The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-23 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH ELECTION.

Mr. METHUEN presented a petition from the electors
of Marlborough, complaining of the undue influence exer-
cised at the last election by the agents of the Marquis of
Ailesbury, several persons having been turned out of their
houses in consequence of having voted for those candidates
who were opposed to the cause e-poused by the Noble
Marquis. As the charges in the petition were of the most
grave and serious nat!,re, the Hon. Member considered that
it would he savimT the time of the House if the
petit on was referred to the Committee which was appointed
on h; subject, at thi.matne time calling the attention of that
Committee to the serious charges contained in the present

An flos. MEMISEK observed tint the Noble Marquis,
againlt whom the petition contained so many serious
charges, wished that the subject contained in the petition
-hould undergo the most stric and rigid inquiry.—The
p riti n w,a urdered to be printed, and referred to the
Com tnit tee.

Mr. H. GRATTAN wished to put a question to the
ltght Hon: S cretary for Ireland, relative to the dismissal
of the E trl of Nliltown from tha situations o Deputy-
Lieutenant of the county of Dublin and Justice of
he Peace. He understood that the cause of that Noble
Earl's dismissal was his entering into an associ a-
non in Dublin. If so he thought it was acting
most unfairly and partially, because no other per-
son in the commission of the peace, who belonged to any
wher society, hid been visited in a similar manner.
Taste were Justices of the peace who hi-lon ed to other
societies, and he thought his Majesty's Government should
take no distiiietion, but either punish all or pardon alt.
Mr. STANLEY, in reply, said that the Nole Earl
had nut !wen removed from the situation of Deputy
Lieutenant, b-cause many months ago he had sent in his
gnitioti. His Alaj, sty's Government thought that the
I.i:q.t. which the Node Loud taken in the sue+ ty
in
kirk lie had entolled hi
tity as a magistrate, an.
ri f ft"; les ititiace"nl.m.iasrrt'l7Lt tt with
ahnits
didA tir. t
t rill.in (k .3 all the mac',inery
t Dublin Castle, and therefote he was not surprised at
.itpirtoTpeir ,A to
s tesn ueit,vl
he e urse n hien had b•vti taken; but it was not fair that
he E v I ait Mitown, who took the p rt of the people,
hould be punished, while others who took the part against
the ,eople were alloyed to get • ff. There were several jut.-
sic of the peace who belonged to societies, and .ndeed
th to were several 11 inners 01 this House who also lie-
loaged to tiicol. He could tusiance the No Lord the
Al. tuber for Devonshire (Ebtington), and also the
Member for R iscommon, and others. A• it was
erg i.esirable to Let at the causes which led to the N .ble
Earl's dianai.so, he should move for returns of copies of
511 communications between the liish Government anti
t e Earl of Miltown upon the subjsct.
Mr. STANLEY raid if the Hurl, Member had givc

Lord ALTHORP said the clause only contemplated 0 e
prevention of signals being made with tue design of col-
lecting great bodies of people ; and if they were made in
districts which were peaceable, it wouid so far endanger
their tranquillity as to make it necessaty to proclaim them
disturbed. Besides, it would not be a very great ciiev-
ance, be conceived, to prevent, in any case, the people
from making signals, which, in the present state of the
country, were so dangerous to the peace of Ireland. The
object of the clause was not by any means to facilitate
distraint for tithes.

Mr. O'CONNELL said he would not object to the
clause, if its object were confined to signals bring given
for tuntultuary assemblages forbidden by this Act; bu:,
in the present wording of the clause, an innocent man
might often be inculpate-3. A man who rings a bell in a
proclaimed district, for instance, to cull together fifteen
persons, having non,. but legal objects in view, and not
knowing they were in a proclaimed district, would be
subject to punishment.

Mr. STANLEY said that the ohjrct of ringing the
bell would be a matter of inquiry before a jury, and if
it should appear to have been rung with innocent in-
tentions, that circumstance would have its weight._..
(Hear, bear ) lie repeated that the clause was nit in-
tended to facilitate in the least the collection of tithe,'
but at the same time he was ready to admit that it would
prevent persons assembling by concert to resist a process
of law which was in favour of the clergyman or of any
one else. It was too much for the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber to say that the clergy should not receive its incidental
protection against combinations of tumultuous assemblies
in common with other classes of thy• community.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to repeat that he did not object
to the operation of the clause as regarded the prevention
of tumultuous assemblies, but he wanted it confined to
that object. What he complained of was that an innocent
min might he brought by the clause within the penalties
inflicted by the Act. A man might ring a hell to bring
twenty or thirty people together who had no intrntion
f m eting illegally, but whose meeting ought to be rem,
tiered i11.g41 by the Lord.Lieu,enAnt is•u'ng a ploelairia-
tion, of which the bell-ringer knew r•othitig. The Right
Hon. Secretary was mistaken in saying that it would go
to a Jury to judge of the intent with which he had rung
the 6,11, for his intent would be nothing to the purpose,
the question being whether he meant to give a -igual fur
un assenibl,ge of p

