The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-11 00:00:00

man as inviting violent discussion, but he understood him, tha,
f opposing the motion now, it did not shut the door of mercy
,• • , ~• ,f,er„ —( Hear. hear.) On this
ground i e (Mr. AAitonhy ) did net V. ish the motion pressed to
a division, but the question was placed on different grounds
now; the country would read with regret the speech of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Buta (Mr. Wortley), as the
question was now raised not on minute points of evidence, or
the strict rule of justice, hut on that of general policy. The
country was perfectly quiet now,' but a strong feeling existed
among the population on this subject which ought not to be
neglected. The parties for whom mercy was now solicited
had suffered for the last six years punishment of the
severest character; and, 'if he was correctly informed, their
conduct in the colony had been such, as to lead them to a re-
laxation in their favour. In fact, their con•iuct was stated to
be excellent. Their release, therefore, would not at all inter-
fere with the public peace. In conclusion, he must say the
Hon. Member for Finsbury was placed in a difficult position
now, after the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member who
last addressed the House, though he (Mr. Aglionby) confessed
that, in the (first instance, he should have taken the advice of
the Right Hon. Baronet, and not press the matter further at
present.

,Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the Hon. Member for Bute
had represented the speech of the lion. Member for Shrews-
bury as full of acrimony and bitter feeling, and with that
statement he dismissed it. But to that he ( Sir R. 11. Inglis)
would venture to say, there was no expression in it of party
feeling.--(lronical cries of " Hear, hear.") He repeated the
expression that such was the fact. The Hon. Member for
Shretvsbury went no further than this, that the light which led
astray was light from some other place, if not from Heaven ; and
that, after what had been done in the North American colo-
nies, some consideration might be paid to the parties on
whose tehalf was now sot ght the exercise of mercy.—(Cries
of " Hear.") Would any nee deny that the traitors of Canada
were deserving of more consideration than these unhappy men?
The man who had saved Canada—Sir Francis Head—succes-
sive Governments had neglected, while the men who had sup-
ported Papineau had been honoured. No man was more
deep'y persuaded than he (Sir R. Inglis) was of the guilt of
the three persons, whose case was then under consideration.
He had never voted for them before and be should not vote
for them now. He had been pleased with the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, until the last part of it, which certainly did not satisfy
him. It seemed to him to hold out an encouragement for the
repetition of this motion. He (Sir R. Inglis) hoped the
Hon. Gentleman would withdraw .the motion, but if he did
net, he trusted that it would be rejected by a large majority.
Mr. WAKLEY could not see how the Hon. Baronet was
to be satisfied. He had commenced his speech by complaining
of the tone of the Hon. Member for Bute (Mi. S. Wortley)
and he (Mr. Wakley) therefore thought that the Hon. Ba-
ronet, overflowing with the milk of human kindness, was
about to support the motion. But the Hon. Baronet went on
in his criticism, and came to a review of two speeches, one
that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and
the other, the speech of the Right Hon. Member for Edin-
burgh. Both speecness pleased him, with the exception of one
portion ; and what nortion was that? Why the one indica-
tion of a merciful and humane feeling on the'part of the Right
Hen. Baronet. Was that the position which the represent:
ative of the Church of England ought to assume in that
House? He (Mr. Wakley) was most astonished and con-
-ounded at the spectacle he had witnessed. He had supposed
that the Hon. Baronet would be the first to advocate the
merciful motion which had been made, but he was mistaken.
Now he would rejoice if he could bring back the feeling of the
House to the impression which was created by the conclusion of
the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. He
( Mr. Wakley) was at the time sitting by the side of his Hon.
Colleague, and he then remarked to him that he
feared subsequent discussion. He literally feared
what would transpire during this debate. The Right Hon.
Gentleman wanted a vote of that House to justify him in
keeping Frost and his companions expatriated. It was
absurd to talk of the perogative of the Crown—it was, in
fact, an appeal to the discretion of the Minister. It was the act
of the Minister—and the Home Minister. He considered that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had made a fair speech. There
was nothing to complain of either in its tone or
temper. It was what they might expect from
a Secretary for the Home Department. The Right Hon.
Baronet was placed in a situation of great responsibility. He
had in a great measure the conservation of the country under
his especial control. It would be a very great exercise of
discretion on the part of the Home Secretary to recommend
