The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-14 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

On the motion of Mr. it. WASON, a return was
ordered of the number of petitions or memorials addressed
to the privy council or to his Majesty's government within
the last twelve months, praying for any alteration or
removal of the assizes in any ()minty of England and Wales,
specifying the name of the place from whence, and the
respective dates when, the same was presented and heard,
with the decisions thereon, and, if any remain not heard,
the reason why the delve has talc 'n place.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MASTER
COOPERS AND THE ADMIRALTY.

Mr. HUME intended to bring forward a motion, of
which he hail given notice, in consequence of what was
said the other night by the right hon. baronet the First
Lord of the Admiralty respecting a difference between the
master coopers and their workmen. He contended that in
the differences that had taken place between the masters
and their workmen the one party had a perfect right to
employ their capital as they thought fit, and the other
had an equal right to sell their labour as they chose, nei-
ther party using violence nor threats, and both being per-
fectly independent. The trade of coopers was very limited.
It app.ared that there were not more than 50 master•
coopers in the metropolis, and consequiMtly the competition
for work amongst the men was immense, The consequence
had been that the masters bad given a better artic:e to
their customers, and the men were more hardly worked
and without better pay. The question then was, were
the men to be at liberty to re-consider their engagements
with their masters; and he held it to be most improper
that during such a dispute the government should step in
and incline the balance either way. The house had heard
a great deal abuse of trades' unions, but why should not
such men have their clubs as well as members theirs
in Pall-mall and St. James's.atreei ? Prior to 1824 the
unions had been private societies, all their resolutions had
been secret, and they were little fetter than conspiracies ;
hut now all their resolutions were published and well
known. One of the objects of the trades' unions was to
obtain as great a return for the labour of the members as
possible, and he did not care if they mounted to only tine
or to one hundred thousand, provided they did not break
the law. Where was the harm of them ? He maintained
that the workmen ought to unite, for capital had great
advantages. In Derbyshire, for instance, the masters had
united, and on one occasion 18,000 men hail lb en sud-
denly thrown out of employment without having any
means of subs:rence. This he called a dreadful tyranny.
There was not a trade union that had not received a letter
from him, and he had advised them to abstain from any
breaches of the law ; and he maintained that the interfe-
rence of the government on the present occasion was im-
proper. He should move for copies of all correspondence
that had taken place between the Lords of the Admiralty
and the master-coopers.
S r J. GRAHAM agreed with the hon. member that
interference in such a case ought to be viewed by the
house with the utmost jealousy. He had always thought
that the repeal of the combination laws in 1824 hail been
of very doubtful theory, and he questioned whether it had
not proved injurious in practice. The hon. member had
just laid down very sound principles, and had stated them
very correctly. The labour of workmen was their only
commodity, and they were entitled to carry it to the best
market, and to obtain the best price for it that the market
would allow, provided they abst tined from all violence.—
(Hear, hear.) He contended that this most salutary rule
had been violated on this occasion on the part of the men,
and that it was a case in which the Government
could interfere and uphold the masters. The master-
coopers did not excted fifty in number, and the work-
men were about five or six hundred ; so that their com-
bination was exceedingly easy, and their power over their
masters was comparatively fteat. He denied the assertion
made by the hon. member for Dublin on a preceding even-
ing, and contended that no alteration had been made for
the last ten years in the quality of the article. In 1825
a difference in the qualll of the article bad been made,
but a corresponding difference had alio) been made in the
price. He held in his hands returns from the five princi-
pal brewers of London upon the subject. The house of
Barclay and Co. had stated that no differences h od been
made in their casks for the last ten years; Messrs. Truman,

