alarming were found nines-

0y

sary. The Secretary of State would be bound to act NIL
any information conveyed to him, from whatever quitrtert
and however founded. The repeal of the Alien Bill in
1826 had been hailed with shouts of applause; and it was
most painful to be compelled to entrust such dangerous
powers to any Government. He regretted that the
Noble Lord opposite (Stanley) had sought to divide opt-
nion on the conduct of the Government at a time of such
imminent peril.—(Hear, hear.) Ile thought the Govern',
ment well entitled to their Lordships' thanks for the
prompt steps they had recently taken,
last few days.—(Hear, hear.) Their conduct with re-
gard to Ireland led him to the gratifying conclusion that
preservation did ot deem
thenny further powers necessary for tars
pr of peace in that country. With regera
to the Bill now before the House, he hoped its provisions
especially in the
would be well considered, and that their Lordships
would be able to give it their undivided support. It was
most important, in times of order and quiet, to
for any disturbances that might arise. As to the meet-
ing on Kennington-common, he considered that the G::
vernment were perfectly justified in the measures whi
the ook to put it down. Such assemblages wert!
highly dangerous, to none more than to those deluded
persons who were led to suppose that their liberties
were invaded by the steps that were taken to presort°
order.—(Hear, hear.) prepare
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said there app
earefelt
to have been a mistake as to the object of this Bill.
did not at all relate to the system of passporta—but it
effected that which it proposed—namely, to give
Go-
vernment the power of excluding from the country in I:
visluals whose conduct might render their presence here
dangerous.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord opll°L ill
(Stanley) thoughtta the Bill did not go far enough;
was most impornt, on such a subject as this, that the
Government should strive to carry with them the opinion
of all classes, and this would not have been the case had
a more rigorous measure been proposed. He would make
the same remarks with respect to the measures adopte°,
in Ireland; and he thought the Noble Lori (Stanley)
had gone out of his way fur the purpose of prematatelY
condemning the course of Government. The event.
of the last few days had, he hoped, shown that the,
attention of Government was fully called to the state of
affairs.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") On Monday nest 11
should be prepared to state what course the Government
meant to adopt with regard to Ireland. He could not
make that statement now, for he was not so 17311°'
in advance on these questions as the Noble Lord oppo•
site (Stanley). Exceptional laws of this kind were
necessarily founded on the circumstances of the moment'
and could not be justified or condemned by precedents'
A much more severe law might be required at one time
than at another; if ever one moment was strongly dig'
guished from others by the peculiarity of its circus'
stances it was the present; and it was the part of ~e
statesman not to look to the former opinions of himself
or others, but to judge from existing circumstances what
measures were necessary.—(Hear.)
The Earl of MALMESBURY said that he and hie
political friends had supported this Bill from the fairest
and most patriotic motives, and it was unfair to imPute
to them any other. While willing to share the respor,
sibility and odium of the Government, they had a right
to see that the measure was effective.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said a few word' l 0
reply, which were inaudible in the gallery.
The Duke of RICHMOND wished the Bill had been
more efficient; but he hoped it would answer the par"
pose desired. Ile supported the Bill because he believe"
that prevention was better than cure. He could wish_ lt
were a more efficient measure, but he would not, 0°
that account, offer any opposition to it. On the control,
looking to what took place in other countries, he wee
not prepared factiously to oppose the Government,
but to give them his feeble but hearty support to enable
them to carry on the affairs of the country.
Lord REDESDALE called the attention of the Noble
Marquis to the loose way in which the provisions in the
Bill respecting the service of warrants were drawn up.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that wIl!
the Bill was committed would be the proper time for
discussing the objection.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered t°
be committed on Monday, and the standing orders SOS:
pended; upon which their Lordships adjourned, 'll'
twenty minutes before eight.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 13.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition, praying
for the abolition of the attorneys' certificate duty.
_A
Capt. JONES presented a petition from Wextur'
in favour of tenant-right.
CONVICTION OF MATTHEW DAVIS.