that persons charged with such offences and found guilty should
be liberated and restored to their country. His Hen. Friend
had taken special care not to go into the merits of the question.
His Hon. Friend deprecated such offences as those of which the
parties had been found guilty. He spoke of them as cases of
the worst character, and he reminded the House that out of a
million of the petitioners who had addressed the House on the
subject, none of them attempted to justify the conduct of
Frost and his companions, but the millions of petitioners were
of opinion that if the prisoners hid been in a higher station
of life, arid had had money at their disposal, and had
carried their case to another House, they would never have
been transported.--( Cries of " Oh, oh.) He was only speak-
ing of what was the opinion of the petitioners, and what was
the impression which universally prevailed. They all knew
what was the decision upon technical grounds. which was came
to about four years ago in another place. What was the state
of the country now ? Was there sedition abroad ? Were
there any signs of rebellion—was there discontent to any great
extent? No nothing of the sort; but if there were public
commotion, and public agitation and discontent, all of them
would immediately say, "Why you are absolutely encouraging
rebellion hy calling back these men." This then in his opinion
was t'ae period for the Crown to exercisee—er rather
for the Right Hon. Gentleman to exercise— his
discretion. 'I he speeches however he had heard this night had
thrown new difficulties in the way, and he found in that House
the bitterest enemies of Frost, Jones and Williams. Did Hon.
Gentlemen recollect that the Worthing people had no repre-
sentatives in that House ? That was a fact they never would
remember. Millions were asking for the liberation of three
men whom they believed had been unlawfully transported.
Well then, he asked, was there never to be any concession to
popular feeling in that House? Were they always resolved to
treat the petitions of the people with indifference, con'empt,
and scorn? In his opinion they were absolutely en-
dangering the existence of the constitution and the
country by such a course of proceeding. The Heine
Secretary was now relieved from his responsibili' y by
the speeches of the lion. I?arenet the Member for
Oxford, the Hon. and Learned Mern,ber for Bute, and the
Right Hon Member for Edinburgh. He (Mr. Wakley)
felt that it would be no advantage to prolong this discussion,
and he therefore resumed his seat by imploring the Right Hon,
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Deportment, not to care
oae straw for what Hon. Gentlemen had said, who were de-
sirous of excluding from the country these unfortunate men.
He called them unfortunate, for he considered all unfortu-
nate. He begged him again to consider the case, with re-
ference to the legal objection that was taken on the trial, and
maintain the principle, that whenever a doubt existed, the
benefit of that doubt should be given to the accused.
Mr. G. W. HOPE said the Hon. Baronet, the Member
for Oxford, had stated that the persons convicted of rebellion
in Canada had been permitted tt, ierive honours by the Govern-
ment of the country. Now ' e assured his Hon. Friend
that such was not the case. No persons convicted of being
engaged in that rebellion had been employed at all. The lead-
ing -es i sorts connected with that rebellion had undoubtedly
been allowed to return to their native country. They returned
under no special pardon of the Crown, they returned under a
flaw in the mode of proceeding, by which the conviction win
held not to be available against them. There was no pardon,
therefore, asked for, and of course no pardon was granted.
Lord JOHN MANNERS thought there was an erroneous
impression abroad, that the opinions of the unfranchised were
tr _led with contempt by that House; but he was sure tha'
to t various arguments which had been used, and the speeches
nich had been spoken on that occasion, would convince people
out of doors that there was no indisposition on the part of
Parliament to listen personally to the representations of those
classes. His chief object in rising, however, was to express
his regret at a considerable portion of the able and eloquent
speterels of the Hon. Member for Edinburgh. He (Lord J.
111at7krs) did not know whether it arose from a peculiar
orga :sation of his own mind ; but he had an impression that
a re sgence to historical facts tended to promote the principles
of Chartism rather than to militate against them. But the
Hon. Member for the city of Edinburgh, after eloquently
denouncires the crime of which these unfortunate men
had been found guilty, proceeded t o say, that it fell
very little short of the crimes committed against
the State in past ages. The comparison, however, in
his opinion was decidedly too severe, and certainly the crime
which these unfortunate men 'had committed would by no
means justify such a punishment as being hanged, drawn, and
quartered, which was the punishment inflicted upon offenders
against the state in times gone by.
Mr. NI ACA ULAY explained that he never thought of con-
veying to the House the impression that he was favourable to
such a mode of punishment.
. . .