Hanbury, and Co., limited the same statement to seven
years ; and Messrs, Hall and Co., and Mes•rs. Taylor and
Co., did the same. The coopers had higher wages now than
at any former period, and this increase in their comforts
gave him unequivocal satiscaction. He held in his hano
statements furnished to hint by seven different coopers'
yards, and it appeared upon an average, taking the bad men
with the good, and allowing two boys as equivalent to one
man, that each man earned 21. 6s. Id. a week. This,
he understood, was on an average throughout the year.
There was an el'owence fir beer money of 3s. 51d., and
for chip-money of Is. a week, and the balance was the
cash payment. li the men resisted the masters, had not
into
their masters an equal right to introduce new men
their yards ? This appeared to him the gist of the whole
question. Since the repeal of the combination I iws the
men had enforced the most rigid rules upon their masters
with respect to any addition of labourers ; and they had
limited them in the number of apprentices in a manner
perfectly unjastifiable. One firm, for taking on an addi-
tional apprentice, was resisted by the men, and was luined
Another firm. under similar circumstances, was compelled
by the men to dismiss the apprentices, to pay them their
wages, am •unting to 301., during their strike, and finally
to beg their pardon.—(Heir, hear, hear.) Gentlemen
[eight talk of tyranny under absolute power, but what
was this but tyranny and extortion of the worst sort? i
There was a system now prevalent which rendered t
extremely dmfficult to bring within the scope.
of the law
pissed by the honourable member for Mulailelex in
1824, and which contained a cinuse attempting, but
not succeeding in the attempt, to substitute a remedy for
that formerly giv-n to the masters by the common law
That act had rendered it exceedingly difficult to punish by
the common law any conspiracy of workmen against their
masters. Nothing was so difficult to prevent in the nature
of a breach of the law as conspiracy ; and there was no
species of conspiracy in which it was so difficult as in that
cart ied on under the system of the unions, by meals of
which a complete tyranny had beets established by the
workmen over the masters. This system was called (we
understood) " bringing in," and its operation was that of
watching every thing that passed in the workshops of the
masters and every thing done in their business, and thereby
to overawe them in all their transactions, but more espe
cially with regard to their negotiations with otter work
men. This system had been applied to the maeter.
coopers, and the lion. member far Middlesex had himself
admitted that the defeat of these strikes would be salu-
tary. He believed also that it would be salutary, and it
was because the government h id believed so that they had
resolved in this case to lend assistance to the matters in
order that the strike might he defeated. To supply the
immediate demands of the trade they had let the mas-
ters have 200 butts and 50 hogsheads from the stores
at Deptford, and in so doing he contended that they had
been supporting the law against parties who were ille-
gally combining to defeat it. It must not be forgotten
that the combination in this trade had consequences
beyond those produced in ordinitry crass. It went very
much to affect the shipping and commercial interests of
tee country, which must be deeply injured by being unable
to prosecute their usual operations at this season of the
year. Whitt the government had now done was the vet),
course successfully adored by Mr. Huskisson in 1825.
when a considerable injury was threatened to our shipping
by a strike of the shipwrights in the Thames just at the
moment of the opening of the spr ng trade. The govern-
ment then permitted merchants' ships to he repaired in the
Kings yards. The present case was exactly analogous,
and, seeing that it felt within the same rule, the eovern-
rnent pursu-d the same course when the application was
made to turn, and he had no hesitation in placing eefore
the house copies of the corr. sporidence through which the
proceedings were taken. Tne government did not deem it
necessary to take any further steps white these proceedings
were pending; hut if, after the lrip•e of a certain dine, some
amicable settlement should not have been come to between
tee masters and the men in the interval, it would be their
duty to see that the great intereste of the country were
protected against such comainations
Mr. O'CONNELL was afraid there could be very little
hope of an amicable settlement when government inter-
fered in a dispute between masters and their men, and
took part with the toasters against the men. The men
had done no illegal act. If they had, it was the duty of
the law officers of the crown to interfere and proceed
against them. Had not the men, if their terms were not
agreed to, a right to gay they would not work ? The
workman's labour was his capital, and he had a right to
make any terms he liked for its disposal as touch as the
master had fur his. The la v placed limits upon this right,
and said he should not use menace or force to °tufo:, she
tei ins upon which his tibour was paid, and while he kept
honsel. within those limits he committed no offence.