Mr. EWART, in allusion to the conviction of Matthe^
Davis, at the recent assizes for Warwick, for the mord°.,
of his wife, said that he had received the strongest 11;
presentations from the medical men that Davis wee nt)d.
reponsible for the dreadful act which he had commit-1t
He wished to know whether the matter was under tih,
e
consideration of the Secretary of State for the 80%
Department, and whether it was true, that unless the'
were some alteration in the decision which had hither,
to been arrived at, the prisoner would be executed tc).
morrow ?
Sir G. GREY—It is very true that a man of the WTI
of Davis was convicted at the last assizes for Werv"cd
for the murder of his wife, by cutting her throat, en
a memorial was a few days ago presented to me, sce°uli
pacied by the statement of medical men, who alltse.e
that, in their opinion, his mind was not in that Oft
which made him responsible for his acts. I took tb•
course as to that memorial which is invariably taken in
these cases—viz., transmitted it to the Judge before
whom the prisoner was tried, who said that these -two
medical men were examined at the trial, that the jury
came to a conclusion that the man was in a state of mica
to make him responsible, and the Judge informs me al"
he concurs in that verdict.

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
Sir R. INGLIS asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether, in the present state of public business, he
thought it likely that he should be able to bring for;
ward the Bill for the removal of the civil disabilities
the Jews before Easter, and, if not, when he thoughs tt
likely.
Lord J. RUSSELL—In answer to the sinestion of el
right Hon. Friend, I should-say that we shall propoe
on reading the order of the day for the Crown and Go;
vernment Security Bill, to proceed with the Comreitt,
on that
Bill at twelve o'clock to-morrow. I hope to
able to fix the third reading of that Bill for Monday, 511
therefore, the Jewish Disabilities Bill cannot be Prl;
ceeded with on Monday. Of' course I shall not 113°.
attempt to bring it on before the Easter recess, and ors
the motion for the adjournment of the House I will Its
the day on which I propose to move it,
The Earl of LINCOLN asked on what day the 141°62.1.°
Lord proposed that the House should adjourn for o'
Easter recess, and for what period ? h•
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would give the egr—e
intimation he could.
The order of the day for the Committee on the
and Government Security Bill was then postponed •
tl
to-morrow, at twelve o'clock.

MINISTERS' MONEY—DUBLIN. us
Mr.W. FAGAN said that the resolution which
• tad
was about to submit to the House had been subo3o--t,,,
in precisely the same words by Mr. Sergeant Ilailr1):;
in 1842, 1843, and in 1844 was adopted by the 1-1011,,,1
He should have applied for a Select Committee, n'i;
had sufficient experience of the House to know that
was the almost universal opinion that a Select ell':
mittee was but an approved mode of shelving a questi°l
and that it was universally considered as the verY
means of relieving a Government from the responsibillSl
of accepting or rejecting a proposition. A Select Cool-
mittee was not necessary on this particular occasi°°'
because every information which a Select Cornmilte.
could acquire was already in the possession of the B°ll6
in the records up stairs. It had been said elsewhere $'
this resolution was informal. The object of the resole'
i
tion was to ask leave of the House to bring in a Bill lcl
,/
the immediate abolition of ministers' money in Rollin%
but inasmuch as it was a Bill for the abolition done Sal
and the substitution of another, it was requisite
he should move a resolution. He had the big
ht%
authority for stating that the resolution was perfectly l
form. He had scarcely taken his seat when he pre,
seated a petition from 16,500 citizens, calling for the
immediate and total abolition of the tax. He regrettgl
that some one of more weight and influence in
.I)st.