Mr. 11. GRATTAN said that the clause was too par-
-6(.111 ,r, and enumerated too great a number of acts.
Now, if any mole of giving a denial had been omitteal, and
a party adopted it, he would evade the act. If, how-
ever, there was to be such as enume,ation of prohibited
a gnats for as-rmblies, these signals ought 'o tie confined to
one party. and that party the one which opposed tithes.
A number of signals were prohibited in the Party Processions
Bill, whiola comprehended the signals of the Orange
party. He should, however, presently, with the view of
making the clause more genera 4, move the oinission of all
the words front the second line down to the thirteenth,
which contained the enumeration of signals he alluded to.
He thought this would give a great deal of irrita.ion,
though he did riot say the peop'e would be guilty of cx
ceases from vexation on account of it, but he thought it
would tie much better to omit the particular words coal-
pl tined of; and let the clause stand as he wished it to he,
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL said it atipeared to him,
at the clause stoo i urikinally, to be quite different to that of
persons having fire-arms, who, priota facie, nat no right to
carry them ; and that persons making a bonfire or attendinc
in) thing of that sort might he rendered liable to punishment,
and in that way the clause be rendered a very great hard-
ship ; but, looking at it as it now stood, and being interol,
ed merely to prevent p..rsons breaking the law, he saw
• aidship in it whatever, and concurred with it at it was.
It a person made a signal, either by smoke or raising a
tire with a view to commit or to aid in committing a
beach of the law, be could see no jimmy, nience in such
pets as being rend red liable to punishment, and they
ought to suffer severely.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON was quite sure that the Hon.
and Learned Alemb,r tor Dahlin, un further considera-
;ion, would withdraw his opposition to this clause.
It would be necessary to satisfy the Jury t!iat the fire or
the smoke was raised as a signal, and with a view to
commit a breach of the law ; and in that way of regardinu
it, lie did not see how the Hun. and Learned Gentltnag;
could persist in his objection.
Mr. SHEII. said that to raise a smoke or fire as a
signal for a breach of the law within a district not pro-
claimed was at present act an offence cognizable by the
common law, and he did not see why, if the !venal
were to be given in a proclaimed district, it ought
to come under the concurrence of the courtsmartial.

Mr O'CONNELL would got divide the House upo❑
it, but he wished to know whether the Node Lord meant
to have the case tried solely by courtsmirtial.
Lord ALTHORP made an observation which was not
heard.

Mr. O'CONNELL then said he hoped there would be
u‘i objection to the words " and not otherwise" being
added.

The clause was then passed, amended with the words,
" and not otherwise."

The CHAIRMAN then said the next clauge was the2sth,

Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know whether his Ma.,
jcst)'s Government meant to propose any alteration jr.
this clause.

Mr. STANLEY said, None.
The clause then went through the Committee, without.
an objection.
The CHAIRMAN next proposed the 26th clanke,

. .
Mr. O'CONNELL said this was a uLost important
clause, and hoped it would receive the particular attention
of the Howe.

Mr. INGHAM rose to propose an amendment to. the
.26th clause, which gave an indemnity to persona acting
under the Act against any action being brought against
tii!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the amend-
ment, considering the clause as it now stvod inditpen-
sably necessary.
111 r. PRYM E objected to the clause.