They kad a right to require of the matte a as much money
as they chose, and, it they thought to their advantage, to
say that there should be only a certain number of appren-
tices employed. They had a right to do this : and if
their terms were extravagant or unreasonable, let the
master coopers go to Ireland or elsewhere, where other
labourers wets so be obtained upon ether term!, and em-
ploy them if they liked ; and then if these workmen held
up any hand, or attempted to eateaten those newly em-
ployed, the government were at liberty to punish them,
and were hound to punish them. But they nod no right
to punish them where nu offence hail been corninit,ed.
He was told that the general interest suffered from the
dispute and the suspension of the work. That was no
justification for an interference not warranted by law.
It was well known diet the present state of time law per-
mitted the masters to combine as well as the workmen,
and that they did combine. If they did not meet in puerile
houses they met in their own parlours an: concerted their
plans. As to the allusion made by the right hon. baronet
to the repeal of the acts which made it difficult to apply
the common law, what was the common law ? Why, any-
thing which it pleased the judges tat sty it was. Both in
law and in principle these men had a right to unite far the
purpose of obtaining a better remuneration for their I boor.
They a•serted they were ready to prove the statement of
the right bon. baronet, as to the amount of their wages,
to be unfounded. They were ready to prove that the
wages they received on the average of workmen and the
year, dial not amount to more than 20s. a week.
Mr. LAIIOUCIJERE contended that a stronger case
of compulsion, teough avoiding the letter of the law, was
never made out than that sated by his right hon. friend.
Time hon. and learned gentleman had asked, why did not
the master coopers resort to the general market tor a fresh
supply of hands? They did so ; and what was the conse-
quence? 'Why, that such was the terror of the constant
system of esaionage kept up by the onion,
that by the
time the new men had been two or three days at their
work, they were induced to join the others. He contended
that the government had taken the precise course demanded
by the emergency, anti he trus eti, for the sake of the men,
that time matter would speedily be settled.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG was preeared to defend the course
pursued by the government, as bolting a complete analogy
to that adopted by Mr. Huskisson, and to maintain that
like that it was an interfer nee on behalf of the trade and
commerce of the country. The hon. and learned gentleman
had said that no breach of the law had been committed.
Perhaps not in a strictly legal sense, but he contended that
there had been a moral intimidation exe cised which called
for extra legal control till, oh," teem Mr. O'Connel
The hon. and learned gentleman also told teem the free dis-
posal of labour ought nut to he interle. ed with. Now the worst
feature of the tyranny exerc std by the unions was that one
portion of the men interfered with the labour of the others.
He denied, upon authority in which he had every reason
to place confidence, that there had been any conthinition
of masters since the law of 1825 came into operation
until this strike was made as the result of a combination
amongst the men. He could also, upon the best autho-
rity, cenfirtn the statement of the right hon. baronet as to
the wages obtained by workmeu in this trade. The
average wages upon the last year was 21. 23. per week,
taking the whole year round, exclusive of the allowance of
beer, which was one penny in the shilling. Besides this
aipvemraognee
theree o In: a. s
peran than,allowance
mk calleding
thceli
money, hwaangteosu, n
ast
had been stated by the right bon. baronet, 2/. 6s. 6d.
And of the men who received these wages one. fourth of
them were of an age exceeding sixty years. But many
of them made much more than this. He hail in his hand
a statement showing that one man made within the year
139/. 17s. 101., which was an average of 21. 103. 2d.
per week. He was not complaining of this, for if they
got Si. per week he should be very glad if the state of
trade enabled those engaged in it to pay such a sum.
But what he complained of was, that at a time when the
shipping of the country was in a state of depression
threatening its ruin, these combinations sliculd be per,-
mated to endanger its total destruction. Such a system
went to establisa the most odious tyranny over the com-
merce of the country.
Mr. FRYER was decidedly opposed to trades' unions,
though a radical reformer. He was opposed to them be-
cause he knew they could do no good. It was impossible
fur tee men to make the toasters pay higher wages, be-
cause they bad not got it to pay. What he wanted was
it combination of masters, and workmen too, against the
First Lord of the Adtairalty.—(Laueliter.) He wanted
a combination against tee corn laws.—(Hear and laugh-
ter.) He would tell the house what happened
to
He was a master of two or three hundred workmen, and
these poor men thought they could benefit their situation
by resisting him.—(A laugh.) Well, they stopped work