House had not undertaken to bring forward this
et subJeb-ia
and he particularly regretted that some lion
bad Member of a different persuasion from his ova' --
there were
undertaken the task, for he was aware that
in that House many Honourable Members of the Estelle
lished Church who were opposed to the infliction of the
tax of ministers' money upon the Catholics, and her
therefore, would much prefer that some one of theta
should bring this subject before the House. It was I)
tax which ought at once to be put an end to, and he Wile
aware of the fact that the Protestant clergy were or,
posed to the odious necessity of collecting this ministers
money from their Catholic fellow-subjects. It 1"1:i
a great aggravation of the evil that this "I,
;
was paid principally by Catholics. There wets
only eight corporate towns in Ireland which Paid
_
the tax, and those eight were all Catholic--
whilst the Protestant towns of Armagh, Cnor,lt
fergus, and Belfast, paid no ministers' money.
Kilkenny, Waterford, Clout:mei, and Limerick paid roll 37:
nmtgoriineyt,hoasnedtotwhenspzonspoarstiofnolloofwCs Catholics and
Cork
kd
trivre;7,
weretesta 65,071 Catholics and 11.905 Protestants—l& Ph.-,-;
portion ef about 6 to 1 ; in Dublin, in the parishes
paid ministers' money, nearly 160,730 Catholics 8.:
53,492 Protestants—a proportion of nearly 3to 1 l
Limerick, in two parishes which paid this tax, 14.2 1;
Catholics and 792 Protestants—a proportion of 20 t° i
in Waterford, in six parishes which paid the tax. 17,79
Catholics and 3,251 Protestants—a proportion of st° fe
in Kinsale, 523 Catholics and 1,070 Protestants, Tofoli
was one peculiarity connected with this tax,
caused a great deal of suffering, and a most unjust pre,`
sure upon those who were subjected to it, namely, 11,0
under the law as it now stands, there could not be A
valuation unless the houses were rebuilt ; but it so haL
pened that in some towns, such as Limerick and COI'
the houses now inhabited by the poor people were tb° a
which had been formerly inhabited by the rich. 6110
thus the tax pressed with additional inequality upon tag
poor who were the inhabitants of those houses. 1111 '
the law which regulated the collection of minister
;0
money, the churchwardens were empowered to disto^o
and sell the effects upon which the distress was levied,.o
once, in default of payment. He saw a statement el°l,o
ha( been laid on the table of that House with respect pt
those distresses, and in that statement a Protest‘ey
clergyman laid the average number of such distresses
fourteen in a year; but if it were only one in
would, in his (Mr. Fagan's) opinion, be one too ninny
(Hear, hear)—tor it was not alone the personal in;y 1
which each Catholic suffered from this tax which caustbe
the evil, but the rancour which it produced kiss °f
country.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Members had no ilia
the rancour which was produced in Ireland by trl,olf
matters of this nature—(Hear, hear)—and whilst oM
eight towns in Ireland paid ministers' moneYF

I

eight being Catholic towns, whilst Protestant town:.:
were exempted from the tax, it could not fail to bs
looked on as a symbol of religious intolerance. The
amount of this source of income had increased
aitee 1838, and it was now about 14,0001. !N.;
e
-1113 urn; but one cause of that was that the municipal
franchise could not be obtained in Ireland without pay
ing this tax, ministers' money; the miserable municipal
franchise could not be enjoyed without this payment;
and if a reform in the Municipal Act took pla e during
this session, and that such a reform rendered that pay
aient unnecessary, then it must follow that the Protestan
clergy would be deprived of a large amount of their in-
come, inasmuch as the same motive for paying it would
sot exist on the part of the Catholics. The Governmen.
had already settled the latter qut stion, because it had
li•wainted such an importance that it was desirable to
settle it in order to avoid the shedding of blood; and
Would the Government refuse justice to the eight tow n.
which paid ministers' money, because those eight town,.
