The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-23 00:00:00

IRISH CORPORATIONS.

Mr. .B ARR ON wished to know whether it was the inten-
tion of Government to introduce any measure respecting the
reform of the Corporations of Ireland ?
Mr. LITTLETON said that the same question had been
frequently asked and as frequently answered, particularly du.
ring the last fortnight. He would again state that it certainly
was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce a
measure respecting Irish Corporations.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would move for a
special bill for the regulation of the Corporation of Dublin
the first week of next session.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord MORPETH said he rose again to bring forward his
motion respecting orders of the day—( Cries of " Oh,
oh I") When he brought forward the same motion upon
a former day he did not press it to a division, because
he did not think there was any responsible Government
present. He had then stated the grounds upon which
he recommended to the House the adoption of his motion,
and he therefore did not think it necessary to repeat them upon
the present occasion. If, however, the course he proposed was
advisable on the Ist July, a fortiori it was stronger on the 22d.
The session had now come to a period at which it was essen-
tial that they should get through the business that was before
them, and he would therefore beg leave to move that, for the
remainder of the session, orders of the day should have prece-
dence of motions.

The Earl of KERRY seconded the motion.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said he objected to the proposition of
the Noble Lord, because he thought it would be a gross in-
justice to those, Members who had notices on the books.
Another objection he had to it was, that it would be utterly
impracticable, because it would not be in the power of the
House, if they adhered to the present forms of the House, to
prevent any Hon. Member from bringing forward a motion
upon the order of the day being read.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES trusted the Noble Lord- the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give his countenance
to this motion, which was calculated in every respect to take
away the privileges of the House.
Colonel E VANS considered that if the motion were to pass
it would not only be most unjust, but highly unconstitutional.
He did not apprehend the session was likely to last for mom
than 10 or 12 days longer.—( Hear, hear, and laughtei.)
At all events, the session would not extend beyond
another fortnight, and if the motion were to be adopted, it
would be only adding four days to what Government would
without it have for the purpose of bringing forward their or-
ders ; and he certainly did not think that that consideratioe
ought to induce even Government to wish for this unprece-
dented inroad.
Mr. SHIEL regarded this motion as one brought forward
by one Cabinet Minister, and seconded by another. He
would beg to remind the Noble Lord, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, of what he stated in a speech just before the Easter
recess, viz , as there would be very little business at the close
of the session, they might have a longer Easter recess than
' usual; and he would now ask, was it the fault of Parliament
that there was a pressure of business at this moment ?
Was it the fault of Parliament that the consideration of the
Irish Coercion Bill had been delayed so long?
Sir H. HARDINGE said that it appeared to him that if
Hon. Gentlemen on the side of the House where he was chose
to curtail the length of their speeches, and not to speak so often
they might render the proposal of such a motion quite unne-
cessary. He thought some sort of compromise ought to be
come to, or that the motion ought to be dropped altogether
rather than pressed to a division.
Lord ALTHORP said that what he had stated before the
Easter recess was that the business of the House was then in
a very forward state, therefore that there might be a
longer recess than usual. With regard to the motion now
before the House, unless it were adopted by general
concurrence, in his opinion it would be perfectly useless,
inasmuch as lion. Members would not think themselves bound
by it. He did not think at this period of the session many
notices of practical motions of importance would be given
and if Hon. Gentlemen would consent to withdraw their no-
tices upon abstract questions, the practical business could
be proceeded with. If the House would come to this under-
standing, his opinion was that it would be better for his Noble
Friend not to press the motion.
Mr. HUME hoped the Noble Lord would not even desire to
have such a general understanding as he had alluded to. If even
the motion of the Noble Lord were carried it would not have
the objected desired. He trusted the House would not give
up that right of debate, which every Hon. Member had and
ought to have, of bringing forward a motion whenever
he pleased. He thought the good sense of lion. Members
would prevent them from unnecessarily bringing forward a
long detail.
Mr. LITTLETON could not agree to this motion unless
it met with the general concurrence of the House ; but
as to calling it unconstitutional, he really did not think
that it deserved that appellation.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
At the same time he certainly considered that there should be
a general understanding that orders of the day should be pro-
ceeded with as quickly as possible.
Mr. WALLACE could not agree in the propriety of the
motion. He thought the Members of the Government ought
to make up their minds to carry forward the Orders of the Day
speedily, or to remove them altogether.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that it seemed to him per-
fectly clear that no private bill which had not
already been read a second time could be got through this
Session, and it would certainly expedite things very much if
Hon. Members generally would put their shoulders to the
wheel, with a view to get rid of the mass of orders of the day
that loaded the paper. .