for about five weeks within the last eight months. What'
he told them was this :—" You may combine if you like,
'iut I can't pay you more 'wages ; 1 haven't got it. But,"
I said, "I'll tell you what I'll do ; if you'll combine with
ne against the cursed corn laws—(Great laughter)—then
;ou shall have three barrels of American flour instead of
t '3lO. ”—(Laiighter.)
Mr. BAINES w is sorry to see the Government depart
from a principle which they had laid down themselves.
When the master clothdressers of Yorkshire called for
their assistance, under similar circumstances of combina-
tion amongst their men, the Government replied, that
the law as it stood already gave them sufficient powers to
withstand such combinations, and there was no necessity
to call for the interference of government in their behalf.
That answer nppeared to him to be so judicious a one,
and gave such satisfaction to the workmen, who learned
from it that it was not intended to array the strong
against the weak, that be was sorry to see a different
course adopted in the present case. He did not see how
the coopers of London h,:l any more right to claim as
sistance from Government than the clothdressers of York
shire. Government by this act had established a very
bad precedent, and placed themselves in a very awkward
situation, wi,h the irritated feelings of the working classes
arrayed against them.

Lord ALTHORP, whose introductory remarks were
imperfectly heard, was understood to say that this, though
a case of individual dispute, was still a question of general
importance, inasmuch as it involved the very principles
of the law of combination,. He would not dispute that
men had a right to sell their labour for the highest price
they could obtain for it. He would concur with the hon.
member for Leeds, in the general principle that govern-
ment ought to lend its interference, except under &mum-
stinces to prove that, in any particular ease, such inter-
ference was fairly warranted ; and be thought the present
was such a case. It was an error to state that the infor-
m itions upon which government had acted were received
from the masters. It was not so, hut from the pur.
chasers, the employer of the masters, that the application
for assistance had come. The case appeared to be this•-:--
that the working coopers had combined not only to deprive
their masters of their own services, bur to prevent other
workmen from taking the employment they had rejected.
He (Lord Althotp) did not pretend to Ire a lawyer ; but
still he did think, that for any body of men to combine
to prevent their toasters from enjoying their free and un-
doubted privilege of employing whatever men they pleased
(though no illegal means were adopted in so doing) was
in itself an improper comnination. It was improper and
unjust not only against the masters, but against the men
also, whom they thus prevented from selling their labour
at the best price they could obtain, and were willing to
take for it. It was true they (lid this without resorting
to actual infractions of the law, yet still such conduct could
not but be viewed as highly reprehensible and dangerous.
There were two courses open to remedy this evil, either
to pr ,vide a new law, or to support the masters to such
extent as might appear fair and reasonable. Now, be did
hink that a new law was necessary—(Hear, hear)—and
he thought that, by upholding the masters to a certain
extent, these combinations .night be put down.
Mr. ROEBUCK observed that such combinations were
not confined to the coopers' business, but were common to
every trade in Emcland.
Lord ALT HORP—It might be so, but still the corn-
binatien under consideration was an improper one. It
had the effect, in par-, of putting the master coopers out
of employment, an I the working coopers also. Unche
these circumstances, the master coopers had applied to his
right lion. friend for a supply of workmen. In comply
ieg with this request the government had not done more
than any set of commercial or manufacturing men would
have done to assist another establishment and-r similar
circumstances. Workmen were sent up to town ; they
did not, however, enter into the existing combinations,
and, after they bail been in town a short time, they mound
their situation rendered so disegreeatie by this tyrannical
interference of the factious lebaurers, that they were
obliged to go hack again.—( Hear, hear.) Ile thought
that government were quite justified in the course they
had pursued. He and his right hen, friend li d consulted
with thir colleagues upon the subject of this application,
and they all agreed that they should act as they had done
These combinations were carried on very systematically
amongst the workmen, who kept tvatch about the pre-
mises for any I tbourers who might se.-k employment there.
Wheu cerribinationidan this nature were carried on to such
an extent, not only against the masters, but ageinst their
fel ow-workmen, he thought the government were justi-
fied in giving assistance when applied to. He (Lord Al-
thorp) regretted to see such proceedings, because lie had
agreed with his right hon. friend on the question of the
r, peal of the combination laws. It would he quite im
tio-ihle, if things wen, on thus, to retain those laws in
their present state, which had the effect of preventing the
inutacturere from entering into that competition an es •
smtial to the free interests of trade. If this continued,
government would have to yield to the popular clamour
which must be raised, and take these laws again into
considi r itinn.
Mr. ROEBUCK was quite wiling to admit this was a
question not only affecting a particular trade. but one upon
vvliitth the very framework of society depended. Tire
noble lent said there were peculiar circumstances in this
case which justifi:d the interference of glverninent. But
what were those peculiar circumstances ? There was not a
single branch of tra-'e in London which was not daily
subject to similar combinations as the present. In some
instances these combinations were countenanced by Act of
Parliament, as in the case of attorneys, who were not al-
lowed to have more than two articled clerks at a time.
This was to prevent the increase of the number of at-
torneys. And it was no violation of the law to say,
We will not work for you if you take an extra appren-
tice." He thought the interference of government in the
present case was not justifiable; it tended directly to de-
stroy that equality and balance of rights which existed be-
tween the workmen and their masters. Experience
showed that these strikes amongst the workmen failed to
raise the wages above a certain point. The trades' as-
sociations had themselves discovered this to be case, and
in a newspaper which advocated the cause of the unions
had declared that it was no longer expedient to support
the unemployed 'hands in idleness, but that the funds of
the union should be in future employed to supply them
oath work. This experiment would prove to them that,
w,th all their combinations, prices could not be raised
above a certain standard. The way government should act,
t
f iblbet I,eua, enwrtrorcnreti
oefoutofvdrahee,
the
concluded
ewsebe
yyuat
elhsi
s,one
knowledgebinoreso t
fxett
ivu; take,
seen,nwattthat
any pt
arart
ekhtmsembtoseen
righl,aasaytr
da.ntbhdye
arguments
td
pi
or
eeo af
t interference, g
pdt
eecase
theyg means
fairlyn
era
of the press. By these means they would begin to
be,Tihesohroryn.
to memberhear
the noble lord ( klthorp) express himself as he bad done
in respect to the repeal of the combination laws. When
Out noble lord spoke of the danger of the present sys-
tem, and of the probability of Government being obliged
te yield t e the popvlar clamour that must be raised, he
was surely not aware of the mischievous effect that de-
claration 'night have upon millions of the people who
would read his speech next morning.
Mr. 'l'. ATTWOOD thooght it highly imprudent on
the part of the right hon. baronet in thus throwing him-
self into tie bread: upon the present occasion. These
combinations were not confined to any particular trade or
any particular locality the principles extended throughout
England and Ireland, as well as France and other parts
of the continent. Government were therefore premature
in making war upon the poor journeymen ceopers, and
would have acted a nobler part if they bad turned their
arms upon the Emperor of Russia, as they ought to have
done.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear.") The hon.
member knew that, since the present combination laws,
there had been a great fall of prices all owing to the
change in the currency.—(Hear, and laughter.) The
workman had as good rights to keep up his paper wages
as the First Lord of the Admiralty hail to take his paper
salary or paper rents, or as the fundholders had to their
paper dividends. He knew, from his own inquiries,
that in Birmingham in 1822, when meat was 3d. a pound,
and bread cheap in proportion, that the wages in paper
money were about double what they bad been in 1792. Yet
the workmen would not consent to receive lower daily
wages, and would work sometimes only three ,days
in the week at full prices rather than take employ
meat for the whole week at a reduced daily rate. He
(Me. T. Attwood) knew very well that masters could not
afford to pay these wages, yet he could not blame the
workmen for trying to keep them up. It was better for
the noble lord at once to seek refuguefrsopmreatdhedcrowding
t
demands of the people in the regions of paper money, a
no longer advocate a system that must
and confusion throughout the country.—(Hear, (rear, end
a laugh.)
Mr. R. GRANT said that hon. members had talked of
the interference of government as if government had exer-
cised its power and used force in favour of the masters—as
if the Attorney-General hail exercised the power of the law
in putting down all combinations of the workmen to right
themselves. Nothing could be a more complete delusion
in itself, and nothing more instrumental in propagating a
complete misconception of the principle on %%lien govern-
ment acted Time hon. member opposite said the men were
at liberty to place whatever price they pleased on their
labour. No doubt they were. He (Mr. Grant) fully
agreed in that. But then the liberty should not surely be