were
not powerful enough to make a similar resistance to
that which was made by the whole country against the
Pgyaient of tithes ? The grievance of paying this
tsz on the part of the Catholics was very con-
siderable, and had been admitted by Lord Stanley
and Lord Eliot in the House of Commons ; anti
feeling that it was one which ought to be removed
he ,
th (Mr' Fagan) had prepared a substitute for
throe
'Mount. The Ecclesiastical Commission had made
„A" ulggestions; but the first two were inexpedient,
and ne therefore adopted the third. The Ecclesiastical
t mtiraissioners in Ireland obtained their revenue from a
Ea
uPon the incom ot the bishops and clergy of the
tablished Churc hes ; but any mode of providing a sub-
atitute analogour. to that would not be advisable. The
aceond proposition of the Commissioners was equally in-
caPedient, and he would therefore suggest that, us the
revenue of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was rapidly
increasing
by the demise of the holders of benefices and
prebends which were to cease under the Church Tempo.
vide
Act a sufficient surplus might be obtained to pro
" a substitute for the 13,0001. or 14,0001. at present
Wai n
leo g from the ministers' money. All he asked was
to bring in a Bill on the subject. The present. as
I well as former Governments, had recognised the exits-
ttliec_e of the grievance, and he therefore considered that
here could not be any objection to giving it a first
readin e
et especially as such a course would not bind the
grievance would be an earnest to the people of Ireland
that the British Legislature intended to devote its atten-
tionr. to the permanent welfare of that country.
atibveir YsIteSOMERVILLE said that he could not forbear
able 'ling"'
fall to the temperate tone adopted by the Honour.
~Geniteman. He had not heard one single word
bee rope his lips calculated to give offence to any Mem-
s"4 the House. He was quite aware that different
_e!eretaries of Ireland had been moat anxious to remove
4"eir cause of complaint. Lord Stanley, the Earl of St.
the Germans, and Lord Lincoln were amongst the number.
the (Sir Wm. Somerville) was also most anxious upon
Clergy
subject. He had several communications with the
ullearngiYmoouf 91e Established Church, who were almostd
Oe„ier !Y in favour of some change being adopted.
One had indeed gone so far as to commurn-
cnaeteeetofhim the heads of a Bill for such a purpose; but
factor° the
plans which they had seen proposed a satis-
th t y substitute for the present plan, nor did he think
a the Honourable Member for Cork had been more
fortunate than those who preceded him. The effect of
bimmediate abolition of the present system might
to
make a present of so much money to
dewners, whilst the poor proprietors would not
ourriveo the any benefit. He had not abandoned the hope
intention
of effecting some remedy for this
gr.i!vance. Certain returns were at present ordered
which would throw additional light upon the eubjee.t
Lie Would, therefore, ask his Honourable Friend not to
Persevere
in his motion ; by doing so, he would not
advance, his cause. The Honourable Member for the
University of Dublin (Mr. Hamilton) cad given notice
°f a motion in the shape of an amendment ; but he
(Sir W. Somerville) did not consider that the terms of
ite., went far enough. If, however, the motion of the
Honourable Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) was
agreed tO., he would give the subject his most anxious
attention
Mr. HAMILTON concurred in praising the temper-
ate tone adopted by the Hon. Member for Cork ; he
tould not, however, agree in supporting the abolition of
' this tax, from which the clergy of the Established
Church drew their almost exclusive support. He ad.
witted that some change was desirable, but the effect of
the abolition of ministers' money would be to raise the
rents of those houses which formerly paid them,
thereby increasing the rents of the owners.
Since the tax was first imposed property had changed
Very much, and, consequently, the tax had become
unequalled. He was witting to consent to the extension
of the labours of the Committee, but he could not con-
Sent to the introduction of any words into the motion
tending to the abolition of ministers money, or to that
fund being supplied by the appropriation of any of the
revenue of the established church of Ireland. He moved
1.5 an amendment—That a Select Committee be ap-
Pointed, to consider and report upon the state and
°Peration of the laws respecting ministers' money in
Ireland, and to report whether any and what amend-
ments in those laws would be expedient.
• The question having been put,
Dr, POWER thought that his Honourable Friend
would have gone far enough, had be contented himself
with pointing out the injustice and inequality of the
impost in question, and then leaving it to Ministers to
find out some substitute. As at present levied, the tax
was putting the clergymen of the English Church into
false position, and one from which they were most
anxious to be relieved. Considering the immense re
venues of the Church, it would be hard indeed unless
ttoe substitute for ministers' money could be found.
