The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-19 00:00:00

Till SUN, 1,014130 N, PRIDAY MOILNING JULY 1 1e44.

ITYIPEittAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 18.

Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
Me::sengers from the House of Commons brought up
the Southampton Improvement Bill, the Glasgow Rail-
way Extension Bill, and another private Bill.
SCHOOLMASTERS OF SCOTLAND.
Lord MINTO, in presenting a petition from the paro-
chial schoolmasters of Scotland, complained that the dis-
cussion which took place when he formerly put some
question upon the subject to her Majesty's Government
had been misreported in the provincial newspapers.
It had not ben said in that House that her Majesty's
Ministers had washed their hands of the subject. That
was the very contrary of what occurred ; for his Noble
Friend opposite had said that the Government were
willing to give the subject a favourable consideration,
but were unable to take it up at present. The petition
which he now presented originated in a mistake of his
Noble Friend's answer, in consequence of the imperfect
manner in which it had been reported.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that his Noble
Friend bad rightly understood. the answer of the
Government.

DETACHED PARTS OF COUNTIES BILL.
Lord HATHERTON moved the second reading of
this Bill, which, he said, was intended to remedy the
inconveniences to which some counties were subjected
by having parts of other counties embodied in them and
completely detached.
After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY
and the Duke of RICHMOND, the Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.

AGRICULTURE.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented 120 petitions in
favour of agricultural protection, some of which included
a prayer against the Anti• Corn-law League.
THE RACE-COURSE G4MING BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL presented the petition of which
he hal given notice, from Charles Henry Russell, to be
heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, against the
Actions for Gaining Discontinuance Bill, lie thOught
the petitioner was entitled to be so heard—an indulgence
for which there were many precedents : amongst others,
a case in which his Noble Friend Lord Brougham held
a brief shortly after he was called to the bar. The
Noble Lord on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond)
had said that there was some doubt whether Russell had
a right to be heard, as it was supposed that he was only
the nominal plaintiff. But the fact was, that Russell
would be liable to the costs of the whole proceeding,
if he should lose his actions, and he was therefore im-
mediately interested. He (Lord Campbell) therefore
hoped the House would grant the application.
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND,
the petition was laid on the table.
Lord CAMPBELL then moved that the petitioner be
heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, on the reading of
the 0.-der of the day that the Bill be committed.
SALMON FISHERIES BILL (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of RADNOR in presenting a petition
against this Bill, said he understood it could
not proceed further without her Majesty's con-
sent being previously given, as was the case
with another Bill recently abandoned on that ground.
But he hoped, whether that objection applied to this Bill
or not, their Lordships would reject the Bill.—(Hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the object of
the Bill was a very fair one ; but he would not object,
if opposition were persevered in, to postpone the Bill till
another session.

~The Earl of RADNOR complained that no notice bad I
been given in the orders of the second reading. If any
such notice were printed in the orders, he was very much
mistaken, and he had paid great attention to the progress
of the motion, as he looked with some suspicion on the
appearance of a new Salmon Bill for Scotland or Ireland
every year —(A laugh.)
The Duke of RICHMOND ultimately agreed to put
off the Committee on this Bill (which stood on the
paper for to-night) till Monday fortnight, in order that
he might make himself master of the subject in the mean-
time ; for he must confess that he knew nothing
about it when he moved the second reading.
THE ALIENS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to draw the attention of
their Lordships to the subject of a Bill which had
come up from the other House, and which
stood for the second reading. As the law now stood,
aliens were subject to great disadvantages in this
country. They could not hold office, nor inherit free-
hold property, nor possess leasehold property ; neither
could they own a share in any ship. The law would ope-
rate with great severity in cases of persons born of
marriages in which one or other was a foreigner.
He knew a most eminent lady who held an
English and Scotch peerage in her own right ;
but she had married a French nobleman ; and if she
had a son born in France, that son could not inherit her
titles or her estates in the kingdom. The law of Eng-
land was the most illiberal of any nation in the world.
In France the nation of any country was allowed to
buy or inherit land or any kind of property,
and to hold office, just as if he were a native of France.
In respect to Ireland, however, the legislation of that
country had been as liberal to foreigners as that of
France, for aliens could purchase property, hold
office, or even sit in Parliament, as freely
as a native, until the 36th of George the Third.
The object of introducing into the Act of settlement the
disqualification of foreigners from holding office, was to
prevent the foreign favourites of the King from being
preferred to Englishmen.—(Wear, and a laugh.) But
the Spitalfields weavers—or such as were foreigners—
were disqualified even from holding the office of parish
constables in their own parish. Now the cost of an Act
of naturalisation could not be less than 1001. But were
there not many foreign artisans whose skill would
be of great value to this country, if they were not dis-
qualified in such a way, and could not get over the
disqualification, except at such an enormous, and,
to them, insuperable expense ? The report of the
Committee of the House of Commons was a most
just one, but in some respects he did not altogether con-
cur in its recommendation. In the Bill which he was
now about to call their Lordships' attention to more par-
ticularly—the Bill to which he alluded in setting out—
he proposed to add a clause, that the wives of British
subjects should be naturalised by the fact of their marri-
age; and that in all Acts of naturalisation the clause
prohibiting a naturalised person to sit in Parliament, or
hold office under the Crown, should be omitted. It was
a strange anomaly that the naturalised foreigner could
not hold the humblest office under the Crown for fear
he should betray the country to foreigners, whereas if
he were chosen as the husband of the Sovereign, the
Act of Settlement would be so far suspended, and he
would be endowed with all British privileges.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the
Chamber of Co:nmerce, Dublin, in favour of the Dublin
and Cashel Railway.
The Marquis of WINCHESTER presented numerous
petitions in favour of agricultural protection.
ART-UNIONS.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved the second reading of the
Arts-Unions Legalisation Bill. He stated that the ob-
ject of the Bill was to exempt the members of those in-
stitutions from the penalties to which they were sup-
posed to be liable under the Lotteries Suppression Act.
These institutions were founded upon the report of a
Committee of artists and friends of art, and were in imita-

tion of the oue established in Prussia, under the auspices
of the King and the direction of Baron von Humboldt.
Since the art-union of London was established, it had
distributed more money for the encouragement of art
than the liberality of Government had contributed in the
same time.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE-10,000L more.—(Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE—Members of both Houses of
Parliament, and of the present as well as of the former
Government, and those distinguished persons, with
13,612 other subscribers, were liable to penalties, as en-
gaged in illegal lotteries. Their Lordships had lately
sanctioned the principle of a Bill to give to the persons
who incurred penalties in gaming on horse-racing the
same protection which he asked them to give to those
most laudable institutions. The enactments of his Bill
were two—first, an indemnity for all the proceedings
that had taken place; and secondly, that any art-union
which should in future obtain a royal charter on the ap-
proval of its rules and regulations by the Board of
Trade, should be a legal body, and be empowered to dis-
tribute works no •orriing to the provisions of such charter
of the Crown, or permission by the Board of Trade.
The petitions in favour of the Bill had come from every
important town in the United Kingdom; and he hoped
their Lordships would now allow the second reading, not
binding them or any Noble Lord to the precise terms of
any part of the measure.
The Bill was then read a second time.
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT.