A)nonuotrineeirfs and
hdbeeoyn ded
to seek protection frmiihe injustice and oppression of their
ttaoesettewi rosrni snegferkofmrpor
mogie cytteii:oernanmfer
to,
higher
g‘htylaeier
employers, so shoul
unjust and oppressive co-operation of bodies of their la
wages perhaps than they could afford to give.—( Hear. )
askednot
(14h:4:th:1:ern:other. If the men were at liberty
government censurable for extending it?—(Hear.) The
government granted the aid required, not as a government
but as traders—(Hear, and laughter)—as the protectors
of the trade of the country. If the masters asked govern
ment fur lawful aid, then it was lawful for government
to grant it. The government, be it recollected,
granted the aid, not to the master coopers as coopers, but
they granted it for the benefit of the consumers of the
country.—(Cheers.) If the men said that, in place of
working 13 hours a (lay, they would only work 12 or 10
hours, and would require the same wages, that the
profits of the master could not fairly allow such a deduc-
tion as that reduction of labour would require, then the
masters were just:fied to combine in return. The Go-
vernment did not exercise its power, nor was it its prac-
tice to do so, in enforcing the law for the punishment of
the original combinators ; but when asked in a severe case
it granted the aid required within the law to uphold a
more tlian
if om
ccom..
-
commercial class, and for the purpose of supporting the
general interests of this commercial country.—(Hear,
11: inea ti T
o n laws—nothing was
binations were carried on to an injurious extent, then trade
should be protected; and he trusted that no co-operations
alnothniontghitnhgat he
lie dehparteecdated more—but
of the workmen, and no incentives to that ca-operation
from more influential quarters, would ever render it ne-
cessary to restore laws which he, the hon. member oppo-
site, the house, and the country were glad to have re-
pealed.—( Cheers.) The Government in what they i‘.,id
did their duty. They did all fur justice and the common
good.
Mr. O'REILLY (who spoke under the gallery) said
that under the present system of combination there was
no such thing as flee trade for the industrious and honest
aria ins of the country. Combination met the free exer-
cise of industry at every turn. He would, by way of
illustration, state the (rem of the master shipbuilders of
Dublin. They were forced to employ old and compara-
tively useless men, because the young men who %vete
brought within the vortex of combination would not, or
dared not,
work for them.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore if a
ship required repairs she could not he repaired inDuhlin,
but the shipowner was obliged to send her to England or
Scotland, there to be repaired by Irish artisans, perhaps,
who ceul-1 not find employment at home. In his (Mr.
O'Reilly's) parish, consisting chiefly of a fishing popula-
tion, the fishermen could not get their boats mended by
giving the common wages given to carpenters all round
the country. There were a few persons there who mono-
pined the ship-carpenters' business, and they required
double wages. There was no one more unwilling than he
was to revive the combination laws; but if threats and
combinations were carried to a successful point by the la-
bourer-, then he hoped there was a moral power in the
country, or in the government, to offer a suceessful resist-
ance, and that ne roaster would be prevented from em-
ploying as many Jai wirers and apprentices as he pleased.
Mr. HUME said that the eeneral feeling seemed to be
t at the labourer should have a right to ask what waves
he pleased. But he (Mr. Hume) should at the same time
admit that if in'imid awn were used by the labourers that
should be checked ; emir p erti. s should ca-operate, and it
was tin it interest, as it was tl eir duty, to make mutual
cot-re-sions, as the public interest was concerned in it.