Lord J. MANNERS continued—At all evants, the Plight
Hon. Gentleman drew no distinction between the offence of
Mr. Frost and that of state criminals of a former age. That
House, last year, voted a sum of money as a tribute to
the memory of Hampden. Now, what did Hamp-
den do ? Why, that gentleman, like Mr. Frost,
levied war against the constituted authorities of the country.
Many people said Hampden's cause was a perfectly legitimate
one, but that was a question of opinion. There were many
who thought Mr. Frost's case a perfeo' ly legitimate one. He
would go further than even many Gentlemen in that House,
who were prepared to vote money towards erecting a statute to
Oliver Cromwell—(Cheers)—for the purpose of encouraging
the efforts of future generations.—( Cheers.) Now, he pro-
teited against this system of palliating the conduct of regicides
in one age, and dealing harshly with the conduct of those
vvl-o excited rebellion in another—it was a dangerous and fatal
policy, a policy to which he could never lend himself. He
was prepared to oppose any .such proposition as that
to which he had alluded, and in all consistency he was
justified in not voting for the proposition of the Honourable
Member for Finsbury.—( Hear, hear).
Sir It. PEEL said that nothing more than the speech of his
Hon. Friend behind him had tended to confirm his impression
of the fatal consequences which must result from a discussion,
in a'populsr assembly like that House, of the policy shown in
the exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown. The Hon
Member for Finsbury had declared that there was a strong ien-
pression among millions of their fellow-subjects that the sen-
tence passed upon Mr. Frost was illegal, and had that party
btoeetnh possessed
ou e of wealth,
Lord
s it would have enabled him to appeal
who would have overruled it. But
surely if there were a quest:on about the legality of the sen-
tence, that House was not the proper tribunal to decide it,
But the Crown had taken every opportunity of obtaining the
best legal advice upon this point, and certainly there was
nothing on the ground of informality in the proceedings to
justify a remission of the punishment. But, said the lion.
Gentleman, is there to be no concession to popular feeling?
Most certainly not, in a case of this kind, where the popular
Opinion was altogether erroneous. If that impression was an
improper one, or was decidedly unjust, that House ought to
resist it, whatever might be the number of persons who pre-
sented petitions in its favour. The question then for them to
consider was this, namely, was this popular impression a
correct one or not ? For his part he was decidedly
of opinion that it was incorrect. Ile was net
founding that opinion upon any impression of his, rev n
but upon the decision of the highest legal authority. The
whole of the 15 Judges bad considered this question, and had
deeide.l against it. The judgment had been delivered by a
man who, of 411 others, was the most forbearing and the roost
disposed to give a prisoner the benefit of any doubt or advan-
tage in his favour—he meant Lord Chief Justice Tindal—and,
in fact, the whole of the 15 judges were:influenced by a sincere
desire to give the prisoners every advantage. The Judges de-
cided ensaiast the allegation relating to the informality of the
delivery. But they not only decided upon this point they went
further, and considered what the effect would have been had
th.. informality of the delivery been taken at the et-epee time.
Now, what would have been the effect, in point of law, of the
objectioa, urged had it been taken at the proper time? Would
it have been the remission of the sentence, or would it hive
been the delivery of the prisoners from all punishment?
Not at all. It would merely have had the effect
of postponing the trial, in order that the Crown might
41,r- an opportunity of correcting the informality, and
seriing tia4. neticeti according to law. But the Judges
decided that !Ito ollatiatio4 "On' Op shoie, a pPrfeol
good one, and therefore the Crown had a pet carry
it into effect. 'vow, he apprehended he was correctly statieg
the legal decision of the Judaes upon this case. This popular
iiiipi•eaSion, than, of the millions was erroneous, and it was
the province of the. Hoßse, nohtitbatandhl the FQt4iops yillicjl