Lord MORISETH said he was certainly unwilling to with.;
draw his motion, and the only thing that would induce him to
do so, would be a promise on the part of the House, t...p
orders of the day should take precedence of motions on3vjrr
day except Thursday.—( Cries of " Oh, oh.")
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when; t !!,
appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the motion —4o
COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY.

Mr. KENNEDY rose to propose his motion relative to
ae expense of Commissions at present existing, and said
chat after what had transpired in the House he did not insist
upon pressing his motion, his object being to elicit information
on the subject, and to procure the discontinuance of such is
were unnecessary, especially the Commission
of the fowthrheßueir thelding
Churches, which had already cost three millions and
a half of money. Again, the slow progress Cor-
poration Commission had occasioned great dissatisfaction in
the public mind, and it was proper to enquire in what
manner this Commission was to be ride
and
report ought not to be made without loss of time. He con-
chided by moving that a Select Committe be appointed
sevetrha?. ser-to consider the expenses
e e incurred_ttaie
oalthlder Commis-
vices rendered towtithhe a
‘,countryjewtn
the
ededr
of Inquiry,
isctohnetinuance of such
Com-
missions
soisosnhsanllobweeflOiusntidngu;nnecessary or inexpedient, particularly that
or
i‘biuri.ld
ii
ingu
.i‘a
idEditisoencaolndchedurcthhees.
motio. He had, during the
last session, moved for returns of the expenses attendant on
these commissions, and was of opinion that an inquiry should
be entered into, to ascertain whether or not the public money
was uselessly expended, and the time of the Conunissionera

4.1
frittered away. Though he seconded the motion, he did not
believe that the Hon. Member who now brought it forward
expected that a Committee should be granted ; but still it
was to be hoped that the Noble Lord ( Althorp) would see the
necessity of instituting some inquiry between this and the next

session.