. _
• The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice that, on
Monday next, he would move the second reading of the
Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill. He would also move
that counsel be heard against the Bill, as they had been
heard in the other House. • •
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILLS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR brought up the report
of the Select Committee on these Bills.
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that their Lordships
should at once refer the report of the Select Committee
to a Committee of the whole House, as it was desirable
to lose no time in passing so important a measure at
this period of the session.
Lord CAMPBELL thought that, in the absence of
Lord Cottenham, who had had no notice of the Noble
and Learned Lord's proposition, the Bill ought not to
proceed another stage.
After a very desultory conversation (amidst much in-
terruption), in which Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell,
and Lord Mountcashel took part,
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the report be now
referred to a Committee of the whole House. His Noble
and Learned Friend who was absent would have ample
opportunity of expressing his views of the report at a
future stage.
Lord CAMPBELL continued to oppose this proceed-
ing, on the ground of its irregularity and the absence of
notice.

After some further conversation,
Lord BROUGHAM postponed his motion until to-
morrow, with the hope and distinct understanding, that
no person would take advantage of the late period of the
session to induce persons elsewhere to defeat the Bill.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, in bringing forward
the motion of which he had given notice, said that he
had to accuse the Commissioners of Education in Ire-
land of having unlawfully applied the school funds, and
usurped the school land, and of other violations of their
trusts, and excess of their lawful powers. In one case,
in which he was a trustee with another Peer, with a
Miss Stannix, he was refused by the Commissioners all
information as to what had been done with the property.
He communicated with the lady, and she informed him
that she was induced to make over the property •to the
Minister without consulting him as a trustee, through
the linfluence of her solicitor. The Noble Lord was in-

terrupted whilst reading the lady's letter by the an-
nouncement of

A message from the Commons. The messengers
brought to the bar several Bills which they had passed.
The Earl of MOUNCASHEL said it was now sug-
gested to him, that he ought to take the case into Chan-.•
cery ; but that would be useless, as the Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland was one of the Commissioners.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—You could take it into
the Rolls Court.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said the Master of
the Rolls was also a Commissioner.—(Laughter.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Oh, pray, don't bring
it before me.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL was proceeding with
the statement of his case against the Commissioncrs
when he was again interrupted by
Lord WHARNCLIFFE, who said that the House
could do nothing in the matter, which was one for a
court of law only to determine, and he asked the Noble
Lord whether it was worth his while to occupy the time
of. the House when his speech could lead to no result ?
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said, if their Lordships
would hear him, he would show that the House had
power to interfere. He then proceeded to argue that
the Commissioners had made inaccurate reports to the
House as to the instalments which they had received
nut of this property. That was a matter into which the
House ought to inquire. They (the Commissioners)
had 1,2001. to account for, and to the schoolmaster of the
school in Clonmel, to which the property belonged,
they had only paid 100/.. He concluded by moving for
a Select Committee to inquire into the charges which
he had made.

Lord WIIARNCLIFFE recommended his Noble
Friend to lay a statement. of his case before the Lord
Lieutenant, and, no doubt, he would receive some kind
of answer. The Commissioners were gentleman of the
highest responsibility, and, no doubt, they would explain
their conduct.

The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the House
ought not to expresss an opinion on a case which ought
to go before the Court of Chancery. He was surprised
to hear that the trustees would not bring their case
before his distinguished friend the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, because that Noble and Learned Lord was one
of the Commissioners of Education.

After a few words from Lord GLENGALL, and from
Lord WHARNCLIFFE in explanation,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the case
brought forward was subject for inquiry in the Court of
Chancery. He had not been able to understand what
the case of the Noble Lord was.—(A laugh.) There
was a Board of Education, and there were Commissioners
of Education, and it was impossible to guess against
whom the accusation was made.—(Hear. hear.) There
was an Executive Government and a Court of Chancery,
who would do any aggrieved persons justice.
HORSE RACING BILL.

On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, counsel
for the petitioners against this Bill will be heard to-
morrow (this day) at four o'clock.
The Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill was read a
third time, and passed.
The House then adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at One o'clock.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
The House went into Committee on the Poor-law
Amendment Bill. . _

On clause 55 being proposed,
Mr. VERNON SMITH said he rose for the purpose
of asking for some explanation from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman as to the nature of this clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM admitted that there was some de-
gree of ambiguity in the clause ; but it was intended to
give exclusive power to paid rate collectors to collect
the rates, and thus save parishes the expense of a double
set of officers for performing the same functions.

After some disseussion,
Mr. WAKLEY said the clause was so obscure and in-

tricate, that it was enough to tie one's brains up in knots
to read it.—(Hear,- hear.) He advised the Right Hon.
Baronet to postpone the clause till it could be made
clearer. _ _

Sir J. GRAHAM said, when he allowed' the clause
was ambiguous, he did not admit there was any fault in
the construction of it.

Mr. HAWES, in clause 55, moved the following pro-
viso •—" Provided alwaya, that where the appointment
of such assistant overseer shall have been made under
the powers of any local Act of Parliament of a parish
containing more than • twenty thousand persons, such
appointment shall continue, and the powers of such local
Act as to any future appointment of an assistant over-
seer shall be exercised, notwithstanding the provisions
of this Act."
The proviso was agreed to, and the clause, as amended,
was passed.
Clause 56 was then postponed, which imposed a penalty
upon overseers for neglect in providing funds for the re-
lief of the poor.
Mr. HENLEY objected to it, as it would act with
great severity on overseers.
Sir J. GRAHAM. considered the clause absolutely
necessary to prevent that neglect which had taken place
on several occasions.

Mr. HENLEY thought the word " wilful" should be
inserted in the clause.

Sir J. GRAHAM had no objection to the insertion of
the word.

Mr. WAKLEY trusted the light Hon. Baronet would
not consent to the insertion of the word " wilful," as
nothing was more difficult than to define or prove wilful
neglect. He did not consider the clause as it now stood
too stringent. _ _ _ _

Mr. HENLEY objected to the offence being considered
as a misdemeanour.

Sir J. GRAHAM would consent to the offence being
punished by a fine.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
On clause 57 being proposed, which provided that
guardians under local Acts should conduct their pro-
ceedings in the same manner as guardians appointed
under the 4th and sth of William IV.,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the words " local
Acts " should be struck out, as he was anxious to ex-
clude metropolitan parishes, at present governed by
local Acts.

Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the omission of the words
local Acts. There were several country parishes in which
the provision was necessary.
Mr. MUNTZ said that the parishes under local Acts
objected to be under the control of the Poor-law Com:
missioners at all. He should, therefore, move the
omission of all the' words after the words
" provided always," and the insertion of these
words in their place :—That it shall not be lawful for the
said Commissioners to interfere with the management of
the poor in any parish containing more than 20,000
inhabitants, where relief has hitherto been administered
to the poor by the guardians under the provisions of
a local Act, without first obtaining the' consent, in
writing, of at least two-thirds of such guardians, or a
majority of ratepayers assembled in public meeting,
called especially for that purpose.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had two objections to the
amendment. It would be quite inconsistent with the
provision agreed to by the House yesterday, and in the
second place he believed the control of the Commis-
sioners was as much required in parishes managed under
a local Act as in any others.
Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment of his
Hon. Colleague (Mr. Muntz). The Right Hon. Baronet
objected that it would undo what had been done yester-
day. That was exactly what he wished to effect. He
hoped the Committee would pause before it interfered
with a system that had worked so well for so long a
period. The guardians would be the protectors of the
poor, and would be faithful to their trust to the rate-
payers, but they would not be the tools of the Poor-law
Commissioners. The local Act had worked well, and
had given general satisfaction in Birmingham • but the
guardians would not be interfered. with. He objected to
the principle of the poor-law, and thought it proper,
while they were on the details, to attempt to ameliorate
it. He should support the proposition of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. WAKLEY said they were all indebted to the
Hon. Gentleman for his speech, but somebody had evi-
dently made a Mistake,—(llear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber spoke strongly in favour of the Birmingham local
Act, because under it the guardians were elected tri-
ennially—(Hear, hear)—the vote was.by ballot—(Hear,
hear)—and the suffrage was universal.--(Hear, hear.)
Was this the Birmingham Tory ? (Hear, hear, and
cheers.) If it was, he heartily hoped they would have
more like him in time.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber was returned as a good Tory, but he would find
there was a reforming party even on those benches.
With respect to the amendment itself, it was totally in-
applicable to the law as it now existed, and he should
vote against it.
Colonel SIBTHORP congratulated Birmingham on
having returned to its senses, and stated that he should
support the amendment.
Mr. MUNTZ begged to observe that his amendment
did not do away with all interference with the guardians
—it only rendered it necessary that application should
be made by a majority of the ratepayers before such in-
terference could take place.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Muntz's amendment • 23
Against it

Majority against the amendment... —55
Colonel WOOD moved the following addition to the
clause:—" Provided always, that the said Commissioners
shall, by order under their hands and seal, upon applica-
tion in writing of two-thirds of the guardians elected for
any parish in which the relief of the poor is now admi-
nistered by a board of guardians, or a board of trustees,
under a local Act, and which is united with any other
parish or parishes for the administration of the relief of
the poor, if such parish, according to tht enumeration of
the population published by authority of Parliament,
contain more than twenty thousand persons, to declare
such pari,h to Le separated from such union; and the re-
lief of the poor shall thereafter be administered in such
parish by a board of guardians, elected according to the
provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act, or by a
board of guardians or trustees, elected under a local
Act, as the said Commissioners may direct." He had
presented a petitiorlfrom Kensington on the subject, and
he thought parishes with such a population ought to
have the power of separating from a union without
coming to Parliament for a local Act. He hoped the
Government would consent to the amendment, which
would have a tendency to reconcile the ratepayers and
the poor to the operation of the law.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said this question ought to
be decided upon principle, and he had last year admitted
that many of the unions embraced too large an area, and
i he had proposed that committees of guardians should be
formed to receive applications for relief in the distant
given by the Hon. Member
power to the Commissioners,
11,1
fdeovirsetwnrieet
Westmoreland
n °l-e
withoutriel theasnadvi a notice
t oc
ognisvee nt of guardians, to alter the
boundaries of unions. He thought it would be better
that the decision.of the Committee should be first taken
' on the proposition of the Hen. Menibei for Westmoreland ;
if that proposition should be adopted this proviso would

be unnecessary ; and if it were not adopted his Gallant
Friend could, if he would postpone it now, bring it for-
ward as a distinct proviso on bringing up the report ;
and if his Hon. and Gallant Friend would make a slight
alteration in the wordini, of the clause he would consent
to his proposition. But. thought it best that the pro-
position of the Hon. Member for Westmoreland should
Fe first decided, as it was a most important proposition,
and worthy of most attentive consideration.
Mr. WAKLEY supported the amendment.
Colonel VOW), at the suggestion of Sir J. Graham,
postponed his amendment till the bringing• up of the
report.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
On clause 58 being proposed, which related to the
appointment of paid auditors by parishes under local
Acts,
Mr. lIOGG moved that the parishes of St. George,
St. Pancras, Marylebone, and St. James's, should be
excluded from the provisions of the clause.
Sir -T. GRAHAM raid that if he could be satisfied
that an independent audit under Sir John Hobhouse's
Act was secure, then he should say the present clause
was superfluous and unnecessary as regarded those
parishes.
Sir C. NAPIER did not think that barristers were
fit persons to be appointed auditors. The system adopted
in the parish of Marylebone with respect to the appoint-
ments of auditors had worked in the best possible man-
ner. He moved that the Chairman do report progress..
Sir B. HALL said that he had paid a good deal of at-
tention to the parish affairs of Marylebone, and he had
never heard of any clmplaint with respect to the ap-
pointment of auditors in that parish.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he did not care who appointed
the auditors, provided that the auditors were independent
of the body appointing them. He wished to consult the
wishes ofthe rate-payers. If they were satisfied, then
he should be satisfied also.—(Hear, hear.) He would,
therefore, not press that part of the clause which went
to the appointment of barristers as auditors.—(Hear.).
The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand
part of the Bi
Clause 59 -was agreed to.
On clause 60 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY was understood to propose that all
future clerks of boards of guardians should be attorneys
Colonel SIBTHORP was understood to support the
proposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM strongly opposed the proposition,
which would have the effect of mixing up law and liti-
gation in every matter of business, however trivial it
might be. The open system of appointment had worked
well, and why then interfere with it ?
Mr. WAKLEY said if they were to require the
clerks to boards of guardians to be lawyers they would
instantly entail an expense of thousands and thousands
upon every union in the kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) He
was most strongly opposed to the suggestion of the Hon.
Member for Oxfordshire, and he trusted the Govern-
ment would remain firm in its determination not to con-
sent to it.
The proposition of the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire
was then understood to be withdrawn.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then moved that the Chair-
man report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
SAVINGS' BANKS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented two petitions com-
plaining of the operation of the Savings' Bank Regula-
'Lon Bill.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE also presented a petition
from Mr. Rigby Wason, of the county of Ayr,
stating that he had been summoned before
the Committee on Controverted Elections, and
had given certain evidence before that Committee ;
but had seen with surprise that in the report it had
agreed upon, his evidence so given had been suppresse4,
and praying for the production of that evidence. The
Hon. Member gave notice that to-morrow he would
move that this petition be printed with the votes.
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN presented several peti-
tions from the county of Northampton, praying for pro-
tection to agricultural produce.
QUEEN'S STORES.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Mr.
Duncan M'lntyre, of Fort William, North Britain,
stating that some years ago he was the means of detect-
ing various embezzlements in certain stores, the pro-
perty of her Majesty, for which he was entitled,
under the Act 10th William the Third, to 2001.
from the Board of Ordnance, and praying the
House to give him just remuneration for services for
the exclusive use of his country.
IRISH MAGISTRATES.
Mr. ROSS gave notice that on Tuesday next he should
move for an humble address to her Majesty, praying for
the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll, recently restored to the
commission of the peace in Ireland.
POST-OFFICE COMMITTEE.
On the motion of Mr. BARING, leave was given to
Lord John Russell to attend the Committee of the House
of Lords on the business of the Post-office.
SINKING FUND.
Mr. WODEHOUSE moved for a continuation of the
returns relating to the Sinking Fund up to the present
time. .