Mr. O'CONNELL could not consent to the clause as
it then stood, but had no objection to limit it to persons
icting bon,/ ji le and not unanimously.
Mr. C. FERtiUSSON was of opinion that that "cltuse
hail not been well considered, and, as he con-idered the
amendment would improve i he wou d vote for it.
Mr. STANLEY fi that the ti m, and G bant. Gen-
tletnan seemed to forget that tht, (tours established by
this Bill aced only as a judicial body, and that
i' could give no older& to the solili; rs —(ll,ar, heir.)
There was no offence that he knew of tut what could he
covered by the words " conduct unbecoming an c.fEi-er and a
gentlewian," and there was no corruption, in, off nee that a
a soldier could commit, hut what could be punished. }-1,„
Amitted that the whole Bill was uncunsti utional,
but "bile such povrer&. were granted to put down
a piesumid disturbance, it was neci-s,ary that these ein-
p'opd in that serv.ce should ku w that they had the
I,rotection of law, at the a ‘me time knowing that any
corrupt act w.inA he visited with punishment.
Mr. C. FER(,USSON explaine I.
Toe SOLICITOR-GENERAL denied th 4 the e'ause
note under consideration would allow crimes committed
ine under the Act to go unpunished. The
lion. and Learned Memlnr for Dublin hid said that it
d. priced the pi-tiple of all ptotecti,n vainst the ouirag•
id the sold cry. That he ;host uneq..ivocaliy denied.
If such an outrage were committed as that suppose.' by
!he Hon. Aleitther, that clime would not protect lino. I,
would he as necessary tot him to show that he was a" n 4
in the discharge of Its (fury as if hr w,rr b(•tote . .
:Lod jury. It, tor inst..nce, a soldier were to .nsult
worn ,n under pretence of se irclvog tor arms, t.e would
itainly be punishable under the Act.
Mr. C. FERGUS,;ON tb”ught that it would be per-
Irctly itneossible, as the 13,11 then stood, to punish a spi-
er so acting.
Mr. SHELL said, that in giving such protection to
soldiers, they were going far ta)•nd the Ilk: lusuirtet o.t
Act, and be ctitild *CC kV ClUb% ighvp,4l._ abuuld dv ev.

They could not plead inconvenience; for it was well
known that there were only two or three actions brought
against solditra acting under ti'e old Insurrection Act.
Could the Government show, what alone could justify the
additional protection then asked, that the provisions of the
olti Insurrection Act were not adequate to protect the
soldiers? He denied it ; for they had experience to show
that the soldiers were fully protected under it. U. did
not wish that the soldier,. should be put in a situation of
pe, it ; but he did not wish to put them in such a situation
as would ,eprive the people of all protection from the out-
rages of the soldiers.
Mr. R. GRANT said, it appeared to him that there
were two classes of delinquents which were confoun feel
by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. There
were, in the first place, such as transgressed unwillingly—
such as contravened the law, either by acting negligently,
or by over-z,al. hut who nevertheless acted bona fide. It
was to such persons that the protection of the clause then
before them was directed. The other class, however—
suc'i as from love of plunder, of any other cause, corn-
/flitted o irtgee, were not afforded any protection by it.
He thought it right that the Committee should observe
the distinction, in order to understand the operation of
the clause thoroughly. He had looked into the Bill to
see whether all the offence.; created under it could be
brought under the cognizance of a courtmartial, and he
felt satisfied that they could. A soldier committing such
offences as had been supposed by an Hon. Member, would
not only be punishable under that Act, but also under the
Mutiny Act and tht Articles of War, so that his crime
would be doubly cogn z int.
Mr. H. GRATTAN thought that the protection
granted to the soldiers by that chose ought only to he
granted in a country in a state of revolution. If Ministers
meant to say that Ireland was in a state of insurrection,
or bordering on insurrection, they ought to say so boldly,
but they ou ,ht not to come dawn to that House and
endeavour to introduce a clause into the Bill, which insi-
nuated that the country was in a state of insurrection, and
would be jest;fiable only when it was in such a state.
Mr O'DWYER denied that there was anything in the
Articles of War to prevent a soldier from breaking into
and searching a peasant's house on the most flimsy pre-
tence.
After a few words from Mr. INGHAM, which were
inauAltle in the gallery,
Colonel WILLIAMS opposed the clause, which he con-
fidently believed would act as a protection for the most
atrocious crimes. He himself remembered with what
perfect impunity an innocent man had been shot by a
soldier at Liverpool, during the reign of terror in England.
He bad made every exertion to bring the case before the
public, and to have this atrocity properly punished, but

in vsin.
Mr. ROCHE also opposed the clause on similar grounds.
The amendment was then put and negatived.
The CHAIRMAN proceeded to read the clause, "That
all of c-rs and soldiers, acting in pursuance of such power
or authprity. shall be responsible only to courtsmartial."
Mr. LYNCH moved, as an amendment, that these
words should be struck out.
The amendment was then proposed, being the omission
of all that part of the clause beginning from "all officers,"
down to the word " commenced." Thia amendment
being negatived, the Chairman proceeded to recite the
clause.
Mr. PRYME protested against that portion of it which
enacted that no person should institute a prosecution
against any of the persons acting under the authority of
th- Act, except by the permission of the Attorney. General.
This prohibition he thought monstrous. If this clause
were allowed, officers and soldiers might riot in violence
with impunity. He shou'd therefore move, as an amend-
ment, that this part of the clause he struck out.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the amend-
ment unnecessary : the Attorney-General would not re-
fuse his warrant when the cause of justice requited it.
Even supposing the pro-ecution to be commenced, the
Attorney-General might defeat it by entering his noli
prosequi.
Mt. PRYME was well acquainted with the existence
of such a prohibitory power in the Attorney-General. hut
the argument of his Learned Friend did not apply to civil