Lord ALTHORP concurred with the Hon. Member for
Middlesex, and admitted that there appeared to be more time
than necessary spent -by some Commissions in carrying on
their inquiries. In his opinion, the best mode was not to pay
for these Commissions by time, but to give a certain sum as
a remuneration for the inquiry, and that was the course acted
upon by the present Government. It was true that the Cor-
poration Commission expended more time than had been cal-
culated on ; but then it was an extensive question, and it was
desirable that their report, which would be returned against
"the next session, should be as full and satisfactory as possible.
Some of the other. Commissions had subjects as extensive to
enter upon ; but even so, it still was desirable to make it the
interest, as well as the duty, of the Commissioners, not to
spend unnecessary time in their investigations.
Colonel EVA NS hoped that when the report of the Com-
mission of the Corporate Inquiry was laid before them, that
any measure founded upon it would not be hurried through the
House ; but that Members should be allowed to make them-
selves acquainted with the details.
Sir HENRY HARD INGE thought it would be well that
any future Commissions which might be appointed should be
more carefully selected, as regarded those who formed them.
Some complaints had been made of improper persons having
been placed on these commissions, and as it appeared by
some of the reports, these complaints seemed not to be ill-
founded. The value of the reports must, in a great degree,
depend upon the character of those by whom they were made.
Mr. O'CONNELL was of opinion that there was another
ingredient still more necessary to render these'commissions
effective, and that was the vesting them with greater powers
than they possessed at present. They should have authority
to examine on oath. At present their authority was of a very
doubtful nature, and if this want had not baffled their efforts,
it had at least detracted much from their efficiency. Greater
powers were peculiarly necessary for this commission to enable
them to meet the connivance and contrivance by which corpo-
rate bodies were known to be characterized, and that of which
the Hon. and Gallant Member complained, or rather the com-
plaints to which he alluded, were owing to this want of power
in the Commissioners on the one hand, and the capability of
concealment by the corporations on the other.—( Hear, hear. )
To prevent this the Commissioners should have authority to
examine on oath, and to commit for contempt.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had the honour, when
the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was Se-
cretary for the Home Department, to be appointed as the head
of a Commission, which for the last three years, had acted
without any remuneration. He could state that the Commis-
sion of Municipal Inquiry had been most carefnlly selected.
To be sure, notwithstanding all the pains which bad been taken
in making the selection, it was impossible but that some persons
not duly qualified may have been chosen, but as a body they
were unexceptionable. The labours they had to perform were
very extensive, and the inquiry such as had no parallel since
the making of the Doomsday Book in the time of the Con-
queror.
Sir R. PEEL considered the motion a very proper one,
and though it could not be proceeded with in the present, be
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would renew it in the next session.
He thought the proposal for inquiring into the services ren-
dered by the Commissioners was too vague. If he were to sug-
gest an instruction to the proposed Committee, it should be to
ascertain what practical improvements they recommended, and
what would be the best mode of carrying them into effect.
With regard to the appointment of Commissioners, it was a
matter which should be always undertaken with great caution.
The House should avoid contracting a habit of referring mat-
ters too frequently to Commissions, lest it should throw the
duties that ought to be performed by itself upon others, and
Members would find themselves, when they came to legislate
upon those matters which had been the subject of inquiry, less
competent than if they had themselves entered into the investi-
gation. It was difficult to frame any general rule by which
they could be guided as to those Commissions ; but it was to
be hoped that the House would not indulge in them too fre-
quently. It was better for the purpose of legislation to mix
up with the principle a knowledge of the details.
Mr. WILK S said that the slow manner in which these
commissions proceeded, had produced great dissatisfaction.
Mr. KENNEDY, in withdrawing his motion, said that the
only object of the Building of Churches' Commission, was to
people the country with architectural abortions.—( A laugh.)
With regard to the Law Commission, he had nothing to say
against its efficiency.
Leave having been granted to withdraw the motion,
Mr. LITTLETON moved for leave to bring in a bill to
continue the several acts relating to the importation and keep-
ing of arms in Ireland.
In answer to a question from Sir R. PEEL,
Mr. LITTLETON said that it was intended the proposed
Act should remain in force until the end of the next session.
After a few words from Messrs. Ruthven, Peel, and O'Con-
nell, leave was granted.
Mr. HUME moved that copies of the report of Messrs.
Villiers and Bowring on Foreign Commercial Relations, and
of the reports from the Commissioners of Inquiry into the
Excise, be laid before this House, for the use of the Members
of the House.
Mr. POULETT THOMSON said the reports were
printed, and would be circulated amongst the Members.
On the motion of Mr. HUME, an order was made for re-
turns of certain papers relative to the arrest of Mr. Peter
Gordon, at Ramnad ( East Indies), on the 27th Dec. 1827.
Lord SANDON moved for copies of all correspondence
between the Board of Trade and the Board of Customs or
Excise, on the subject of extending to inland towns the privi-
lege of bonding or warehousing.
Sir R. VYVYA N seconded the motion.
Mr. P. THOMPSON said the subject would be brought
fully under the discussion of the House to-morrow night.
The papers would not elucidate it, as it was a question of
principle, independently of which, they were not papers of a
description-which the Noble Lord was entitled to ask for.
After a short conversation, on the recommendation of Lord
A LTHORP the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. O'DWYER moved the appointment of a select com-
mittee to inquire into the case of Colonel Bradley, and report
thereon. Colonel Bradley. yas, in his opinion, a much injured
man