had been presented, to resist it. Nothing could be more Buh-
-1 versive of the first principles of the administration of the law,
than !het the Rouse should bens!. to Impeller opinion in a
matter of that kind—that popular opinion being at the same
time founded upon wrong and erroneous grounds. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury did not wish to throw any impediment
in the way of the Crown; and he went so far as to admit
that it would have been left more free and open in the exercise
of its prerogative had that diseu=sion not taken place. Why,
that would be the natural result of the discussion, for it was
difficult to exclude party considerations from discus-
sions of this nature; and the debate- would
rather prejudice than prove of advantage to these
unfortunate men. Some allusion hod been made to
the insurrectionists of Canada. Now what had they to do in
this discussion with Canada? In that ease there were no im-
pediments to the exercise of the free pardon of the Crown, and
i; only showed that the Crown had not been indisposed to exerts:
cise its prerogative whsn it could do so without subverting the
ends of justice,. Now he could not invite tl.e Hon. Gentleman
to withdraw this motion, nor hold out any hopes of a cumpro-
mion He thought the Crown ought not to retire from a dis-
cussion of that kind with any sort of understateling, ex-
pressed or implied, as to the course it would hereaf:er take.
He thought it ought to be left unfettered in its discretion
When his Right lion. Friend would not undertake to say that
under no circumstances and at no time the mercy of the Cross n
should not be extended to those unfortunate men, he did not
intend to influence the Hon. Gentleman in the course he might
think proper to adopt. The debate upon this subject ought to
close in its being distinctly understood that the Crown was
under no obligation whatever to take any other course than
that which the ends of strict justice might dictate.
If the House persisted in carrying this question to a divi-
sion, he maintained that the relationship of the Crown to
the House would he inverted.—(Hear, hear.) It would be
most difficult for the Crown to exercise its prerogative if the '
House of Commons sh iuld arrogate to itself the power by
the motion before the Reuses And what would be their con-
dition ? In this case Frost was a man of property—a man
of intelligence —( Hear, hear)—a man who stood in a special
relation to the Crown, having been intrusted with a Com-
mission for the preservation of the public peace ; arid if the
House were to act in compliance with the petitions that were
presented to it in such cases, they would be placing themselves
in a very awkward position with regard to the Crown—they
would, in • fact, be attempting to deprive the Sove-
reign of the prerogative of mercy. And he could
hardly cenceive a case in which the House of Commons
might not be warranted in a similar interference, if they
agreed to the motion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury.
He had no wish to bring the facts relating to Frost before the
House, because the very bringing of those facts by the Minister
of the Government appeared to bring an impediment in the
exercising of the prerogatives of mercy by the Crown, but in
this case it was hut right that the facts should be brought
under the consideration of the Honourable Members'; and what
were those facts? That a magistrate made an attack upon a
peaceable town with a number of armed men, which attack
was the signal for an innovation by the multitude. The pub-
lic bridge was to be thrown down, the mail was to be stopped,
and the stoppage of the mail was to be indicated by the burn-
ing of the town of Newport, which was in the possession of
rebels, against the authority of the Crown, and that
after six years' imprisonment, the House of Commons was to
come forward and petition the Crown to exercise its preroga-
tives. He should deprecate the establishment of a precedent
t that.—( Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Finsbury thought fit, in his good sense, after what had
been said, not to press his motion to a division, he must not
suppose that the Government had now entered into any obliga-
tion whatever, passive or implied, with respect to the future
exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Crown. He
agreed with his Right Hon. Friend, that that must be left to
the Crown ; and he thought that it would not be wise, either
in the discussion or in the division, to hold out any expectation
of mercy.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. PHILIPS said he had not intended to say a word
in common with the subject, hut as several numerously signed
petitions in favour of the present motion had been forwarded
to him from the town which he had the honour to represent,
he thought that after what had fallen from the Hon, Member
for Finsbury (not then in his place), he should not be justified
if he did not make a few remarks. He denied, that in taking
the course ho was bound to take in reference to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury—that was to say. that in voting
against his proposal, that he was treating with scorn the peti-
tions of the people. He had no such intention. His (Mr.
Philips's) belief was, that in his judgment he was right in the
position which he was about to take with respect to this case.
He might be wrong, and so might they, and he denied that
in voting contrary to their petition, that he was treating them
with scorn, contempt, and derision. He denied every one of
those imputations in tote. He had merely risen in order to
justify himself in those expressions, because he conceived that
they were made without any proper founda ion. With regard to
the justice of the sentences, he considered the security of the
public peace required that they should be carried into execu-
tion and not be altered. In conclusion. he would say, he
believed that there were several Hon. Members in that House,
who, whilst they intended voting against the motion, had not
the slightest intention to treat the petitioners with scorn.—
(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. P. HOWARD hoped that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury would not insist upon a devision.—(Hear, hear.)
lie trusted that he would be satisfied with having brought the
ease, with his usual ability, before the House, and he (Mr.
Howard) thought that the House would be of opinion that
that Hon. Member would not be advancing his case by forcing
the House to what would appear an adverse division.—( Hear,
hear.) 'He (Mr. Howard) had been entrusted with a peti-
Clod which had been numerously signed, and prayed for the
release of ; the individuals tamed by the Hon. Member. He
willingly bore tribute to the becoming and decorous man-
ner in - which the working classes had advocated their
case ; they had entered into no combinations ; they had
in the most decorous manner demanded from the
mayor of Carlisle the use of the town-hall for the purpose of
holding a meeting to adopt a petition, praying her Majesty to
order the release of Frost, Williams, and Jones. Their peaceable
conduct in the advocacy of their ease was worthy of the greatest
praise. He thought, that from the very feet of their not hav-
ing a direct representation in that 'House, their petitions
,hould, in the words of his Noble Friend, be treated with at-
tentien and respect. But deeming that it was not proper
kir that House to interfere between the Crown and the ex-