• Was it not hard that people who made such exertions as
the Irish did to support the religion which they believed
inbe the true one, should be taxed to support a ehurct.
In the doctritses of which they did not concur. England
Ireland
Scotland were free from any such impositions, and
4reland ought not to stand alone in the single deformity
of having to support so anomalous a burden.
Viscount BERNARD doubted whether the revenues
of the Catholic Church were at all of that voluntare
character which the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken
last had invested them with. As to the question now
- before the House, ho thought the proposal of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Member for the University
of Dublin was one likely to afford an arrangement re
sPecting the subject. It was truo the valuation by which
the LUX was collected was an old one, and fell heavily on
the poor; but were they to abolish ministers' money
tueY would be leaving a large body of clergymen un
Provided for. It was proposed to apply as a substitute
aolue portion of the funds of the Established Church,
• but those funds were not sufficient for the actual and
Present wants of the Church.—(Loud cries of " Oh,
oh.") Why the Commissioners had stated that such
Wes the fact to Lord Heytesbury.—(Oh, oh.) He hoped
that in place of this discussion a Committee would be
appointed, before whom the subject would be fully and
fairly discussed. The real grievance relating to minis
tens' money was, that it was a tax necessary to be paid
in order to confer the municipal franchise. He re
Reated that be was ready to agree to the motion for the
select Committee, on the sole and simple undentanding,
that no pledge, direct or ineirect, should be given.
touching the revenues of the Irish Church. He sap
ported that Church as the great prop of the union.—
(" Oh. oh," from Mr. Hume) The Hon. Member for
kl,.natrose might cheer, but be supported it also upon
tbaigher grounds, because he believed in his conscience
That it was the true Church, and that the object of its
9PPenente was to abolish it for the purpose of establish-
ing the Church of Rome in its place.—(Oh, oh.)
lIUME could not at all agree with the opinions
or sentiments of the Noble Lord who had just spoken.
7',° (Mr. Hume) most delibera ely declared his opinion
;mkt but for the Protestant Church in Ireland, main•
thatagainst the wishes of the majority of the people.
__ country would not be in her present state of
:Tier/ and destitution.—(Hear, hear.) He believed
that Church to ,have been the principal cause of her
evils, and that no peace or order could be expected in
Ireland till it had ceased to exist. That time, although
.
Might not live to see, would soon arrive.—(Hear.)
They had heard statements to the effect that distresses
had been made on the miserable effects of the poor, and
that their very beds and blankets had been taken to pay
this money. So great were these evils, that the clergy
themselves objected to this rate. It was certain the
people did so; and if the statement as to the clergy
Were true, there was no reason why this impost should
be continued, opposed as it was to the wishes of both
parties. If the sentiments of the Noble Lord were to be
. taken as the type of the feeling of his class in Ireland.
he (Mr. Hume) would indeed despair of that country.
—(Llear, hear.) This was an English and a Scotch,
as well as an Irish question ; and the people would
soon find out the folly and expense of sending 30,000
or 40,000 bayonets to Ireland to maintain those who
thought with the Noble Lord, and to maintain the
Protestant Church Establishment. Most deeply did he
regret that when Government, in 1833, reformed the
Church Establishment and did away with cess money,
they did not remove this impost also. They were
asking for measures of coercion towards Ireland ; but it
wouldo be well to consider in how fart they were them"
ve!the cause of agitation and distalebance there, by
questiong
to remove just grounds of complaint. This
elan
ewe had been often before the House, and more
the Ministry of the day had admitted the
grievances complained of. Why should they build
churches for which there were no congregations?—
(Hear, hear.)
ne-
cessary, for the
pl-lieoitturd
He did not consider a Committee
was fully informed of the nature
of the evils'
to hear the Governmer?f—(llear, hear)—and:he trusted
matter make their first t say that they would in this
hear)—that they wouhreaee-offering to Ireland—(Hear,
remove those evils, and
declare their intention out''noe: the surplus revenues of
the Church to the educationroasne
d interests of the people.