Lord A L THORP said it was useless to appoint a committee
at this period of the session, as it would be most improbable
they would report in due time.
Mr. O'CONNELL concurred that it would be more advis-
able to postpone the subject to on early day next session.
Mr. HUME and Mr. O'DWYER thought that no further
postponement should take place, and that any committee to be
appointed would make a report at a short day.
Mr. Secretary RICE said, that independently of the period
of the session, there were twenty-six committees now sitting,
and it would be most difficult to procure a sufficient attendance.
Mr. ELLICE allowed that there were hardships in the
case of Colonel Bradley, but was apprehensive, that as for
twenty years, during various Administrations, it had not been
thought practicable to give him any relief, that the appoint-
ment of a committee at present could not be productive of any
advantageous result. If, however, the Hon. Gentleman would
withdraw his motion, he (Mr. Ellice) would look into the cir-
cumstances of the case, in order to ascertain whether there was
any one of which a favourable view might be taken.
Mr. O'DWYER consented to withdraw his motion, and re-
commended that at least Colonel Bradley should be reinstated
in his rank.
Mr. ELLICE (as we understood the Right Hon. Gentle..
man) did not dissent from the recommendation.
. COURT OF CHANCERY IN IRELAND.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, after some observations
.which were totally inaudible, moved that the House should re-
solve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider
of compensation to officers of the Court of Chancery in Ire-
land, for the losses they might sustain by the Bill for the
amendment of the practice of that Court.
Mr. HUME was of opinion, that before the House consented
to go into the proposed Committee, they should have some
information laid before them as to the amount of compensation
which it would be reasonable to adjudge.
Mr. O'REILLY supported the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL described the Bill for the Amendment
of the Practice of the Irish Court of Chancery as a most im-
portant measure, and one calculated to diminish expense and
delay ; and maintained that those who suffered by that Bill
were entitled to compensation.
Mr. F. BARING stated that inquiry should be made of
the Lords of the Treasury as to the amount of compensation
which was due to the officers in question; and that when that
amount was ascertained, it should be laid before Parliament.
Mr. H. GRATTAN supported the motion, and hoped that
no delay would be allowed to take place in compensating those
who were sufferers by the Bill for the Amendment of the Irish
Court of Chancery.
Colonel PE RCEVAL supported the motion, and adverted
to the case of a friend of his, the Examiner of the Court of
Chancery in Dublin, who had given a large sum of money
for his office, and ought to be compensated for the loss of it.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR was opposed to all compensation; for
he was of opinion that a Reformed Parliament should resist
all undue taxation, to which he considered that the present
proposition would lead.
Mr. LYNCH observed, that the subject for the House to
decide upon at present, was not the amount of compensation
that ought to be granted, but to consider whether there should
be any compensation at all.
Mr. O'CONNELL, in further maintenance of the motion,
stated that one individual paid down no less a sum than
10,500/. for his situation. It would be too bad if such a per-
son should be deprived of his office by an act of the Legisla-
ture without compensation.
The House then went into Committee, and the resolution
v: as agreed to. The report was ordered to be brought up to-
morrow.
Mr. HUME suggested that as those offices were useless,
they should be bought out and out, and abolished altogether.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said their object was
to diminish emoluments rather than to abolish offices.
SUPPRESSION 01? DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)
BILL.
Lord A LTH ORP mOved the order of the day for the House
going into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. BARRY wished to take that opportunity of present-
ing a petition against the Bill, from a parish in the county of
Cork.

'Mr. HUME. said that t. he Bill militated so much against
the general principles of civil liberty, that he felt it his duty
raOst strongly to protest against it. Certain cla.m.e-.; took away
all-responsibility, than which in his (pram nothiks could be