ercise of its prerogatives, except in very extraordinary cases,
he could not give his support to the motion of the Honourable
Memter for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley). He was anxious
to say so much to the House for the purpose of showing
that he did not treat the opinions and wishes of petitioners to
that House with disrespect, and for the purpose of bearing at
the same time a tribute to the orderly conduct which now dis-
tinguished the working classes of this country. Be wished
also to say that of all the petitions which he had seen bearing
upon this question, there was not one in which the petitioners did
not express their abhorrence of those crimes of which Frost,
Williams, and Jones had been convicted, and it was only
because they conceived that these persons had undergone con-
siderable punishment, that they supplicated for the mercy of
the Crown. He quite agreed with his Noble Friend,
that it would be extraordinary for that House, at
the same time that they condemned modern conspirators,
to erect anything lik e a memorial to Oliver Crom-
well, who had assisted in bringing his Sovereign to the block.
—( Hear, hear.) He had risen for the purpose of showing
that he entertained sincere respect for the opinions and feelings
of the working classes of this country; but, as ho had before
said, as this motion went so far as to interfere with the Crown's
prerogative, he should be obliged to vote against the Hon.
Member for Finsbury.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Divide,
divide.") The lion. Member proceeded, amid loud cries of
"Divide, divide," to state the, he considered the Commons
of England, if they refused to grant the request of the peti-
tioners, would at least have treated them with respect.
Lord J. RUSSELL would say a few words with reference
to the speech of his lion. Friend who had sat down, and other
Members who had taken a similar line of argument, and
had found fault with his Honourable and Learned Friend the
Member for Bute, for stating circumstances which seemed, in
his opinion, and in the opinion of other Hon. Members of this
House, adverse to a favourable consideration of the subject by
:hat House. He considered that it was quite impossible to dis-
cuss any motion of this kind without considering what was the
nature of the offence he was cornmitting. It was quite impos-
sible that lion. Members should enter into a debate of this
=oft and not state upon the one hand those circumstances
which they thought tended to extenuate the crime ; and upon
. the other hand those circumstances which, in the opinion of
other Hots. Members, would make it inconsistent with the du-
ties of the prerogative of the Crown to show any extension of
mercy. Was that a desirable course? It was impossible on
the one hand to avoid a discussion which must bring out the
, unfavourable circumstances of the case ; and, upon the other
hand, was it desirable that Parliament should be considered as
adverse to the extension of mercy by the introduction in
the debate of circumstances tending to aggravate the
crime. The Hon. and Learned Member for Bute had
stated circumstances, as far as he remembered, most fatally.
He felt himself obliged to state (and this was one of the in-
conveniences of this sort of debate), that except for the differ-
ence of opinion of the Judges upon a technical point, the Home
Secretary of that time (Lord Normanby) had seen no reason
why the punishment of death should not be inflicted on the
prisoners ; he thought it necessary, however, it being a great
question of State, and not a mere ordinary ease of criminal law,
to:consult the opinions of his colleagues, and lay the case before
the judges. He (Lord John Russell) did not recollect, ex-
cept in one point, that there was any difference of opinion
among the Judges as to the justice of the punishment. He
felt obliged to say this much, because his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Bute, had been censured for expressing
that opinion. His lion. Friend the Member for Edinburgh
(Mr. Macaulay) had also been censured for making a similar
statement of his opinion ; he must say that same extraordinary
misunderstanding seems to have been made with reference to
his Hon. Friend, by his Hon. and Noble Friends the Members
or Shrewsbury and Newark ( Mr. Disraeli and Lord J. Manners),
What his lion. Friend said was, that there might be a case
where the punishment was excessive, and in that case Parlia-
ment might interfere, and he gave for example the 3ionmouth
rebellion. It was well known that in that case three or four
hundred persons were executed, and among the rest a lady ad-
vanced in years, not because she had been instrumental in fo-
menting the rebellion, but because she had harboured and
given refuge to one of the parties. In cases of such extreme
cruelty and injustice he (Lord John Russell) could conceive
Parliament were bound to interfere. When Hon. Gentlemen
would interfere in
.a case of this description, he begged them to
recollect that the laws of this country were executed with
mercy ; they were living under a constitution to
which tyranny was at least a stranger.—(Bear, hear.) The
only question, then, to consider was, whether questions of that
kind could be disposed of in a popular assembly, or vsla ther
they would net be hotter left to the mature opinion of the
Secretary of State—the adviser of the Crown. For his part,
lies wished to oppose no obstacle to the consideration he
thought it was the duty of the Secretary of State to give. it.
But all these circumstances might be more impartially consi-
dered in that manner than if discussed in a popular manner
in a debate in Parliament, where some Members would take
a more lenient, -and others a more aggravated view of the
case. For those reasons, arid those only, he would give his
vote against the proposition of the Hen. Member for
Finsbury.
Lo.d FRANCIS EGERTON perfectly concurred in the
opinion expressed by the Noble Lord, who had just sat down.
lie also perfectly agreed with the opinion expressed by the
Right lion. Baronet, at the head of the Government, that
such subject= as the present were not fit matters for discussion.
Mr. 'l'. DUN COM BE c insidered that he had been hardly
dealt with in the course of this debate. It hail been said by
Hen. Members, that the present motion would be an interfer-
ence with the prerogative of the Crown. Why was that
principle exhibited fur the first time this evening? Why was
it not exhibited when his Bost. and Learned Friend, the
Member for Bath ( Mr. Roebuck) brought forward his
motion three years ago, moving an buelble address to the
Crown, praying it to extend a full and free pardon to all the
Canadian rebels ? Not one word was then said ab:lut inter-
fering with the prerogative of the Crown. What is this pre-
rogative of the Crown ? Is it to be kept as a lx.uble—
a plaything—or a fire-work to he discharged or brought
forward at the will of the Minister? lion. Members heard
nothing of this prerogative then.— ( Hear, hear.) There
was nothing said then -about the improper eendeet
of the Minister, either by word or action --to
express er imply the determination of the advisers of the Crown
43 to the cheese they would pursue in advising the Crown, Why
was not this brought forward with raference to the eanadian
rebels? It was expressly understood upon that occasion what
course would be adopted, by the Ministers of that day. His
Hon. and Learned Friend knew what would be the result, and
he said at the time that 119 was vorf;;;:tly satisfied