REPEAL BUTTONS.
Mr. WYSE said that, seeing the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the Secretary at War, in his place, he wished to
ask him the question of which he had given notice. He
had observed in a Dublin newspaper, a few days ago,
a report of an occurrence stated to have taken place in
the Castle of Dublin. A young man, named Osberry,
was driving a lady through the gates of the Castle of
Dublin, and the soldier on guard asked him
if he had a repeal button. He replied " No,"
and the lady told the soldier that he ought not
to have stopped the man. The soldier followed
him, and asked if he had a repeal button in his pocket,
to which he replied that he had ; upon which he was
taken to the Chancery-lane station-house, and was next
day brought before the magistrates, who dismissed him
as not being guilty of any offence. A case of a similar
description had occurred to a person named Ignatius
Ennis. He wished therefore to ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary at War whether any orders
had been given on the subject, and if so, whether they
had been given by the Commander-in-Chief ?
Sir T. FREMANTLE said that, in reference to the
question which had been asked by the Right Honourable
Gentleman, no orders had been issued with regard to the
Castle of Dublin, but the Commander of the Forces for-
bade any civilian wearing political or party badges from
being permitted to pass through the barracks in Ireland.
He had not been able to obtain any precise information
with regard to the case alluded to by the Right Hon.
Gentleman. He had every reason to believe that the
order with regard to the barracks was legal, and of
course if any person actually under those orders had
exceeded his duty he would be responsible for the con-
sequences, and he believed that the soldier bad been
threatened with a writ, and the officer had been bound
over to appear on a charge of false imprisonment.
LOAN SOCIETIES.

In answer to a question from Mr. COWPER, on the
subject of loan societies and pawnbrokers,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that there was no proba-
bility of the report on this subject being laid on the
table of the House during the present session, but it
would be finished during the recess.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave
notice that he would, postpone the order of the day on
the Savings' Banks Bill, in order that the Poor-law
Amendment Bill might be proceeded with.
PROCEEDINGS ON THE POST-OFFICE
COMMITTEE.

Mr. DUNCOMBE rose, and said that he wished to
make a statement with respect to a particular branch of
the proceedings of that House. He had given notice of
his intention, in order that the Government or the gen-
tlemen comprising the Secret Committee in the Post-
office should not be taken by surprise. He was well
aware that it was not the practice or rule of the
House to refer or interfere with the proceedings
of Committees during their sittings, but he thought
there were cases in which it was right to refer to them.
He thought it was preposterous and most absurd for any
body to lay down a rule that supposing a Committee of
that House had done great injustice or committed some
error, no reference should be made to that act of injustice
or that error, until such Committee had made its report,
when it would be too late to remedy the injustice or correct
the error. He wished to call their attention to proceedings
which were of considerable importance to the public.
On Saturday last he was summoned before the Commit-
tee on the affairs of the Post-office. On being summoned
before that Committee, he was told that the Committee
understood that he had a statement to make to them.
He said that he had no statement to make,
but, as regarded any information that it was in
his power to give that Committee, he would
be most happy to give it. He was then asked
if he was prepared to prove certain charges that he had
made in his place in Parliament ? He stated he was
prepared to prove them by evidence. He was then
asked if he would repeat the charges which he had
made in his place in Parliament ? And he did
repeat the charges which he had made. He
repeated to the Committee the same charges he had
brought forward in the House, and each member of that
Committee took down deliberately what he said, so that
he stood in the position of one preferring an indictment
against the Government. There was no reason
why he should not now repeat to the House what
he had stated on a former occasion, and that
was that the letters of Foreign Ministers had been, and-
were, opened ; that a very unscrupulous use had been
made, during two years, of this secret power of opening
letters ; that a roving commission had been appointed in
the year 1842 for the purpose of opening letters in the
country ; that the letters of certain individuals had been
opened ; that he (Mr. Duncombe) was in a position
to prove, as he believed, that his own letters
had been opened ; that some fifty or sixty of Mr.
Mazzini's letters . had been opened since Christ-
mas ; that Captain Stolzman's letters had also
been opened ; and that all this had been done
at the instance of Foreign Governments. He (Mr.
Duncombe) also described to the Committee the way in
which he believed letters were opened in the Post-office,
and he also stated he was in a condition to prove the
existence of a secret or inner office, where this dark
work was carried on. Having done this, the Committee
asked him (Mr. Duncombe) to hand into them the list
of witnesses by whom his charges were to be
proved. He said, were he to do this, he should attend
in the condition of an accuser ten times more .than be-
fore, and he could only comply with this demand on
conditionithat he should be present during the examina-
tion of these witnesses. The Committee then stated
that they did not possess any such power as that of
allowing him be present without the leave or permission
of the House. In that opinion he (Mr. Duncombe)
fully concurred ; and as they pressed for his list of wit-
nesses, he (Mr. Duncombe) made a formal applicatiOn
that the Chairman of the Committee should apply
to the House for permission to enable him to
bp present, he of course being perfectly willing
to pledge himself to the same secrecy—(Hear; hear)—
which the other members of the Committee were bound

to observe. He was then ordered to withdraw ; and on
his return he was informed that the Committee had
decided to ask the permission of the House for him to 1 e
present at their sittings. He (Mr. Duncombe) certainly
had nothing to complain of in the demeanour of any of .
the members of the Committee towards him. They were
all of them in their manner most indulgent to li'm
(Hear, and a laugh)—indeed, he might almost term
their conduct as coaxing.—(Loud laughter.) It was
then suggested to him that he might leave his papers
in the hands of some member in whom he had confi-
dence, and who might put all the requisite questions.—
(Hear, hear.) To this he (Mr. Duncombe) had re-
plied
with perfect candour and courtesy that he had
equal confidence in all of them.--(Loud laughter.)
He was perfectly well aware that certain witnesses
would give their evidence reluctantly, to say the
least, and that others would, probably, not give it
at all ; in which case it would be impossible for
the Committee to enter into the merits of the
question. Still the Committee pressed him very
much to give up his list and to place them in the position
in .which he stood himself. He said it was totally im-
possible that he could do .so unless he himself
were present at the examination. Well now, let them
look at the state of this question. In the
first place, he was called to furnish a list of witnesses to
support certain charges which he had made, and he was
not to be present during the time that those witnesses
were to be examined. The Committee was appointed,
as he had before said, to investigate certain charges which
he (Mr. Duncombe) had brought against the Government,
but it turned round suddenly and converted itself in fact
into a tribunal for trying his (Mr. Duncombe's) veracity.
(Hear, hear.) He was perfectly ready to submit his
credibility to that Committee, but it was totally impossi-
ble that any gentleman who had not taken the pains
that he had to become master of the subject, could exa-
mine the witnesses in the same manner as himself.
They must remember that no lawyer was allowed to be
on the Committe?.. Here were nine gentlemen turned
into a room, totally ignorant of the subject they were
called on to investigate.—(Hear, hear.) It was well
known that the chief witnesses which they had exa-
mined were the different heads of the depart-
ments, and he maintained that, as far as they
had gone, or were likely to go, they had only
skimmed the surface on this great and important ques-
tion. The public would not be satisfied if the matter
remained in its present position. The public did not
want a report containing a great deal of original or
antique research, but they wanted to know the
,exact circumstances under which this power had
been exercised by the present and past Govern-
ments. He maintained that the truth could not be
ascertained, unless he were present during the examina
tion of certain witnesses. It was for the House to deal
with the question as in their wisdom they might think
proper.
Lord SANDoN and Mr. HustE then rose to address
the House amidst some confusion.
The SPEAKER having observed, that there was no
question before the House,
DUNCONIBE moved, that it be an instruction
to the Committee that he might be present during the
examination of such witnesses as he might think proper