' more dangerous. Accountability was the best, in fact the
only sure, guarantee of human conduct.
After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. GRATTAN, and
Mr. ROCHE, the House went into Committee.
Mr O'CONNELL said that there were two causes, one
of which re-enacted, the other of which repealed. As far as
he was concerned, he proposed to let these two clauses pass
without opposition, and then to bring up certain clauses which
would enact what he considered necessary, and repeal that
which he looked upon as unconstitutional and obnoxious.
Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR cared not what others might
propose to do, he would oppose every word of every clause of
the Bill.—(Laughter.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said, supposing the Ist clause, a re-
enacting one, to pass, his Hon. Friend would not surely op-
pose the second, which went to limit the powers of the act.—
(Loud laughter.)
Mr. BARROW said he should heartily support every pro-
vision of the Bill which went to suppress agrarian distur-
bance, but he must oppose that part of it which interfered
with the right of petition. This he never would assent to.
Dr. Doyle, and some of the best and purest men of his per-
suasion, had all of them inculcated the necessity of a measure
for suppressing prmdial disturbance. The present, with the
exception he had alluded to, was a protective, and not a coer-
cive measure.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR observed, that if Dr. Doyle (greatly
as he revered his memory), and all the Catholic Clergy of Ire-
land, were to approve a measure which his conscience told
him to be unnecessary and unjust, he should still oppose that
measure as vigorously as he now did.—( Hear, hear.)
On the question being put, that the first clause (which re-
news the Bill for one year) be agreed to.
Mr. RUTHVEN protested against any renewal, even for
a day.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said he would divide the House.
The gallery was accordingly cleared, and the House divided,
when there appeared--
For the clause . 9O
Against it
Majority —69
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. RUTHVEN proposed that the Bill then in force for
the suppression of disturbances should be read, clause by clause.
He was sure that many Honourable Gentleman were not aware
of the objectionable nature of the clauses which it was pro-
posed to re-enact.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR supported the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he should bring before the House
all the objectionable clauses, and he therefore thought it was
unnecessary to read the whole of the Bill.
Mr. RUTHVEN then withdrew his motion, and it was agreed
that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
On the second clause being put,
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he should propose an altera-
tion in that part of the 11th clause of the Bill now in force,
which provided that no meeting to petition Parliament should
be held in any proclaimed district, without ten days' notice to
the Lord Lieutenant, and without his express sanction. That
provision was not only unnecessary, but plainly unconstitu-
tional. He did not object to the giving of ten days' notice,
but he saw no necessity that such meetings should have the
sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. By the Ist and 2d of Wil-
liam I V., which embodied all the Whiteboy Acts, it was pro-
vided that a person making use of inflammatory language, to
excite any one to the commission of disturbances, or any White-
boy offence, should be liable to transportation. They had,
therefore, a very good safeguard against the introduction of
exciting topics at meetings convened to petition Parliament on
subjects connected with the Church and State. By the pre-
vious notice of the meeting the Government would be enabled
to send their policemen and note-takers to the assembly, and
the law left the power of adopting a legitimate course for
punishing any one who was bold enough to make use of in-
flammatory language. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by
moving the repeal of that part of the 11th clause which related
to the holding of public meetings.
Mr. LITTLETON thought it inexpedient to agree to the
proposition of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. No practical
inconvenience had been hitherto experienced from the opera-
tion of the clause. Although no public meetings had been held
in Kilkenny, yet numerous petitions had been signed, and sent
up to Parliament. It would be dangerous to allow meetings
in proclaimed districts, without the approbation of the Lord
Lieutenant, as it was clear that declamatory language might
be used, for instance, on tithes--which would tend to sanction
the outrages which it was their object to repress.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed that petitions which were not
agreed to at public meetings were considered of little value.
Lord A LTHOR P said that the discussion of political sub-
jects in disturbed districts would increase the prevailing ex-
citement to a more alarming degree. With regard to the
punishment of a person using inflammatory language at a
meeting, it must be recollected that it would frequently be a
matter of great difficulty to procure a conviction.
Mr. RONA YNE supported the motion.
Mr. SHE IL said that the Tories bad never proceeded so
far in their arbitrary measures as the present Government.
The Government was now about to introduce a clause of such
severity as the Tories, when in office, did not think necessary
to adopt. The argument used by the Right Hon. Secretary
for Ireland, in which he said the suppression of meetings was
no hardship, as petitions could be sent round for signature,
might as well be extended to the suppression of all meetings.
The Government had declared that they not only would not,