saw they would be released, and.he would not therefore trouble
the House with any further remarks. And, continued the
Hon. I,lember, everybody in the country knew there would be
a release, and they were released. All he asked was that the
same weight and measure should be dealt out to the inhabitants
of Waleeas to the French Canadians. He considered also that
he had been unfairly treated by the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bute, who had dwelt upon the aggravation of the case. The
Learned Solicitor-General, be thought, might answer him well
upon this point. But did he (Mr. Duncombe) press the interfe-
rence of Parliament upon the merits of the case. He said at
the outset that neither he nor the petitioners believed the con-
duct of the parties to be right. He said they were guilty of a
great crime—he said, and- the millions who had signed the pe-
titions had said, that these parties had already received sufficient
punishment. Their conduct has been most exemplary in the
colony to which they have been sent. The Hon. and Learned
Member for Bute had left him (Mr. Duncombe) no option in
consequence of his sanguinary and blood-thirsty speech. He
said that they could not commit a greater outrage on public
opinion than to release those parties. He denied that state-
ment. Had the Hon. Member seen the petition: from Leeds
which he had presented to the Holed that evening, signed by
34,000 persons, headed by the Vicer of Leeds (Dr. Cook)
by twelve members of the Town Council, and by the Board
of Guardians ? He considered that the petition emanating
from Leeds expressed the general feeling of the whole country.
He begged to state that Sir Thomas Philips teceived no severe
wounds whatever; he had cut his finger in the room of an inn,
but he ventured to state that he received no gun-shot or sabre
wound, which would entitle him to receive a pension from the
country. In conclusion he must say, in justice to the peti-
tioners who had entrusted him with the care of their wishes,
and believing that the general feeling of the humane was in
favour of mercy, he would feel it his duty to take the sense of
the House upon his motion.