suits.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the amendment on similar
grounds.
The amendment was put, and nega'ived.
The clause was then put from the Chair.
Mr. O'CONNELL asked whether it had undergone any
amendment.?
The CHAIRMAN replied in the negative.
Mr. O'CONNELL then should oppose the clause in
Coto. It was a clause wholly unnecessary for its professed
purpo-e,, and if passed, would only authorize the flowing
of blood in torrents, and the perpetration of every species
of horrible violence and outrage. The clause was pro-
posed for the purpose of indemnifying all persons acting
under it from all responsibili,y, except to courtsm .16 .1.
There was not the si•ghtest necessity for this expressed
indemnity, for the Bill itself would indemnify any act,
matter, or thing, however atrocious, done in pursuance
or execution of its enactments. Therefore any act, &c,
done in pursuance or ex cution of this Act, did not re-
quire this indemnity. Such expressed indemnification as
this would only be required by those who went beyond
all the powers granted by the Act—powers more com-
prehensive than had ever been before heard of. The
officers and soldiers, it was set forth, were v. be responsible
to courtsmartial only, for any offence against the Articles
of War. live was a clear indemnity for anything those
officers and soldiers might choose to do. Under this
indemnity a party of soldiers might go out under the
&dere of a general-officer, and shoot hundreds or
thousands of the people, and in doing this they are so
far from acting against the Atticles of War, that they
are acting quite in accordance with those articles.—
(Hear.) He would here at once and for ever throw
ovei boil,' the words of the Secretary of 'retold, in an
early part o, the evening, that this was intended os an
indemnity for all soldiers who acted under the orders of
their superior officers; this was intended as an indemnity
not only for soldiers but officers too. The clause pt o-
bibite t any procerding against those soldiers anti officers,
either by indictment, action, or otherwise, so that even
pecuniary remuneration for loss of property is denied.
Thus. if a general officer goes with a body of men, and
burns a man's hou-e, and destroys his property, the in-
jured man has no appeal except to the courtmartial, being
shut out from proceeding at common law, without the fiat
of the Attorney. General. Then, if an officer finds he has
tomntitted an outrage likely to be noticed, he quits the
army, and what is to be done then? for the courtmartial
has jurisdiction only over officers and soldiers. The
clause, in fac , took away all right of appeal or indemnifi-
cation from the subject ; and the protection it afforded
to the military was calculated to occasion the flowing of
torrents of blood, and the con-mission of every species of
outrage and violence. He would conclude his observa-
tions in the tame words with which he had begun—
that the Act itself woull be a sufficient indemnifica-
tion for ail acts dotal in its execution, and that the present
clause would only act as an indemnity fur acts going be-
yond the powers allowed by that Bill.
Mr. R. GRANT denied that this clause would have
the dire effects predicted by the Hon, and Learned Mem-
ber bar Dahlia. He contended that the officers of these
courts wool.' be subject to a jurisdiction it they did wrong.
An application to the Judge would entitle him to interfere
though lie would not have to decide whether the person
accused acted properly or not. The Judge would send the
ease to a Jury, and the Jury would decide whether the per-
sons had acted bona fide or ?nolo fide. If they committed a
military offence, no indemnity would protect them. It
torrents of blie.d should he shed, as the Hon. and Learn d
Member said, anti if it was proved that any blood was
shed wrongly, those who shed it teould be liable to pu-
nishment. Certainly, for any offences committed by the
officers tinder this Act, they would only be tried by mili-
tary courts, and in hie opinion military tribunals were the
proper tribunals to try if officers had done their duty.
Nor would these officers escape if they left the service, as
the Hon, and Learned Member supposed. He knew from
tacperience that officers could be, and were brought to trial
after leaving the service ; and if any officer committed
ao improper act, and sought to escape from its conse-
quences,ie would not only find himself mistaken, but
be would add baseness to his other faults.—(Hear. )
He considered, therefore, that the Hon. Gentleman
was wrong in saying that there were no means to punish
the officers composing the courts if they did wrong. The
Mutiny Act and the Articles of War provided punishment
for all these offences. And though the Military Law was
proverbially vague, the consuetudinary part of it supplied
the deficiencies, and he would venture to say adapted it to
every case. It was found sufficient to repress the diem.-
ders in which the common soldier was sometimes liable to
indulge. No offence could be committed under this Act,
Which might not he punished under the Articles of War.
Mr. O'DWYER was of opinion that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had not answered one of the objections
of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Dublin.
Mr. SHELL said that the Insurrection Act gave the
protection to Magistrates, so that they could not be prose-
eu ed for anything
.--Theunde it. But this Bill gave
them no protection( Honourable and Learned
G ntlernan quoted part of the Bill to show this ; but as-
sented, we understood, to an interpretation put on the
clause by the SoLci'or-General--that it did afford them
such a protecii,n.) Well, then, see the consequences.
Undo the Bill n) prosecut.oa could be instituted against