The twition wds t' en act eed tn.
COSTS OF CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRE-
LAND.

Mr. O'DWYER moved for a return of the amount of
cons payable to the crown s( licitor, and the sum to coun-
sel engaged for the ci own, in the case of the King v. Bar-
rett, trii2,l in the Court of King's Bench in Leland, in
Michae mss Term 183:3; with a specification of the va.
r,ou- occasions, whether on motions, arguments, opinions,
consultati.ns, trial, or otiierwise, counsel received fees;
di•scritiing when counsel ap,:eared in court, the number of
counsel employed or consulted on each occasion; and a
statetn, nt of the rank of all counsel employed, and their
names, ond the amount of fees paid to each on the
several occasions, and in the aggreg ite. The single pro-
secution against Mr. Barrett cost 7001. Such an enor-
mous sum shoWd be accounted for. It was known that
50,0(101 were expended by the Government in criminal
prosecutions in Ireland, awl the country oaght to know
how so much money was expended. There was one pe-
culiar feature in the late prosecution, and it was that an
eminent barrister, who was never employed in that depart.
ment of the bar, but who would be employed by the
traverser, was retained by the Government, and the object
as to huy him up. He (Mr. O'Dwyer) did not wish to
impu::n the motives of ihe torney_ameral ; but then he
was a member of the Privy Council, and advised prose-
cutioas hich he was afterwards to conduct. He (Mi.
0D N yet.) would not say that he advised prosecutions to
pocket the fees, yet he should say that it was not advisable
to give a lawyer an interest in prosecutions.

Mr. LITTLETON said that an explanation was given
in the house already three tones on the subject, and with
respect 'o the document transmitted to the Stainr-offiee,
he would only repeat what was said befote, that when hi,
retention was called to the Words of the Art of Parlainent
he transmitted the document to the head of the Squnp-office
in Dublin, the department to which it should be pioperly
referred. That was the practice usually followed in
official matters. He had no objection to the production
of the bill of costs, but then he hoped that the house
would be put in possession of the particular expenses
incurred in the several stages of the prosecution. The
ordinary expenses of the prosecution would be undoulve fly
light, and the additional expenses arose from the delays,
vexatious he would not say, and the opposition caused.—
(Hear, he The return, he was sure, would give
satisfaction to the house. As to the number of counsel
employed, and he would say that as m nay had been
employed in criminal- prosecutions in England—Sit
James Scarlett employed as many—( Elea*, hear)—.
it was usual in Ireland to employ the Sergeants
and the senior King's Counsel in such pro,ecutiens, and
in case any accident might occur to prevent their attend-
ance to give retaining fees to Counsel to fill their places.
Now it so happened that, the Solicitor-G-neral, Sergeant
Pennefather,and Sergeant Perrin were absent from Dublin,
and the Attorney-General directed that Mr. Holmes, the
gentleman to whom the hon. member alluded, should be
employed in their absence. That was the cause why so
many lawyers were employed ; eight, or even seven were
perhaps too many, but be had stated the reason for em-
ploying eight. He (Mr. Littleton) would tell the house
that the Attorney-General, though a member of the Privy
Counsel, was not consulted about those prosecutions. He
had no voice or influence in directing them—(Hear, bear)
—and from his well-known liberality in pecuniary mat-
ters, of which he (Mr. Littleton) had some knowledge,
he was far above encouraging prosecutions for the sake of
making money.—(Cheers.) The right hon. Secretary
then moved an amendment, to the effect that the return of
costs should distinguish the proportion of costs in the se.
veral stages of the prosecution.
Mr. RUTHVEN contended that the system required
amendment.
Tile amendment was then agreed to.
LEAMINGTON SPA PETITION COMMITTEE.
Mr. TANCRED rose to move for the discharge of
the order appointing a committee to investigate an impu-
ted breach of privilege in the affixing of false signatures to
a petition from Leamington Spa, praying for the exten•
sion of the elective franchise to that iown. He did so on
intpihiojoeuvpgreeyr:oiptfur:onernsde
nttohltifeeadt
complaintfctroioi emmr em
iahtnateyde
bhoeet:ehiett
ehreni
tohopbeeltei
i(petitionurdi:ye_ert_cemitsitiot.iaalinudtints
itp,e‘olyranilluoc:,,ifn.nhgittchiolhele
Forces
opoidiprtcoileo:sin3trihao7enda,
isoomfbmjtehemacedtbeeedrh.yto noble tiiihltoeeromdlin oownvt
sde aatntig,dtinhluceeen,iedtffr
ttt
hil
eee
committeelciooi
nn .mai committee
de e
onlearnedthe
e agreedmteom.
Leamington
ho
lavd,
ss
ua
pi do there
n
examination,w ase, and thet
appeared that there was no petition as stated by the hon
olthit liesbnceelraawrfreaesr.
pa petition from fur-
ther proceeding.
Mr. H. HUGHES seconded the motion.
Mr. HALCOMB opposed the motion. When it became
known that there was a thought of extending the elective
franchise to Leamington a meeting of the householders in
that town rated at above nil. was hell, and out of 850
no less than 757 signed a pe ition against the projected
alteration. A petition was afterwards preserved, signed
by 419 persons, in favour of the extension of the franchise,
and when the first petitioners found that the two petitions
were noticed by a committee of the house in ,qiial tern's
they were naturally greatly astonished. In consequence
of information which had come to his knowledge
he had stated, when he bad moved for this committee of
inquiry, that 757 of the 10g. householders bad signed
the first petition, that 35 had refused to sign any pe-
tition, and that 25 were absent. It was therefore evident
that some gross deception had been practised on the house
and on the committee, because the second petition had
been received as being signed by 419 out of the 850 per-
sons in Leamington win were rated for houses above the
annual value of 10/. That the matter was one of im •
portance and deserving inquiry was clear from the fact
that the House of Lords had that day desired a copy of the
ireport of the committee which had treated the two peti-