but could not get the three first clauses of the Bill passed ;
would the English Members then allow a clause which would
have the same effect as those clauses, to pass in this surrepti-
tious manner? The Government would have passed all the
three clauses, but for a discovery more fortunate than fortui-
tous. In his opinion, it would be better for Government to
look to the Six Acts, which had passed in 1819, for the sup-
pression of the disturbances which then prevailed in England,
for a model, than to the work of their own creation in 1833.
But this clause was more severe than anything ever attempted
in England, and would give the greatest discontent.-
Mr. F. O'CONNOR opposed the clause, as being the most
obnoxious in the whole bill. His Learned Friend had said
that it would be a subject of discussion during the recess, and
he pledged himself that it should be so. He was sure the
clause would give the greatest dissatisfaction, and he should
give it his hearty opposition.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that considering the important
omissions made in this Bill, he thought it would have been
better to have brought in a new act, containing those clauses it
was meant to retain. The omission of one half of some clauses,
and the whole of others, led to the greatest absurdities. The
preamble, for instance, was now the same as it formerly was ;
but on referring to the body of the Bill, it would be found
that three-fourths of it referred to disturbances which were
brought out of the operation of the Bill. He was convinced
that it would be unintelligible. It was introduced for a spe-
cific purpose, but when one-half of the clauses were omitted,
he was sure it would be quite impossible to carry it in a
manner which would be satisfactory to themselves or credita-
ble to them as agitators. He contended that it was doubtful,
contracted as the clause was, whether the Lord-Lieutenant
had the power to prevent political meetings, even in pro-
claimed districts. You have a clause in this Bill, which, ac-
cording to your own opinion proves that agrarian disturb-
ances are connected with political agitation, and yet (here
the Right Honourable Baronet was interrupted in the middle
of his sentence by cries of " No, no.) Why then, he ( Sir
Robert Peel) would ask, did Government seek by the Bill to
suppress meetings to be held for the purposes of preparing
petitions on political subjects, to be held in disturbed dis-
tricts ? He did not think that his ( Sir Robert Peel's)
Right Hon. Friend (the Secretary for Ireland) adhered to the
old Whig doctrine on the subject of the right of the people to
meet to petition, when he gave the preference, as was done in
this Bill, to the hawking about the petition from house to house
to receive signatures, instead of getting it prepared and signed
at a public meeting.—(A laugh.) He :( Sir Robert Peel)
must support the Bill as it now stood ; but he must say that he
wished that his Majesty's present Government had followed
the example of Lord Grey, and adhered to the clauses which
were now intended to be left out.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the Right Hon.
Baronet was certainly entitled to great credit for the inge-
nuity he had shown in perverting the clauses of the bill. If
judges were to proceed in the same way which the Right Hon.
Baronet had done, this clause would never certainly be carried
into effect • but happily no judge would ever proceed in the
way he (girßobert Peel) had done. The judges would put
a fair construction on this, and the other clauses, and admi-
nister the law accordingly. The Right Hon. Baronet had
complained of the brevity of- parts of the bill. He (the
Attorney- General) thought it was a matter of great importance'
to have as much brevity as possible in Acts of Parliament. No
man who wishes to understand the clause in question can have
any doubt as to its meaning. The Right Hon. Baronet was
altogether wrong in the observations he had made respecting
the power of the Lord Lieutenant to prevent political meetings
in disturbed districts. The clauses bear a quite different
construction from that which he had put upon them.
He (the Attorney-General) wished to know whether the
Right Honourable Baronet approved of -the 11th clause ? If
he did, he did not see how he could put the construction on the
clause in question which he had just done. With regard to
the power of the Lord Lieutenant to put down disturbances,
he (the Attorney-General) thought that his Lordship's powers
were by law so great, that he might almost, with the concur-
rence of the King, proclaim martial law in those districts.—
( Cries of " No, no.") He maintained that he was right in the
observation he had made. If political meetings were to be
allowed in proclaimed districts, the worst consequences would
result from such toleration. But where there were no dis-
turbances, the matter was very different. There the people
had a right to demand that they should be allowed to meet, so
long as nothing dangerous to the public peace was likely to
occur. lie (the Attorney-General) would only say, in con-
clusion, that it would have been far more honourable, and cer-
tainly far more candid on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet,
to have attacked the Bill openly, than to pursue the course he
had done.—( Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to ask the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman one question :—ln what respect did he
(Mr. O'Connell) pervert the clause? He thought it was im-
possible, or at least unlikely, that he should pervert the clause,
when he put the same construction on it as the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman himself did.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL denied having accused
the lion. and Learned Member of having perverted the clause.
O'CONNOR DON objected to the clause as unconstitu-
tional.