Magistrates for offences committed under the Bill, unless
with the sanction of the Attorney-General. There could
then be no action at all brought against the Magi'.
trates. Was that intended, he desired to know? He
knew a case of a Magistrate who bad quarrelled with a
gentleman, and who arrested him in the middle of the
street of a town, surrounded by people, under the Incur
rection Act. The arrest was made after nightfall, and
the gentleman was put into gaol. If such a case were to
occur under this Act, the gentleman could get no redress
at all. Was that meant? was it intended to exonerate
slagistrateS, whatever they might do? They could not
he prosecuted for damages, because the Act specified that
no offences committed under it should be questioned ex-
cept by courtamartial. The Magistrates could not be pro-
secuted in the Court of King's Bench. No pecuniary
compensation could he obtained—none could be given by a
courtniartial, nn courts of law could take cognizance of the
Magistrates' offences. How could this be remedied by
the addition of two words bona fide? The Solicitor
General said that injuries committed bona fide would not
be punished ; but unless they were so committed they
would be liable to punishment. Make that clear in the
face of the Bill—introduce th4words, that nothing which
is done bona fide under this Aet shall be questioned hut by
courtsmarrial. Make it clear that the Act is not to sup-
port oppression. Let it not be employed to crush the
liberties ~f the suhrict one bit more than there is need.
When fltgitious violations of duty take place—let the Act
not be so drawn up aa to screen them.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the words un-
necessary. As the Bill was now drawn, actions such as
that described by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman might
be prosecuted. An action would lie. If persons in the
exercise of authority acted wantonly, they would have no
protection from the law, and they would deserve none.
No words were w inted to make the actions which were
done mala fide punishable, and it was only the actions
which were done bona fide which would receive indem
nity. Not only individuals who so acted might be brought
before courtsmartial, but they might, if the Attorney-
General pleased. be brougl,t before a civil court.
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN would oppose this clause,
as the most mischievous, the most dangerous clause of the
whole Bill. It put the whole people of Ireland out of the
protection of the law, and gave them no redress whatever
in NVt of oppression or wrong. It ought to be
expunged. It was impossible that th - pe iple of
Ireland should ever forgive England if this clause
were passed. It would sow the seeds of reparation,
and they would grow up to a frightful harvest. It
was establishing the government of the sword, and if
the Union were to he made the means of establishing
such a Government. Ireland would be lost, and Eng-
land would find nobody in Ireland to stand by her. So
help him God ! he would not stand by England, unless
he was to have the Constitution. He wound not go to
war against France, but he would go to war against Eng-
land for the British Constitution. He had been taught
that lesson by the resistance to the tyranny of Charles and
James, and he would teach it to his chilareo. He would
disinherit them if they did not obey it.—(Laughter.)
Gentlemen might laugh ; it was easy for them to lauat
who knew nothing about tyranny ; but he did know—
he had seen its exercise—he had seen men turned out of
their houses, and their houses burnt down—and lie knew
what tyranny was. The clause was fit for a state of actual
war— a state of fiagrante bello. If it were passed, it would
bring on a war, and they ought not to give the Govern-
ment such a power.—(Question.)
The Committee divided on the question that the clause
stand part of the B 11—
For the clause
Against it
Majority 74
The clause was then agreed to.
The 27th clause, relating to persons being arrested and
detained, was then read.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proposed to add a pro-
vi,o to it, to this effect :—" Provided always that no per-
son shall b- detained in other than a public gaol for more
than 48 hours of er the time of his arrest.
An HoN. MEMBER. suggested 24 hour..
Dr. BALDWIN suggested to the addition of the words
" without his own consent." These two suggestions were
adopted, and the proviso, embodying them, was agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, was then agreed to.
Clause 26 was expunged.
Clause 29 was agreed to.
Clause 30 having been read,
Mr. RUTHVEN declared, that he should not be do-
ing justice to the country if he did not resist such mea-
sure. as depriving Ireland of the benefit of the Habeas
Corpus, to the last extremity If he were to be the only
man, he would divide against it.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared.
For the clause 156
Against it
Majority
Clau,,es 31 and 32 were then agreed to.
Clause 33 having been read,
Mr. O'DWYRR moved as an amendment, that the
word* giving power to Magistrates of counties of cities
and cnunties of towns to act under this clause should be
struck out. The character of these Magistra es was no•
torionsly such, as to render their exception necessary.
They were elected by, and consequently were under the
influence of, tl.eir re-pective Corporations
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the amendment. He had
no objection to Magistrates of counties acting in a joining
counties, but he had a strong ohj-ction to Magistrates
elected as these corporate Magistrates were. But a very
short time before the Right Hon. Secretary came into
office, one of these Magistrates was so nOt.,llOUAly corrupt,
that he had his regular prices for the favourable exercise
of his judicial functions. For taking hail for capital felo-
nies he charged 20 guineas, for common felonies he
charged 201., and as on in proportion.
Mr. STANLEY said, that without giving full credit to
;he charges brou,ht against the Magistrates, he saw quite
.efficient reason fur yielding to this amendment, in the
fact that they were appointed by corporations, and not by
the Government. The Government having all the re-
,pensibility of the execution of this Act, their subordinate
officers should at least be appointed by themselves.—
(Hear.) He had, therefore, no objections to strike out