Mr. REYNOLDS then nosed
following occurrence, with
_

MR. O'CONNOR.
The SPEAKER called the attention of the
House to
O'
the order of the day, that Mr. Connor be ordered
know
o
attend in his place forthwith. It was desirable to
whether the order had been served on the Hon. Member.w
—(Hear.) He called on tha Sergeant to state whether
the order had been served.
The Sergeant at Arms informed the Home that the
order had been served.
Mr. Gossett. the mossenger, having been called,
Mr. SPEAKER.—Have you served the order of the
House on Mr. O'Connor, the Hun. Member for Not-
tingham ?—I have.
Mr. SPEAKER —When was the order served ?—At
twenty minutes before seven o'clock.
Mr. SPEAKER—Did the Hon. Member express
any intention to obey the order of the House ;
he did not
Mr. SPEAKER—Where was the order served I—
the office of the Northern Star.
Mr. SPEAKER—Did you iee him personally I—l
w himselt

• Mr. SPEAKER—When you served the order,-did he
make no answer ?—He did.
Sir R. IL INGLIS— What, was his answer ?—(Cries
of "Order :") I believe lam entitled by the rules of
the House to ask that question ?--Ile asked what would
oe the consequence if he did not attend.
Mr. SPEAKER—What chi you say ?—I told him
that quite depended on the pleasure of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER—You may withdraw.
Sir G. GREY—In consequence of the statement just
made by the messenger who served the order of the
House on the Hon. Member for Nottingham; I have to
move, in accordance with the invariable practice of the
!louse e hen an Honourable Member is ordered to at-
end in his place, and declines to comply with the order,
That Feargus O'Connor, Esq., Member for Notting
havinghaving attendt h thee s House
order
beenratihi-
with, b ee
n dulyorde servedordered
t°
wit
having neglected to attend accordingly, be taken into
custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms attending the House."
Mr. HUME suggested that the lion. Member might
he directed to attend to morrow.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Sir G. GREY observed that two hours had elapsed
since the order had been served; and, if the Hon. Mem-
ner for Nottingham had any intention of attending he
would probably have done so. If he (Sir G. Grey) re-
collected aright, the statement of the messenger was,
that it was not the intention of the Hon. Member to
attend. When the Hon. Member was taken into cus-
tody it would nip -ar what was the real state of the
eas?; an.), should the House then see fit to discharge
him from custody, nothing would have happened to in-
terfere, at least, with his Parliamentary duties.
The motion was then aereed to.
MINISTERS' MONEY.
Sir R. INGLIS then resumed the debate on the mo-
tion for a Committee on ministers' money in Ireland.
The Hon. Member for Cork had used expressions im-
plying that the exaction of ministers' money made it a
question whether the ministers of the Church of Ireland
were ministers of Mammon or ministers of Christ.
Mr. POWER had not spoken of those ministers in
such terms as the Hon. Baronet supposed. What he had
said was that their position had a tendency to make the
people look upon them in that light.
Sir R. INGLIS thought the Hon. Gentleman had
used the expression historically. What was the nature
of ministers' money? It was a tax upon the locality;
and, whether raised from Roman Catholics or Protes-
tants, it was raised without reference to the respective
creeds of the parties.
Sir G. GREY regretted that much larger and wi,ter
questions had been introduced into the discussion than
the motion properly demanded. There was a practical
grievance which was admitted to exist both by those
who received and by those who paid ministers' money.
This was not the first time the question had been brought
before the House. In 1844, when the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite was in office, a similar motion was
agreed to: and it was distinctly admitted that the subject
was one worthy of the attention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment. The then Secretary for Ireland stated that their
attention had been directed to it, but that they had not
yet succeeded in framing a satisfactory measure. Lord
Stanley, then a Member of this House, expressed a hope
that in the course of the next session they would
be able to propose a remedy. The next session passed
ever without a remedy being found. The present Go
vernment, he was afraid, had not been more successful
than their predecessors. The Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Dublin had urged inquiry on behalf of the
recipients ; the Member for the city of Dublin on the
part of the payers, had also sought inquiry. The Hon.