to examine.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Lord SANDON, as Chairman of the Committee,
wished to make one or two remarks. He complained of
the terms of the Honourable Member's notice, the
Honourable Member having himself admitted to the
Committee that he could not be allowed to examine the
witnesses without an application to the House.
The Committee felt that the Hon. Gentleman had nu
knowledge of the parties himself, and that he only acted
on information received from others. For him to be
present, therefore, examining witnesses and observing
the evidence, would have been virtually to have put him
on the Committee—(Hear, hear)—without his having
the responsibility of being a member of it. The Com-
mittee conceived themselves to be quite capable
of examining witnesses themselves ; but they did not
think that it would in any way defeat the object of the
investigation to refuse to admit him to be present during
the inquiry. They should be most happy to have the
Hon. Member on the Committee, if the House should
think fit to place him there, as he would then have the
same responsibility as the other members of it.
Mr. HUME said he was sorry that this question had
been managed as it had been. It had thrown a great
deal of scandal on the British Government abroad, and
the present proceeding was likely to add to it.—(Hear.)
He was sorry he was not in the House when the Com-
mittee was appointed, or he should have opposed the
omission of his Hon. Friend's name. He believed in the
annals of Parliament no similar instance could be found
of a person coming forward as his Hon. Friend had done,
and giving himself all the trouble he had done, for which
the country owed him a great deal.—(Hear, hear.) The
Committee were placed in a limited sphere ; they had
only official men before them, and could know nothing
of the persons who gave information to his Hon. Friend.
He thought the Noble Lord took a narrow view of
what the Committee had to do. The Noble Lord
said that his Honourable Friend wanted to be
aware of all the secrets of the Committee,
but his Hon. Friend never wanted to be a member of the
Committee, and he only wished to be present during the
examination of those witnesses who were to support
those chancres which he made on his own responsibility.
His Hon. Friend did not want to vote.—(Bear, hear.)
lie only wished before the report was made, that an op-
portunity should be given to him to have that part
of the inquiry sifted. Few persons would have taken upon
themselves the responsibility of making those grave and
serious charges against the Government which his Ilan.
Friend had done, and it was impossible to convey to any
individual member of the Committee that which his lion.
Friend had the means of doing. He, therefore, put it to
the Right Hon. Baronet whether his Hon. Friend ought
not to be present. On thess grounds he should second
the motion of his Hon. Friend.

Sir R. PEEL said he was unwilling to throw any
technical difficulty in the way of the motion which the
Hon. Gentleman had made, although he thought he was
justified, according to the rules of the House, in object-
ing to a Member of that House stating anything with
respect to the proceedings of a Secret Committee.
but he was unwilling to debar the Hon. Gentleman the
opportunity of making his statement. No notice of a
motion had been given, and he (Sir R. Peel) was at a
loss to understand the grounds upon which the lion.
Gentleman had made the present motion. The
House would recollect the circumstances under
which this Committee had been appointed. When
the proposal was first made almost unqualified satisfac-
tion was expressed with respect to the formation of that
Committee.—(Cries of No, no.") He did not mean to
say that it was universal, but the Committee was allowed
to be appointed without notice being given. That
Committee was composed of men well known
for their impartiality and intelligence. In that
Committee the majority of the members were
opposed to her Majesty's Government. Four members
were in the habit of voting with her Majesty a
Government, and five with the Opposition, and the
whole of those five members voted for the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman for a Select Committee. That Com-
mittee had sat for several days, and he left it to every
Member to judge whether her Majesty's Government had
withheld a single fact from the knowledge of the Com-
mittee bearing on the inquiry, and whether they
had thrown the slightest obstacle in the way
of the inquiry, or imposed the slightest
impediment in the way of the examination of any person
whatever, either under the control of her Maje,ty's
Government or not. Her Majesty's Government had no
personal interest in the question which the Hon. Gen-
tleman had submitted to the House. He 'certainly
should feel it his duty to advise the House to adhere to
that course which had always been adhered to with re-
spect to Committees of that House. The question eas
whether the House now repented the confidence which it
had placed in the Committee. It was from no feeling of
disrespect that the Hon. Gentleman had not been placed
on the Committee. He conceived that permission being
given to the Honourable Member to attend that
Committee, he not being a member of the Com-
mittee, and not subject to the responsibility
which was imposed upon members of Secret Committees,
would, he thought, be casting a reflection on the House ;
it would imply on the part of the House a distrust both
in the stability of the Committee, and their desire for a
searching and perfectly fair inquiry into the who'e
transaction—secret-office and all. At the same time lie
assured the House, and the report which the Committee
would make would bear testimony to the fact, that her
Majesty's Government were interested in no way what-
ever in the decision which the House might come to; and
he felt it his duty to call on the House to adhere to its
forms, and regardless of any personal imputation that
might be thrown upon him, as the representative of the
Government, that he bad some object in excluding the
lion. Gentleman, he-felt it his duty to resist
,the pro-
posal of the Hon. Member ; nor could he support the
proposal which had been made for the Hon. Gentleman
to appear before that Committee, in order to be present
at the examination of the witnesses. If the accusers
were to be present, in order that the evidence might be
given in support of the accusation, why should not those
be present also who were accused ?
Mr. DUNCOMBE—I have no objection to that.
Sir R. PEEL—The lion. Gentleman felt the ju.,tice
of that, and expressed his readiness to acquiesce in it,
but he (Sir R. Peel) claimed no such privilege. He
thought the House ought to adhere to their established
rules. The Government were indifferent as to the de-
cision to which the House might come, because he would
venture to say that the House would be satisfied that her
Majesty's Government had concealed nothing from the
Committee. They had no wish to conceal anything,
but he felt that he had a duty to perform in the position
in which he stood, regardless of any imputation ehich
might be cast upon him.
Mr. ORD was understood to oppose the motion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said it would be well fur the
House to recollect the principle they had adopted in the
appointment of this Committee.—(Hear, hear.) They
had departed from the usual precedents in form- ,
ing Committees ; for they had determined that
they would have no lawyers on the Coin--
mittee that the accuser himself should not. be
present—and also that they would exclude from it all
those who did hold or had held high offi..te in her Ma-
jesty's Council.—(Hear.) He confessed that at the rime
he thought this was a fair principle, but circumstances
took place a short time afterwards which excited in his
mind, and in the minds of many other Members, the
greatest possible surprise.--(Loud cries of " hear,
hear.") Ho found from the usual organs of informa-
tion that a Committee on the same subject
had been appointed by the House of Lords,
which Committee was formed on a totally dif-
ferent principle than that suggested by the Ministers
foi the House of Commons. For, on the Committee of
the Lords were three ex-Ministers, two of them being
ex-Chancellors, men, of course, accustomed to the most
'skilful mode of examination either fur sup-
pressing or for eliciting information. If the Go-
vernment meant. to_ act upon a totally different
principle elsewhere, they ought not to have pursued this