Sir R. PEEL explained. The lecture which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had read to him, he took in perfectly good
part ; but
inhe must still adhere to the opinions he had express.
ed ; and the view he took of the clauses in question, he
was supported by the most distinguished authorities on mat-
ters connected with Ireland. He thought the whole bill was
drawn up in the most blundering manner he had ever seen.—
( Laughter).
Mr. O'RE ILLY concurred with the Right Hon. Baronet

in the construction he put on the clauses in question. Minis-
ters would get no'credit for what they had done in the altera-
tions they had made in the measure ; but all the odium which
they incurred by the old Coercion Bill, would still adhere to
them.
Mr. C. BULLER contended that there was not any clause
in the Bill which would render political. meetings legal in
proclaimed districts. He agreed with what had fallen from
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney-General) on
this pOnt. Any person attending a political meeting, not
sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant, would be guilty of a mis-
demeanour. Though he should vote for these clauses, he had
not thereby the slightest wish to prevent the continuance of
agitation in Ireland ; for while the Church Establishment
there was kept up, he thought that so far from agitation being
reprehensible, the absence of it would be so ; a more abomi-
nable institution never disgraced any country.
Mr. SINCL AIR said a few words, which we could not
catch. •

Mr. BARRON thought it would be very mischievous to
prevent meetings for the purpose of petitioning Parliament
in any part of Ireland.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he should divide the House. No
two things were more utterly distinct than political and pre-
dial agitation. To suppose any connection between the two,
showed the most utter ignorance on the subject.
The Committee then divided on the amendment, when there
appeared—.
For the amendment
Against it

38
121

Majority for the clause —B3
On returning to the gallery we found the Committee disett
sing the 28th clause.

Mr. O'CONNEII, opposed the clause and proposed that
it should be enacted that nothing contained in the act should
exempt officers or soldiers who did any action in furtherance
of the objects of the bill, from being amenable to the jurisdic-
tion of courts, civil or ci iminal.

The clause being read a first and second time,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the original
clause, and said it had not been introduced as a sequel to the
courtsmartial clauses, but only to carry the bill into due effect.
The military could not he expected to do their duty if some
such protection as this were not thrown over them for their ac-
tions done in pursuance of the act—the protection extended to
them in no other ease.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he had no objection to a clause to
provide that in cases brought before a criminal court, it should
be a good defence that the action complained of was done
bona-fide in pursuance of the act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause was
intended to protect parties who should innocently go beyond
the law. As for instance, if an officer in a misty morning or
dark evening arrested a party after the sun was risen, or
before it was set, this clause would protect him, if he were
acting bona
.fide ; but without this clause he would not be
protected. The reason why he preferred retaining the words
of this clause to adopting any such as those suggested by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, was that they were
words which had been before used, and upon the meaning
of which there had been judicial adjudications. It was much
safer to use them than new words, which were liable, there-
fore, to have an interpretation put upon them which they could
not so certainly foresee. But even with this clause, an action
might be brought by an aggrieved party in any of the Courts
of Dublin against a soldier abusing the powers of the act,
and then the question would there arise as to whether he
had acted bona fide, though mistakenly. This would be the
course in case civil proceeding was adopted against a de-
fendant. In similar manner, if an aggrieved party chose to
proceed by indictment, he would merely have to make out a
prima, facie case of assault, and it would be thrown upon the
defendant, to show that he was bona fide acting under the
powers given him by the act of Parliament.
Mr. C. ROM IL L Y said that there was nothing in the
Bill to call for such a clause as that.
Mr. SHE IL contended that there was no precedent in any
former act for a-protection of this kind.
_ _