Member for the University of Dublin seemed to object
to that part of the motion which implied that sums
ought to be taken for the purposes to which ministers'
money was now applied out of the funds at the disposal
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Instead of point-
ing at some particular fund, he (Sir G. Grey) would pro-
pose that the Committee should be appointed to inquire
whether any and what fund existed which might be
applied to the purposes of ministers' money."
Mr. REYNOLDS denied that the proposition for a
Select Committee to inquire into and report the nature,
amount, and appropriation of ministers' money in Ire
land, with a view of ascertaining whether any other,
and what fund, could be made available for that pur-
pose, could be called an attack upon the temporalities
tiny more than upon the spiritualities of the Protestant.
Church. He objected to this ministers' money for
two reasons : first, because persons who professed the
Roman Catholic religion, the Presbyterian religion, and
other creeds into which our common Christianity was
divided, were compelled by law to support a religion
they dissented from.; He thought the surplus revenue in
the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners could be
made to furnish this 12,0001. Secondly, he objected to
the tax on account of its gross inequality. In the city
of Dublin it operated most unjustly, because the houses
in the old and decayed parts of the city, formerly of
great value, were taxed high, whereas, in the modern,
but more valuable parts, the houses were taxed upon a
reduced scale. The former were likewise occupied by
Roman Catholics (the poorer portion of the population)
and the latter by Protestants, so that the injustice was
doubled. He asked both sides of the House whether it
was worth while to maintain an impost so small in
amount, so unjust in its nature, and so insulting to those
who were not in communion with the Church of Eng-
land. Tf.e tax had another and a more obnoxious fea-
ture; no man in any borough could enjoy the municipal '
:ratichise unless he paid this tax. He thought the reso
lution should be withdrawn, and the proposal of the .
Right Honourable Gentleman, which was consented to
by the Honourable Gentleman the Member for the Uni-
versity of Dublin, agreed to.
Mr. MONSELL hoped the Hon. Member for Cork
would persevere in his motion. The injustice of the tax
was admitted, and where was the necessity for inquiry ?
It inquiry had been proposed into the whole ecclesiasti-
cal grievances of Ireland, he could have seen the pro-
priety of it, but inquiry into this particular grievance
was not required.
Mr. NAPIER said the real question was, whether a
portion of the property of the Protestant Church of Ire-
land was to be altogether abolished.—(No, no.) He
maintained that this wasvirtually an attack on the Church
Establishment of the United Kingdom; but he stood upon
the ground that the Protestant Church of Ireland ought
to be at all hazards maintained.
MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR.

Tho Sergeant-at- Arms now appeared at the table,
and intimated that the Speaker's order had been ex-
eauted, and that Mr. Feargus O'Connor was now in
custody.
Sir G. GREY rose and said—Sir, I move that Mr.
Feargus O'Connor be discharged out of the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, in order that he may attend in his
place in this House.
The SPEAKER then put the motion, which was
agreed to.
Mr. O'Cormou immediately afterwards entered the
House and took his seat.

The SPEAKER—Mr. O'Connor, the House has
been given to understand that an expression fell from
you previous to your leaving this House, in the discus-
sion of the report of the Committee on Petitions, from
which the House is bound to suppose that there was an
intention on your part to take hostile proceeding,
against an Hon. Member of this House, the lion. Mem-
ber for Cirencester, for words spoken in the heat of de
bate. I hope you will be able to state to the noust.
that it is not your intention to take any such proeeeii
ings. It is my duty to inform you that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Cirencester has already expressed his regret that
any language should have fallen from him calculated ,f'
gave offence, and that it was not his intention to make
use of any unparliamentary expressions; and, at th.
same time, I feel called upon to say that, if those ex
pressions had reached my ear, I should have deemed it
icy duty to call upon the Hon. Member to explain at tht
time. As you were not in the House when the Hon.