course in the House of Commons. With • regard to the
motion before the House, he quite agreed in tne statement
that the House must choose between rutting the Hon.
Member for Finsbury on the Committee.. or a!lowing
him to examine particular witnesses himself.
Sir IL PEEL said, he really must say that; he thought
it would have been much more consistent with the
duty of the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he felt any objec-
tion to the constitution of the Committee, that he should.
have stated that objection at the time when it was ap-
pointed.—(Bear, hear.) if the lion. Gentleman thought
that there ought to have been two Members of the pre,-
sent Government on it, and two of the past, or that there
ought to have been lawyers, it would have been easy for
him to have made a motion to that effect. The Right Hon.
Gentleman complained of the exclusion of: the lion.
Member forFinsbury. hy, the Earl of Radnor, who had
brought forward the charge in the House of Lords, had
been excluded by his own consent, although lawyers were
appointed. The appointment of such eminent lawyers in
the lieuse of Lords was a decided proof that the Grbvern-
ment had no wish to exclude lawyers.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Right Eon. Gen-
tleman had a little misunderstood the nature of his 'ob-
jection. He had expressed his surprise that the Govern-
ment in one place had attached the greatest importance to
the Committee being so constituted as to exclude lawyers
and ex-Ministers, while in another place the Committee
contained two lawyers and three ex- Ministers..
Mr. V. SMITH said he had understood. when he
voted for the Committee, that no members of the Go.;
vernment were to be concerned in the investi-
gation. The Government ought to have itet«l' the
same in one place as another. The Committee
had not placed the lion. Member for Finsbury in the
box, and said, " We will report you to the House if you
do not answer, as they ought to have done—(Heir,
hear)—the public would now know that there was infor-
mation in the hands of a Member of that House which
be had not been pressed to give. In the Committee on
election compromises the House had not scrupled to
put the accuser on the Committee and in the chair of
it. He should therefore. move that the Hon. Manners
Sutton, and Mr. T. Duncombe be added to the Committee.
The question having been put,
The O'CONNOR DON referred to what had been
done by the Committee with regard to the presence of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He did not think it
would be right for the House to rescind the resolution
to which it had come when it negatived the proposition
that he should be a member of the Committee. If the
Hon. Member were allowed to be present it would be
equivalent to his being a member of the Committee.
He must say it was due to the Government to say that-
no information which the Committee thought desirable
was withheld. It was given to the greaten st extent. lie
trusted the House would withhold its opinion as to the
result till the Committee had made its report to the
House.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the conduct of the
Committee had been impughned.—(No, no.) But there
had been a degree of investigation which he thought
would have surprised the Hon. Gentleman himself.
The SPEAKER said that the proposition made had
been already negatived, and it could not be put again.
Mr. HUME asked whether the same proposition
could not be negatived twice under different circum-
stances ?
The SPEAKER said that a proposition having been
made which was negatived, it was not usual to renew
the same proposition in the same session, but it was dif-
ferent with regard to orders for papers where amended re-
turns were required to be made. -
Mr. W. WILLIAMS rose to address the House amidst
loud cries of " Divide, divide," and much confusioe. The
Hon. Gentleman said that it was most important that
the public should be satisfied with the proceedings of the
Committee. No charge had been brought against the
Committee, but it had been stated that they could not
conduct the inquiry as it ought to be conducted unless
the Hon. Member for Finsbury were empowered to exa-
mine certain witnesses. Grave charges had been brought
against her Majesty's Government both with regard to
the opening of letters and to the conduct of the Post-
office. Great excitement existed in the public mind on the
subject. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department replied that he had done nothing
more than had been done by his predecessors, and than
had been the usual practice of his office. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury had called for a Committee of In-
quiry, and, contrary to the practice of the House, the
Right Hon. Baronet, who was the party accused, had
himself proposed the list of the gentlemen who were to
compose the Committee of Inquiry. lie did not deny
but that the gentlemen constituting that Committee wero
all most honourable men, but they were all friends either
of the late or of the present Government, who were the
parties implicated ; and however honourable their con-
duct might be in the management of that Committee,
their decision would not give satisfaction as they were at
present constituted. Her Majesty's Government could not
but see that they would be acting wisely if they were to,
adopt the proposition of adding the Hon. Member foe
Finsbury to the Committee. It would give great satis-
faction to the public. On a question of so much import-
ance it was necessary that the public mind should be
satisfied, and the country would not be satisfied unless
the Hon. Member for Finsbury were on the Committee.
Mr. STRUTT, as a member of the Committee, fel
that he was placed in a very peculiar position. Tb
mouths of the Members of the Committee wer
sealed. In the course of the debate it had been allege,
that it was nessary that certain evidence should be ex
amined in order to make the inquiry complete, but i•
was not stated whether or not the Committee ha
already bad that evidence before them. The COIL
mittee were endeavouring to pursue their duty faith
fully and diligently, and they had done so without re
Bard to either party in that House. They had ha •
most ample evidence placed at their disposal by he
Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) With regard I
the proposal more immediately before the House, h
thought it would be a most inconvenient course t
adopt to admit any gentleman on the Committee c
the terms proposed. The Committee had already got
through a great deal of' evidence, and it would be a gret
inconvenience if any gentleman were to be admitte
now upon the Committee without knowing the evident
which had been gone into already. He could not kno'
whether that evidence might not have proved or di:
proved the particular allegations which he wished t
bring forward. If any gentleman were placed in
position in which it was proposed to place the Ho:
Member for Finsbury, it would be necessary that I
should be acquainted with the evidence which ha
already been given before that Committee. lie ha
hitherto acted •on the principle of not sayin
one word, or giving one vote, as to . the Const
tution of that Committee. On a former occasion who
the Hon. Member for Finsbury had been proposed as
member of it he would given no vote, nor should he vet
on the present occasion. He merely rose to caution tb
Howe not to draw any inferem e from the silence of th
members of the Committee.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. V. SMITH withdrew his motion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished merely to say a fe
words. The Right Hon. Gentleman said it would be
great slur upon the Committee, if he were added to it
the way proposed—it would be a still greater slur up(
the Committee, if he were added to it as a membe
The Noble Lord said that it 'would be tantamount
making him a member of the Committee, it' he were pei
mitted to be present during the examination of wi
nesses.—(Hear, hear.) They
,might just as well si
that the counsel who proved the preamble of a priva •
Bill was a member of a Conainlitee.'—i(Hear, hear.) A •
be asked was to he permitted, to he present at the ex;
minution of certain witnesses, whom he was pro
pared to produce to prove his charge. (Lot
cheers.) Would the Noble Lord' say that th.
charge had been either proved or disproved.—(Cheers
The witnesses he would produce had not yet been colicr
and by a recent and most searching inquiry, amounth •
almost to a persecution, which liad been 'instituted at tl •
instance of the Government, in 'order to"Aseertain who
was that had given him (Mr. D.) this information, '
was necessary that there should be a searching scrutin
from the letter-carrier up to the opener and the seal
of letters—in short, through all the ramifications of tl
Post-office. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet
plain question. Did he ever open or cause to be open'
any letter of his (Mr. Duncombe's)—(Laughter,
ai
cries of " Hear, hear ")—since the Right lion. Gent]
man had been in office ? He considered it a very gre
insult that any letter of any Member of that House, ha
ing taken the oaths of allegiance,•and holding the pO:
tion they did, should have their letters opened.—(Hear,
The Right Hon. Baronet could have no hesitation •
saying whether or not he opened his letters; for, Hai.
were not opened by the Right Hon. Gentleman, or I.
his directions, they were opened by tiller hands.
(Hear, hear.) Investigation was, therellire, most e
sirable. The Committee ought to have allowed him
examine the list of witnesses will& he held in his han
The Committee should increase its authority in ctai
Felling the attendance of witnesses to give m -
deuce. Ile was willing, before a Committee of eith
House, to substantiate his allegations.—(Hear, heat
He would then have all the charges he had made invt
tigated. The Committee had no right to say he refus
to facilitate their inquiries, or assist them in the invi
ligation of these charges. lie had offered them eve
facility in his power. Some of his witnesses were subs
dinates in the Post-office, and he would not wish to gi
up their names, unless he were present to protect the
He knew their evidence would compromise the-condi •
of their superiors, and their superiors would be most 1..
luctant to allow them to attend. Ile thought it v
absolutely necessary that seme one should. he press
who was acquainted with all the circumstances of' t
case. He told the House and the public that
examination—the labours of the Committee—would I
be satisfactory, conclusive, or complete, if those witnes,
were not interrogated. The Hon. Member conclud.
after repeating the question to Sir James Grahani,
saying he would persevere in his motion.
Sir .T. GRAHAM must say that no gentleman
the House was less accustom, d (if lie might use the t
pression) to vapauring dam the Hon. Member for
bury. The question which had been just put the lii
Member knew that, consistent with his sense of du
he could not answer.—(" llear, her," from the `ft
benches, and ironical cheers from the Opposition.) •
had already stated to the House, firmly but respectful
that, consistent with his sense or duty, he cot
not do so ; and he must Le the judge of what
sense of duty was. Ile could not, and would i
answer that question. When the appointment of
Committee had been moved for, he had stated with
disguise and wiihout reserve the course he meant
ptir:Aie, having previously obtained the consent of 1
Majesty. On the word and honour of a gentleman
had to the utmost degree since then redeemed Al
pledge. He had been two or three days examined bef.
the Committee, and his examination had not yet c
eluded. He felt that he should be supported by b
sides of the House in his resolution not to answer t
question which the Hon. Gentleman had put to him.
Lord SAN DON sail the Committee was willing
give the requisite guarantee to the witnesses, and
did not see what " protectimi" any witnesses before th
Committee could receive from the presence of the II
Member - fur kinsbury. The nitupies -would be p