Mr. O'REILLY asked, if with this clause in the Bill, a
party should still bring an action, or prosecute an officer, of
what use would this be as a protection to the latter ?-
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause
would give no protection to a wanton or mischievous act, but
would protect an officer against an innocent mistake.
Mr. O'CONNELL argued that this was not law, and that
the clause would protect soldiers acting wantonly. He was
ready to agree to a clause protecting them where they acted
bona fide.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that to introduce
such words as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman suggested,
viz., that parties should not be liable for anything done in pur-
suance of this Act," would not prevent them being taken be-
fore a Court, to see whether what they had done was in pur-
suance of the Act. To introduce such words in lieu of this
clause, would merely be losing the protection it afforded to
the public. The question of bona fide must with this clause
come before a judge and jury, and its extension was simply the
extension of an additional protection.
Mr. O'CONNELL could not think the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman meant to maintain this proposition seriously.
Mr. Sergeant PERRIN begged to remark that the mean-
ing of the clause was not such as had been ascribed to it by
the Learned Attorney-General ; for it provided that no officer
should be " questioned," except by courtmartial.—( Hear. )
Mr. O:CONNELL said he' would withdraw his clause for
the present if the Government would take it into consideration.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL called the attention of
the Learned Sergeant who spoke last but one to the words
preceding those that he had quoted, and he would find that an
officer was only to be questioned by courtmartial for anything.
done "in pursuance of this Act." Of course if he did any-
thing not in pursuance of the Act, he might be questioned for
it in a court of law.

Mr. C. BULL E R said that the clause would then be use-
less; for without it a party accused might plead that what he
had done was done in pursuance of the Act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that no doubtbut he
might ; but if he happened, ever so innocently, to exceed the
powers of the Act, his plea would be good for nothing. The
clause was meant to protect those who should inadvertently
arrest a man a few minutes too early in the evening, or a few
yards beyond the boundary of a proclaimed district, or other-
wise innocently exceed their powers.
Mr. RONA YNE thought that one o'clock in the morning
was not a fit hour to proceed with a discussion like this, and
should, therefore, move that the Chairman do report progress.
The amendment having been put,
Mr. LITTLETON said, he thought that after the discus-
sion they had had, they were ripe for the decision of this
clause. When they employed soldiers in a service of this
kind, they were bound to give them every possible protection
against acts of inadvertence. The bill, as it stood, would do
that, whilst it would not protect them in any wanton exercise
of power.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to call the attention of the
Committee to an expression which gave courtsmartial " the
exclusive cognizance of all matters" objected to officers. What
became of the power of appealing to a judge and jury with
such an expression in the Act ?
Lord ALTHORP observed that it would be an unusual
course for the Chairman to report progress after they had pro-
ceeded so far in the discussion of a clause.
Mr. J. GRATTAN thought the proposition of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin, to let the matter stand over
for the present, a fair one.

Mr. SHEIL said, that all they wanted was to give the Go-
vernment au opportunity of changing its mind, which he
thought it could not help doing after what had been urged
from his side of the House. He granted that the clause had
been both attacked and defended by legal subtleties, but were
they to sacrifice a constitutional principle to the spirit of so-
phistry ?
Lord ALTHORP did not pretend to the knowledge of the
law possessed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had
conducted the discussion on this clause ; but he would adopt
the view taken by the Attorney-General, more especially as it
appeared that the clause did not partake of the objection which
lay against courtsmartial. Tjae objection against courtsmar-
tial was, that civilians would be tried before them ; whereas
the present clause only subjected the soldiery to the jurisdiction
of this court.

Mr. RONA YNE having moved that the Chairman do re
port progress, the House divided, when there appeared—
Ayes 29
Noes BO
__

Majority -59
On our return to the gallery, we found Lord ALTHORP
agreeing to postpone the further consideration of this clause
to the bringing up of the report.
Mr. O'CONNELL, on the consideration that a full dis-
cussion would then take place, consented to withdraw his
amendment, and at the same time stated, that•the only other
clauses to which he would object were the 27th and 31st.
The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported pro-
gress, and obtained leave to sit again.
The Prisoners Counsel Bill was read a third time and
passed.