Mr. OGTAVIUS MORGAN begged to correct a state-
ment of the Honourable Member—Sir Thomas Philips had
been wounded.

Mr. HOPE begged to confirm the statement of the Hon.
Member for Monmouthshire—he had been wounded by a gun
shot wound.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 3l
Against it .
Majority against the inotim —l6s
....
__ _ CASE OF MR. KINDER.

Mr. MARK PHILIPS rose to bring forward his motion,
which was one, he respectfully said, .demanded the attention of
the House, in order to prevent the merchants of this country
from having their commercial affairs improperly interfered
with. All he asked for was to produce the documents which
her Majesty's Government had received respecting the decision
which the Mexican Government had come to respecting the
claims of Mr. Kinder. If those papers were produced he
would not wish to say another word on the subject, but it was
certainly, in his opinion, a very unjust decision, and he thought
that the Government should interfere, as the justice of Mr.
Kinder's claims were very strong. He asked for the produc-
tion of those papers from no selfish motives or grounds, but his
constituents had an interest, whose property was involved,
and he thought a case had been made out for the production of
those papers, for the purpose of satisfying the country.
Ire simply asked for the production of those papers without
Wishing to enter into any extraneous matter. He wished for
those documents in a national point of view as well as in a
commercial point, and be would not say one word more, but
simply read his motion, which was to the following effect :
Copies of all reports or representations by Richard Pakenham,
Esq., her Majesty's. Minister in Mexico, on which ter
Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has founded
the decision he has given on the applications of Mr. Thomas
Kinder.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Hon. Gentleman called on the
Government to interfere with a question of international law.
The facts were simply these :—Mr. Kinder called on the
Mexican Government to decide the point, and the decision
was against him • and, according to every principle of inter-
national law, there was no ground on which the British
Government could interfere, which was laid down
by the highest authority in the land. His Noble
Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs consulted
the highest authority, and his decision on the evidence
was that there was no claim on the Mexican Government for
reparation. As he said before, his Noble Friend the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs came to the same decision that the
Court of Justice had come to, that the claims of Mr. Kinder
were inadmissible.

Mr. M. GIBSON said that, in his opinion, the Right Hon.
Baronet was not at all satisfactory. The Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs did not say that Mr. Kinder had no claim be-
cause the decision of the Mexican Government was against him.
If the Right Hon. Gentleman had founded his ease npon the
sentence pronounced against Kinder in Mexi co, he thought
that a case might be adduced efaetly similar, when the Duke
of Wellington had interfered. The answer of the Secretary
of State was not, however, founded en a foreign tribunal, but
upon the representation of a Minister of State. It was not an
uncommon case, he contended, for the Government to interfere
where a private individual felt aggrieved in reference to
affairs of a like description. Mr. Pakenham may have
been misled, and if Kinder had the report
before him, he could be able at least to see the grounds on
which the decision given against him was founded. Mr.
Kinder was a man of integrity and intelligence, and he thought
his case was one where the Government of this country should
interfere with the Government of Mexico. He saw no reason
why Mr. Kinder should not be told the grounds upon which his
claim was resisted ; and he, therefore, contended that the papers
moved for ought to be laid upon the table of the House.
After a few words from Mr. FORSTER and Mr. Scoiv,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the Hon. Gentleman had masle a
long speech on his view of this subject, and he did not think
it quite fair that such views of the case should be carried out.
He wished to make an objection to the decisions of the
Mexican tribunals, and he hoped the House would not sanction
such a thing. This was a question whether we should inter-
fere with the decision of the Mexican courts, and he was
firmly of opinion that no such interference should take niece.
He should like to know what their courts of justice would say
if a Mexican subject were to ask the Government of his coun-
try to interfe with the legal decisions of this country ? We had
enough upon our hands without doing this; and he did again
hope that the House would not interfere with the decisions of
another country. Suppose that a Mexican subject were to call
upon the Government of his country to interfere with our
Minister for Foreign Affairs—Lord Aberdeen—what would be
the feeling here? He trusted the House would not sanction
the proposed interference by the Hon. Member.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to state that Lord Aberdeen had
founded his opinion upon Mr. Pakenhans's report.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said that when they -had the assurance
they had just heard in reference to this affair, he could but feel
satisfied, but he at the same should say that this was no
matter of minor importance. It involved the purchase of an
estate to the amount of 40,0001., besides which the purchaser
had to pay other dues into other hands. If those were the facts,
he could not tell why the correspondence of Mr. Packenhant
should not be laid upon the table.
Sir R. PEEL said that that was the very point he differed
from the Honourable Member upon. Interference was de-
manded, and the answer of the Queen's Advocate was, that
this country should not interfere. Under those circumstances,
the papers could not be laid upon the table.
The motion was then withdrawn. •