fectly safe in the hands of the Committee, but the
Hon. Member ought to furnish the Committee with such
facts as would enable them to test their veracity.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the third reading of the Bill having been proposed,
Mr. M. OTERTIALL rose to oppose it. During the
whole time this 81l had been before the House no mem-
ber of the Ministry had given any explanation or state-
ment.
Sir J. GRAHAM—In Committee it was discussed.
Mr. M. O'FERR,ALL—Yes, there was some discus
sion in Committee, but there had been no Ministerial
statement on the principle of the Bill, or the reasons
which induced the Government to press it on the House.
—'lronical cries of Hear, hear," from Sir It. Peel.) Ile
understood the meaning of the Right Hon. Barontt's
cheers. That the late Ministry had done so—(Renewed
cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches)—
but it was proposed under very different circumstances,
after a Committee of the House of Lords had sat for four
months on the state of Ireland.—(Hear from the Opposi-
tion.) When the Government asked for a continuance of a
stringent law he thought they were bound to prove a
case of absolute necessity for it. They were bound to
show that heretofore they had exercised their power
leniently, and without injustice. They were b nind to
prove that they could not with safety carry on the
public service without a continuance of this stringent
law. Such, however, had not been the case The law
had been most shamefully abused. It had been the
means of sending spies amongst the unfortunate peasan-
try of Ireland. These spies had induced the peasantry
to form combinations. And all this system of spies had
been carried on with the sanction of Government. He
admitted that this was a strong charge to make, but it
applied with double force to the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Ireland. When he (Mr. M. ()Terrell) contrasted
the declarations which the Noble Lord had made on

taking office with his "subsequent acts, he felt that
he had good ground of c.enplaint. The Noble Lord
could not deny that such acts as those to which
he (Mr. M. O'Ferral I) hadalluded had occurred within the
Noble Lord's knowledge. The Noble Lord could not
deny that such acts occurred in 1842. and that he per-
mitted them to be repeated in 1843 and 1844. He
would prove what he had stated ; and the first case to
which he would allude was a prosecution which took
place at Armagh, in the spring of 1842. Several persons
were prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful
Oaths Bill. The principal witness against them stated
that he had made Ribbonmen by the hundred—that he
was in the habit of attendir.g ribbon meetings, at which
he prepared the documents. This he had been directed
to do by the magistrates in the neighbourhood, The
next witness examined was a policeman named Fox,
who sail he went amongst the peasantry, and by false-
hood induced them to enter into combinations. Mr. White-
side, than whom a more eloquent pleaderdid not live; was
the counsel for the prisoners. Judge Crampton, in sum-
ming up, said the conduct of G. Fox. the policeman, to
sax the least of it, was uncommon, for he went about fa-
bricating falsehoods. He went on to say that Mr.
Whiteside, the counsel, had preferred a charge which
was most disreputable to the Government. The news-
paper in which this case was reported did not state what
the charge was, but it was_ not difficult to imagine it.
The Learned Judge said he thought the charge had been
unintentionally made, but- NIT% Whiteside got up. and
said, " No, my Lord, and so far from retracting it., I re-
assert it."—(Hear, hear.) This was a subject which the
Noble Lord ought not to have suffered to pass over
without investigation ; but no such step had been taken.
Here were a certain number of men employed by the
agents of the Government to seduce persons to enter into
this sort of conspiracies—giving them the signs . and
pass-words—swearing them in to become Ribbendmen,
or members of some wicked society or other, and then
betraying them to the Governme it ; who, in their turn,
look upon the n as molt etfi;!eat oFfi •e,-3, an I promote
and reward them accordingly. He ( \lr. O'Ferrall)
should not think of oprsing the renewal of this Bill
if he could not justify his refusal of the powers it gave to
the Government by the statement; he had male to the