Ilona as of equal weight. He contended that the coelo*
alittee ought to pd. With resect to the eXPetbi
et
the committee wasrocee not properly answerable for Much for
had been incurred. The bon. and learned mernherthe
llonbury (Mr. Tancred), just as the committee was on d
eve of adjournire, for the day, hail entered the room stn.
rated that the heusp had made an order that
certiltePfeorte
tioners should be heard by their agent or coun'el „.„,
the committee ; and the hon. and learned member ins
..e,
duced Mr. Joseph Parkes and another gentleman es..t: a '
aunts of the petitioners. A noble lord 00 the
andcorihee ,
immediately asked f,r the order of the house;
learned memtier for Banbury if the house bad made
(Mr. Holcomb), as chairman of the committee. in order tici.
Prevent inaccuracies, had expressly asked the 11°' and
the order
is und. retood to have be.at stated by him ; and if so, where
was the order ? The hon. and learned member had —,,,,
was [Week sat y
in reply that the house had made the order, and that dou"
less it would be served as soon as possible. I 0 e,°rlelti.
quence of that statement the witnesses were detained
P _.
he expense inctit red. It appeared, however, on furtbel
inquiry, that no such order had been made by the house.
The het,. and learned member then argued at considerall'
length to show that no petition from any party aggrieve
se_vLentteenheost
mittee and '
signatures in
, in support of his • rgurnent he quoted the Case,
of Kiltn in 1822. -
tot tbefi before genuine.tli c olnat mi wastte e, truew h oseven statedt
Mr. IL HUGHES denied that it was proved before the
wrcommittee that seventeen of the signatures to the petitiotli
qutto,stiaountirueirpirzeesenthteed.appointment of a emu'
brOtetonl
tares
but
a Purporting to be theirs were not attached by thews!'
acK"wledee that they were the P hose names tbl'
ahnetre
pteimrseonathewcaoumidmibteteerwaderueceidnfworr,oetwl tabu
persons w I
After a few words from Lord EASTNOR, and Afr.'
ABERCRONIBIE,
Lord G. SOMERSET felt he owed it to himself afl
well as the committee of which he was a member to Oil!
upon tie hon. member for Banbury to state to the houser,
and before the country, what act of the committee, or 01
any in lividual member of it, justified him in assertlt4
that it was a committee from which jus'ice could not W
ttahapteritihoens,jog,neare.,.
expect ed.—(Cheers.) The only mistake of which the
committee cquld he accused arose from the mistake of the
lion. nieml,er him., If. He did not say it was a wilful!
mistake on the p rt of the bon. and learned member; bdt.
when the hon. member was prone to accuse others
0111,
ought to recollect he was not himself always correct. Tbiefl
statement of the lion. member for Dover was correct. ,
the committee were prevented from proceeding there Wen"',
he great impropriety,
Lord J. RUSSELL wished the chair to state what the
practice of the hous really was . at 1
The SPEAKER e said it was of course competent to t 3 ,
House to reconsider its proceedings, but be thouco
would Le irregular for the house to discharge the
gat.
h 1 i
tnittee.
The house then divided-
-51 t