Member for Cirencester expressed his regret, I think it
is only due to you to call on him to state in your pre-
sence what he has stated in your absence.
Mr. CRIPPS—Sir, I have just to say that I felt, as '
a member of the Committee, that my conduct was
directly impugned when I heard imputed to that Com-
tnittee conduct of which I knew them to be wholly in
capable. I have taken a deep interest in the proceed-
ings of the Committee, and therefore I perhaps felt the
more warmly; but I deeply regret if I have exceeded the
line of a Member of Parliament's duty, and the respect
due from one Member of this House to another, and
from one gentleman to another.—( Hear, hear.) I never
in any respect meant to impugn the word of any Hon.
Member; but if I have on this occasion, by anything
that I have said, left that impression. I deeply regret it.
—(hear. hear.) I shall now say, that this is the first
time in the whole course of my life I have been betrayed
into saying a single word that was capable of injuring
the feelings of any individual.—(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNOR—Sir, I beg to exculpate you alto-
gether from the nonperformance of your duty; and for
this reason, that the words I made use of were,—that
I had three duties to pert 'orm• one to the House, the
other to the Committee, and the third to myself;
hat, as regarded the House, I hoped they would
beingb iev ep
rma ec t
sheadt
uponcou
thhi
enmo t be a
; that,
ty to
o the any
Committee,
Inradelusionttee,
so far from casting any imputation on them, I
said there was none whatever chargeable against them.
I stated in words as distinct as man could use, that I
had done what was my duty to the House and the Corn
mittee, and without further observations I then left the
House. I am proud to say that after being in this House
in many tempestuous scenes, and lived a life that might
have brought me into frequent collisions with others, I
have never uttered a word that could give offence to any
individual.—(Hear, hear.) On the contrary, I have
studiously avoided doing so; but I thinktthat any Mem-
ber of this House, placing himself in my situation, would
say I was unworthy of holding a seat here if I had not
resented the words which were employed. At the same
time I am ready to accept the apology which has been
made for the unparliamentary language, especially after
the concluding observations made by the Hon. Member.
—(Hear, hear.) The excitement arising out of this
matter being over, I shall entirely forget any insult
I may have received. I am not capable of foster-
ing anitnosty or permitting any feeling of the kind
to rankle in my breast ; but I have a higher duty
than even that to perform to myself and the
persons whom I represent here. After the ex
pression of feeling I have heard this night, it is my duty
to state that I will abandon my motion for to-morrow,
and that I shall not found any motion on that petition,
hut shall leave the question to be settled between the
Government and the country, and between the Com-
a be with
moittteme_and those who sent the petition. I had no reason
tht. the statement I made to the House, nor would
consenttlhLanti.hmoweemvinbeerYritm
tised. But one thing I may state fairly and frankly,
ay that any delusion should be prac
presents to the 110 use, proesreu(el itiowcb,e the duty of every
scrupulously to examine every petition he
House, and the Hon. Member for lnrsbwurhy7
signed by 3.373;000
his place, never saw tPhearstopuesiwitias laid on the floor of this
naotpneotiwtitiinn
the fluor. It was physicallyOlt until it was so laid on
impossible, then, for him to
see all the signatures, or
be in a situation to wary

the House as to the entire accuracy of that petition.—
(Hear, hear.) I state this to show that I was not wil-
lingly a party to any delusion, and that I could not by
possibility avert that with which I was charged. I am
glad I did not allow myself to be led away by that ex-
citement which the Hon. Member presumes I was the
cause of, when he says the veracity of the Committee had
been impugned ; and now, as he has performed hie. duty
as a gentleman and a Member of Parliament, I will per-
form mine, and I tell him that he is in error if he sup-
poses that I cast any imputation on the Committee.—
(Hear, hear.) Having now shown that there was no
foundation for the charge made against me, I have estab-
lished better grounds for the retraction of that charge.