the word..
The clause with this amendment was then agreed to.
Clause 34, with a verbal amendment, was agreed to.
The 35th clause having been read, Mr. O'CONNELL
proposed that the time limited in the clause should be ex-
tended friim three months to six months.—Agreed to.
The 36th clause was then agreed to.
The 37th cisuse was then read.
After a few words from Sergeant PERRIN, the SOLI-
CITOR-GENERAL, and Mr. O'CONNELL, the clause was
agreed to.
The 38th, the 39th, the 40th. and the 41st clauses,
were also agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
All the clauses of the Bill having thus been gone
through,
Mr. STANLEY rose to propose several additional
clauses. The first was as fol'ows:--
" And be it further enacted, that the tenants and posses-
sors of all houses and other buildings within any such pro-
claimed district shall, within a reasonable time atter applica-
tion to them respectively made, and so often as such applica-
tion shall be so made by any chief constable, or any constable
by such chief constable for that purpose authorized, by writing,
under his hand and seal, sign and deliver to such chief or,other
constable, two true and correct lists of all the male inhabitants
or inmates of each such haute or building, with their names
and surnames in full, distinguishing those who are of the age
of fourteen years or upwards from those who are under
that age; such lists to be dated and signed, and to be
filled up according to the form in the schedule to this
Act annexed prescribed, or as near thereto as may be ; and
one of such lists countersigned by such chief or other
constable, shall be delivered to the person signing the same,
to be by him posted on his door or inside his house,
or to be kept by him, and another of said lists shall be truly
copied into a book to be for that purpose kept by such chief or
other constable, and shall, together with such book, remain in
the care and custody of such chief constable, and shall be kept
at the nearest police-station, or elsewhere, as to such chief
constable shall seem fit ; and every such tenant refusing or neg-
lecting to make and sign such lists within a reasonable time
after being so required to make and sign the same as aforesaid,
shall, upon the complaint of such chief or other constable, be
fined in any sum not exceeding the rate of one shilling a day for
each day that he shall, after such request so made as aforesaid,
refuse or neglect to make and sign such lists, or shall be impri-
soned until he shall have made and signed such lists, and such
5119 or imprisonment shall, after due notice and opportunity
of defence, according to the course of the Court, be awarded
by and at the discretion of the Justices of Petty Sessions of the
district in which such tenants and possessors shall respectively
be resident.
" Provided always, that any false statement or suppression
of the truth in any such list shall be deemed to be a misdemea-
nor, and the persoo or persons guilty of wilfully making the
same shall be punishable accordingly."
Mr. LAMBERT übj.,cteit to the clause, as imposing a
great hardship on the people; it wis defended by the So-
licitor-General and Mr. Stanley, as imposing no hardship
whatever; and by Sir. O'Connell, Mr. O'Dwyer, and
Mr. Fergus O'Cinnor, as a very desirable substitute for
the clause empowering domiciliary visits.
The clause was then agreed to, and ordered to be added
to the Bill ; as was also the following clause;—
" And in order to facilitate the making such lists, be it fur-
ther enacted, That the chief constables of police within such
districts shall provide and keep at their several police stations,
for the use of such tenants and possessors of houses as afore-
said, printed forms of lists, according to the form in the
schedule to this Act annexed, and shall furnish the same to