For the motion ........ . .................. 9
Against it .................................... 4,2
Majority ..............................
The order tv,,s dellAldinify discharged.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at a qu,rter.i,ast one.

p .. . . .
in_
iirrier
,•t'h
.... .
ding,
LIST OF THE MINORITY gr,
Of Sixty (T-Ili•r4 ine'uded) who Vot, d in fivour of 0.
R.ppon's Motion for " R lieving the Arcbbis'oPs..sl,
'r 1g"
Bishops of the Established Church from their
......
of Lords
tire and Judicial Dtvies in the House
Against the Motion ..................... 11
For the Motion ........................... ovey
Majority against the m0ti0n.....„
Total in the house .............. ~T.,/p.
ENGL sCOrt"'" - k
VV• D -akir
Adams, E. 11.-Carntirthensh Gillon, ,• twin ,Slc.
Agl ion by, H. A. -Cockermou th Hay, '
Attwood, rhos—Birmingham Oliphant, 1, .
Baines, Edward-Leeds Glasgow ,
Bewes, T.-Plymouth Oswald,J.--. ashire
l;lake, sir F.-Berwick Pringle, R.--srlk, . ton, ,V.
_fiadding ~
Buckingham, J. S.-Sheffield Steuart, R. Green"'
Buller, C.-Liskeard Wallace, It-
Fifeshire
Chaytor, W. It. C.-Durham Wemyss, J--
C,drington, Sir E.-Devonport IRELAND'
GalwaY
Ewan, W.-Liverpool Blake, Martin- .n Co,
i aithfull, G.-Brighton Evans, G.--Dubb c_a
Ferguson, Sir R.-Nottingham Jacob, E.-iiungaryl,?, blin
11--01 ft
Fielden, John-.Oldham O'Connell, Danie
.......,„,
Grote, G.-London O'Connell, Dlorgan,
ogle&
Guest, J. J.-Merthyr Tydvil O'Dwyer, A. C.--ni„T ri
Harvey, D. W.-Colchester Fluthvn E. S.--,--liliAare
liumphery, J.-Southwark ' Edward-
Ruthven, _
__,rary
Ingiloy, sir \V.-Lincoln Sheil, R. L.--k,.,11410,,,,
Jame% 'W.-Carlisle \rigors. N. C.--"r fad
Oswald,
We%
Kennedy, J.-Tiverton
Leech, J.-West Surrey Walker, C. A.-- 00.
'II. 11 13'1.
Liter, E. Cunlitfe-Bradford
West Kent ilrjoriniltaS;ne-..":rralee
PAIRED OFF IN %unto,'
Rider. 'Thomas-West 01
Parrott, Jasper-Totnes Bainbridge, 11.5,.,1 T. th Puril ti
Pease, Joseph-South Durham ,Bowes, John- umonntoL4 h.
Philips, M.-Manchestcr
Staveley,
Sebright, Sir J. S.-Hertf dh ' a , enja .rai..-sti
Potter, R.-Wigan ' Flein ink ALign Gitwat
Richards, J -Knaresborough Lynch,2l-, --- -,--„HY"
Roebuck, J. A.-Bath o'Conne•-'
a eral-Bath
T. K.-Ripon
Ron-filly, J.-Bridpoit
Rusell, Lord-Tarktock I siitry 0.„,n1.:,•
or s Molesworth• Sir vo
Cornwall.
Warburton, H.-Biidport
Whalley, Sir S.-. Marylebone
Wilks, J.-Boston
Wood, Aldennan-London
;Paliner, it_
e--ri A'"hire

TELLSO.S.
Hume, J.--MiddleSeß
Rippon, C.—Gateshead

Ea,tnotrh:
Skipwith, Sir G.—lVa y,
rw___.......---icksh.
willoughb
Vyvyan, SL°Ci
On Mr. Towered's Motion to lt,cin,l the APP‘nn:,
Sir IL r'--
BOriFstolTilEsata:liremiomoinN,t:° RI 71 1r: talent Of
heds
Inglis, Sir H. H.—
j.......Dovetriniversiti
ant--I'°
versity Viseo _ .
H.—Oxford
exge7btoernd theuni . Loe,caDams:i.
ylneeer , o
A.
.Pce......t i :°::: :ice:
Pringle, R. —Selkirksh ire ,F----Dublin
.. . . .. . . .21.. .... .
LIST
r °r
Roi 1.
It R.i
.. _
..:

Per Quarter.
glandford

Chant .M,.,

Huntingdon.......
Long Sutton...—.
Louth "NV \OM/WM.IM

Lynn—,
Newark

," ea
1 s 01
eol3 -
23
'27

Nottingham
Peterborough -
Plymouth
Sleaforl

U ppin gh am —..«—..
S.Visbech ..*,......—...

Foreil