FRAUDULENT VOTES AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he would not trespass upon the
House at this late hour of the night with this subject, but that
he had attempted to de an several times before without effect.
His motion was to this effect—to appoint a " Select Corn•
mittee to inquire into an alleged organized and extensive sys
tern of fraudulent and vexatious objections to the votes of a
great number of duly qualified electors for the Northern Di-
vision of Warwickshire, the Northern Division of Staffordshire,
and certain divisions of other counties."
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped the Hon. Member would not press
his motion at this late hour of the night, for there ought to be
some consideration for Hon. Members who were obliged to at-
tend Committees all day and this House at night.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that if Hon. Members thought
proper to adjourn the motion, they could do so.
Mr. C. BULLER assured the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Newdegate) that the object of his motion would not be attained
without a warm debate ; and ho therefore felt it would be
more convenient for all parties that for the present the
question should not be brought on.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir G. GREY gave notice of his intention to move an
amendment to the effect, that the full question be opened on
inqu
Sir ROBERT PEEL having also expressed himself in
favour of a postponement of the question at that late hour,
Mr. HUME said that he thought it would be better in this
case not to name any particular Committee, but to inquire into
the subject generally.
Sir W. JAMES entirely concurred in the suggestion of the
Hon. Member for Montrose.
Sir R. PEEL said that though he thought the registration
laws required amendment, yet too much burden should net be
laid on the improvement at first.
Mr. C. BULLER then agreed to withdraw his proposed
amendment. •

After some further discussion,
The question that a Select Committee be appointed to in-
quire into the subject generally was put and.tarried.
Mr. SPOONER then moved the House should,take into
consideration the petition of Joshua Toulmin Smith (presented
sth March). . _

moved that an humble address be presented to
her Majesty for copy of an order in council, dated the 7th\day
of September 1838, for regulating within the colonies of
British Guiana, Trinidad, St. Lucia, and Mauritius, re-
spectively, the relative rights and duties of masters and servants.
Copy of a ,ircular dispatch addressed by Lord Glenclg to the
Governors of the Legislative Colonies in the West Indies,
dated the 15th day of September, 1838, transmitting copies of
the said order in counsel, dated the 7th day of September, 1838.
Copy of an order in council, dated Dec. 9th, 1841, abrogating
so much of the order in council, dated the 7th of September
1838, as relates to contracts of service made in Europe.
Copy of an order in council, dated the 4 th day of January,
1313, abrogaing so much of the order in council, dated the
7th day of September, 1833, as relates to contracts of service
made iu North America —Agreed to.
COAL WHIPPERS' BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
SUPPLY.

The report of the Committee of Supply was brought up and
received.

WAYS AND MEANS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he in-
tended to propose that the House do resolve itself into a Corn-
mitteb of the whole House to-morrow, in order to take the
usual vote, so as to pass the Ways and Means' Bill before the
end of the month.

METROPOLITAN BUILDING (No. 2) BILL.
The report of this Bill, after a few words from Mr. FOSTER
against its provisions, and an explanation from Sir J. GRAHAM,
was brought up and received, and the third reading fixed for
that day week.

- SOUTH-SEA COMPANY BILL.
This Bill passed throUgh Committee.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
Iluuse adjourned at One o'clock.

The public are speci,lly informed Lh et a few clays will
complete the entire range of E. Moses and Son's new pre-
mises in Aldgate and the Minories, and that due notice will
be given of the day of opening.
111ANUFACTU LINO WA a:3.—Front statistical returns
officially sought from and rendered by the Messrs. Nicoll,
the Court Drapers, of liege:lt-street, who have lately intro-
duced a new description of cloth into this couetr.u,
entirely
manufactured with Llatua wool, it would appear that " an
extra and liberal payment of wages has imlueed a corres-
ponding and remunerative- exertion on the part of the opera-
tives at the loom; that such rise of wages, more espe,ialft in
the frost of England, was rendered necessary in the 'fest
place by the groat and unexpected demand for this peculiar
fabric—a demand principally raised by the recommendations
it at onoo obtained from the faculty; and that, as it was found
that the men themselves, encouraged by liberal wages- and
short hours, took more than an ordinary interest in the sue
cess of the greeter development of Inch novelty, the highlat
rate of wages has been continued, and the resultl t
almost daily evidence of improvement in this new branch of
cloth-making is observable." It is likwise afact f more
national importance, that the orders to the Messrs. Nicoll
for the f
Llama cloth aro proportionably far greater from the
Continent than in England.
PRICE OF SALMON IN TIIR NORTIL—The Duke of
Richmond's salmon on the Spy are selling at the high ;trice of 2s. Gd.
to Se. a pound in the neighbourhood of the fishing grounds. Sir 11.
IseclEi late tariff has in no way diminished the value of this noble
Stub.--intkernese Canriele