such tenants and possessors free of expense; and that such
chief or other constables shall also assist the said persons in
the filling and making and signing of such lists, if by them
so required. And that, to defray the expenses of such printed
forms and of such books, the grand jury of the county, county
of a city, or county of a town, within which such district or
any part thereof is situate, shall and may, and is hereby re-
quired, at the assizes next after the making of such procla-
mation, and of making such lists as aforesaid, to present such
sum or sums as shall be sufficient to defray the expense of that
portion of the district locally situate within the jurisdiction of
such grand jury, and which sums shall be levied off such
counties respectively, and paid over to such chief constable, as
aforesaid."
Mr. STANLEY having moved the following clause:—
" Provided always, and be it enacted, That nothing in this
Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to pro-
hibit, or to enable the Lord. Lieutenant or other Chief Governor
or Governers of Ireland to prohibit, in any county, county of
a city, or county of a town, whether in any proclaimed dis-
trict or elsewhere in Ireland, any meeting which shall be duly
convened by the High Sheriff or Lieutenant of such county,
or by the Lieutenant or Chief Magistrate of such county of a
city, or county of a town,"
Mr. LYNCH moved, as an amendment, after the
words " Chief Magistrate," to add the wordy, " Or four
or more Magistrates."
Lord ALTHORP objected to the amendment, on the
ground that it might lead to an improper convening of
meetings.
Alto. a short conversation, in which Mr. O'DwYEa,
Mr. STANLEY, Mr. SHELL. &c., participated, the amend•
ment was negatived, and the clause was agreed to and
ordered to he added to the Bill.
Mr. STANLEY then ntoved, according to notice, that
the following el 'use be added to the Bill :
" Provided always, and be it further enacted, that whenever
the said courtmartial shall consist of nine members, then the
concurrence of at least seven members of the said court shall be
required, and shall be sufficient to give validity and effect to
the decisions and acts of such court ; and that whenever the
said court shall consist of any number of members less than
nine, then the concurrence of at least five members of the said
court shall be required, and shall be sufficient to give validity
and effect to the decisions and acts of such court."
Agreed to.
Another clause, as we understood, was added to the
Bill, suhjecting persons attending meetings and not resident
in the districts where such meetings were convened, to
the penalties of a misdemeanor.
The report was then brought up, and agreed to be taken
into forth. r consideration on Tuesd ey next.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. BARING moved a vote of 16.8441. to defray the
expenses of the British Museum up to Christmas, 1833.
Mr. HAWES comphined of the want of a catalogue of
the MSS. of the British Musuem, as well as of an index
of subj ets.
Mr. BARING observed that the attention of the trus-
tees had been directed to these subjects, and no doubt
some means would be adopted to supply the defects corn-
plsined of.
Mr. HUME thought it' desirable that the Museum
should he opened for six days in the week, instead of
three. He though, it would he proper to appoint a Com-
mittee to inquire into the whole subject of the Museum.
It was a most extraordinary circumstance, that in two
months of the year...-3nd those two months were those
in which most strangers came to London—the British
Museum was shut to the pudic.
Lord ALTHORP was surprised that it should be
stated that August and September were those in which
most strangers arrived in town.
Mr. HUME observed that the town was not fre-
quented during these months by gentlemen who were in
the habit of going out shooting. A Committee was de-

sirahle.
Mr. TENNANT said that the Museum afforded every
facility that reacionahle people could desire.
Lord MAHON horef his testimony to the proper ma-
nagement of the institution, having derived great Advantages
from it. It would bear comparison with any similar in-
stitution on the continent, and though perhaps not open
for so many days as some of them, it was open for many
more hours.
The vote was then agreed to ; the House resumed,
and the report was ordered to he taken into consideration
on Monday.
SCOTCH EXCHEQUER BILL. _

_
This- Bill, on the motion of Mr. KENNEDY, was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed on
Monday next.
SHERIFFS' COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. KENNEDY moved the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. HUME hoped the Hon. Mover would consent to
increase the amount of debts to be recovere under it.
Mr. KENNEDY assured the Hon. Member that the
Bill would not he fully gone intu until it haft been
thoroughly canvassed in Scotland, and that every sugges-
tion would receive the most mature consideration.
SUGAR DUTIES.

The Sugar Duties Bill way read a third time and poled,
STAFFORD INDEMNITY BILL.

Mr. ELLICE moved the order of the day for going into
Committee on this Bill.
Mr. A. BARING said, that no sufficient grounds had
been shown for going out of the ordinary course. The
whole matter turned on a mere common election petition,
not having even been sanctioned or supported by a peti-
tion to the H tu.e. The only regular mode of proceeding
in this case, was that which they adopted at all times—
to allow malpractices to be proved before an Election Com-
mittee, and the House proceed upon its report. But
here the Hon. Member came down with the whole weight
of the Government to which he belonged, and c ailed upon
them to violate their usual course of proceeding, and
suspend for six weeks the Committee on this election, for
the per pose of continuing in the House a gentlemitl who,
by his own confession, could prove that 524 out of 526
persons had been guilty of gross bribery and corruption.
What instance was there—wh .t other case could be ad-
duced of t e House having consented to such a proceeding,
and that, too, on the mere assertion of an individual?
He greatly disapproved of this interference with the esta-
blished regulations ; it should not he granted, unless they
found there was no ch once of obtaining satisfactory evi-
dence of these corrupt practices without it. This Bill would
enable the Hon. Member still to sit in that House, and to
be relieved from every pos.ible disability that might other-
wise affect hitn. The very first clause of it said that he
should be discharged from all disabilities and incapa-
cities whatever."
Mr. ELLICE said, that two persons had stated in the
Committee that they could prove that 524 out of 526
persons had received bribes, and that they would do so if
they were indemnified, and he in the name of that Com-
mi•tee, had premised them such a security.
Mr. BARING continued—Why did not the Hon.
Member then confine his indemnity to those persons who
were to give this evidence ? If they freed the Hon.
Member from all disabilities, as the Bill stated. he could
not see what could hinder him from sitting for Stafford.
Or was he to gn bark and be returned again—thus making
the enormity of the offence his protection? This was a
question of general principle, and they might est 'Wish a
precedent which would a roduce very mischievoits
He moved that the Biil he commit ed that day six months.
Mr. ELLICE said tie Hon. Metnher's tali •c ions were
of two kinds. First, that it was esralli•hing a bad pt in-
cip'e, because there had been no previous inquiry and re-
port ; and next, that he proposed to omit the words, " not
having been a candidate at the late election." Now, his
Hon. Friend would have an opportunity of moviug these
word., as in all o her Bills. One ground for the course
he had putsued was, that it was the grossest hypocrisy to
select particular persons in such cases.—(Hear, hear.)
It was wed known that up to the present time scarcely
a Member had sat for this borough without having
paid for his seat. He feared that if the House
waited for the report of a Special Committee, they
might wait till it was too late to m ke any inquiry.
In the observation. which his Hon. Friend had made
on him, his Hen. Friend had spoken of him a. connected
with the Government, and as introducing this Bill in con-
sequence of that connection. He assured the House that
he was no more connected with the Government than his
Hon. Friend was. He had been too unjustly accused ,'f
merely wishing by this means to keep the sitting 31eatabers
in the House. He was not influenced by any such motive.
All lie desired was, that jes ice should be done. lie
thought that en this question the House owed a duty to
the public, and that the first Reformed House of Parkas
ment were bound to investigate matters of this sort, if they
wi.hrd to give satisfaction to the public.—(Hear, hear.)
This Bill was not a perfect novelty. There was one re-
cent instance of such a Bill having gone up from this
House, and several instances of Bills of this kind havi.
been brought down from that House into the House re
Commons. One particular instance was that of the
Melville case, where a film of indemnity was passed with
regard to Mr. Trotter. He thought it of importance that
the Bill should be passed before the Election Committee
sat to try the question of the return for Stafford. Tik.t
Committee was appointed for the 16th of April, and it
was for that reason that he now pressed the Bill through
tile House.
Lord SANDON thought the candidates, if they were
the persons who had been guilty of bribery, ought not to
be inc'utled in this Bill of Indemnity.
3lr. ELLICE said his object was not to punish any
party whatever, but to obtain a full disclosure of the facts,
in raider that the House might afterwards deal with the
matter as a public abuse.
Mr. LITTLETON should vote for referring this Bill