House. The laws, he admittOd. sheuld be administere 1
with strictness, with energy, and with vigour, but at the
same time with justice ; and proof should be given to
the people that the law was not enacted for vengeance,
but for protection. The Government should, by the
enactment of their laws and the administration of them,
satisfy the people of Ireland, as the people of England
were satisfied, that the law was their best friend, and
that, so long as they kept within its pale, it would be
their never-failing safeguard. They should induce the
Irish people to have faith in it. But at present they had
no confidence in it, and they were justified ; for when
they contrasted the trials of the Chartists and other per-
sons in England with the trials for political offences in
Ireland, they saw too plainly th it justice meant a very
different thing in one country to what it (lid in another.
—(lrear, hear.) In the trials in England every man, in
every quarter, was satisfied that the law was adminis-
tered with mercy and justice, and with the simple ani
proper view of vindicating the law and maintaining the
institutions of the country • but he (Mr. O'Ferrall) was
satisfied that. this creditable construction could not be
put upon the administration of the law in Ireland. But
lit would be urged against him, that he had been a party
to the original enactment of this law. He admitted he
had. But the state of the country was very different now
to what it was at that period. Why, there was more pro-
perty destroyed in one month now in the two counties of
Suffolk and Norfolk, than had been destroyed in the
whole of Ireland for many months pact—(Hear, hear)
—and yet they heard of no such Act as this being
passed for the governing of the English people.—(Elear,
hear.) He (Mr. O'Ferrall) was at present sincere in his
desire for the maintenance of the union, and was willing
'to bear, as best he could, the unpopularity which at-
tached to all those who held such opinions, and dared to
give expression to them. The continuance of that com-
mon compact was alike cherished by large majorities of
persons on both sides of that .House; but see what an
argument was furnished against them by the enactment.
'of such harsh, repulsive, and unequal laws as this.—
Weer, hear.) The Government, by their conduct,
were daily taking from those friendly to the union the
strong and useful arguments they were anxious to re-
tain, and were putting most powerful weapons into the
bands of all who now thought, or who might feel it their
duty hereafter, to enrol themselves amongst the friends
of the repeal cause.—(Hear, hear.) With such opinions
as these of their conduet Tend its tendency, he (Mr.
O'Ferrall) felt it his duty to move that " the Bill be
read a third time that day six months."
Lord ELIO r said the.. Right Hon. Gentleman had
brought a cheree against the Government, which.
corning from him, was mast extraorilinary—namely,
that they had brought forward. this Bill without f.roiiig
into any explanation of its provisions. Why, the Go
vernment of which that Ri,ht Hen. 'isntlemen was a
me uher, had not only in the year 1839 brought forward
this very same Bill, word fer werd as it now stood, with-
out entering into its merits, but they had passed it into a
law without inviting or eateriniinto any discussion upon
it whatever.—(Loud cries " !fear, hear.") The Right
lion. Gealemen, too, was actually one of the authors of
a Bill which, when the G iverninent asked the House to
renew for only a limite3. period, he new abused in a
most virulent manner.—(llear, hear.) It wits as' well
known to the Right lion. Gentleman, as to any one at
all acquainted with Ireland, that fir fifty or sixty years
past secret societies of one kind or another, and under
one name or alother—bus all of them most abominable
and wisked ass viation3—had existed in that country ;
and that the members of them weee bound by the most
horrible oaths to obey the corn mends, however horrid
and murderous, of the leaders of them. It was not ne-
cessary for him (Lord Eliot) to enlarge on the evils that
had at telded every step of these societies. It was for
the Right Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. o:Ferran), if he
oppose:l the Bill altogether, or desired any relaxation of
its provisions, to prove that these evils did not now
exist, and that if the societies did exist, they were at
least become powerless. But this he had failed to do—
or rather, he had not attempted to do.—(Hear, hear.)
For his (Lord Eliot's) part, he should consider no mea-
sure too s•ringent which could, consistently with jus-
tice, put down these societies wherever they existed.
And how could the Government effect this object, but
by Bills such as this, and by the oceasienal aid of the
approvers
Me. M. O'FERRALL—But not of spies.
Lord ELIOT said surely there was a difference be-
tween an approver and a spy: Besides, the evidence of
an approver was rarely, if ever, relied upon, unless there
was corroborative testimony to support it. The greatest
vigilance and precaution were used, and whenever the
slightest suspicion of unfair pl iy reached the Govern-
ment, the most determined measures were taken to bring
the offs-inding. parties to condign punishment. Why, in
the very case instanced by the Right Hon. Gentleman—
that of Ogle—he had been committed to gaol—he was
in gaol now—and was going to be tried on a charge of
subornation of perjury.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
But the Right Hon. Gentleman had drawn a parallel be-
tween the enactment of laws for England and Ireland
which would rot hold. He (Lord Eliot) would ask the
Right Hon. Gentiernan, in sober earnestness, if he really
meant to comp ire the state of Suffolk and Norfolk, with
reference to the Bill then under di-cus,ion, with the
state of Ireland? Were there any secret societies, ad-
ministering unlawful oaths,- and binding men to the
cowm'ssion of the most atrocious crimes in Norfolk and
Suffolk, or in any other part of England. No such
thing. And it' there were such societies existing in any'
part of England, he dare pledge his life that the con-
fidential Ministers of the Crown would come down to
Parliament an I demand exactly the same extent of
powers as they considered necessary in the case of
Ireland.—(Hear, hear) The Minister; felt it their
duty to ask for a renewal of this Bill, but
still 'they asked it only for a limited period.
The late Ministry anal(' not, in 1839, have introduced
this measure, had they not been convinced of its neces-
sity, and the pa ,sent measure teas nothing more than a
repetition of that Bill. He should, therefore, feel it to
be his duty to persevere in the motion, that the Bill
should now be reac, a third tune.
Mr. M. BELLEW supported the amendment. He
thought iz was but fair that Hon. Members should draw
an inference from the manner in which Government had
acted with respect to juries in Ireland, for the purpose
of showing how thee would act iii,other cases. The in-
cautious manner in which th -• Attorney-General for
Ireland had made statements in that House, would not
give much confidence ro Honourable Members as to the
course he would purs 3C if the present Bill passed.
There was a great difference in the administration
of justice in Ireland a, id this country; here everything
was free font. taint, bus that was Lot tie case in Ireland.
lii that country parti,s were brought before magistrates
of a different religion to theinselve-, and who on that
accouat were prejudiced against them, and would no
doubt be tried by a jury selected by a partisan sheriff.--
(Hear, hear.) The ifaiuse ought, therefore, to be more
eauttime in giving power to the executive in Ireland
than in this ,:cuutry. "..rills might be a:small matter, but
it was one that §hPiod the- vinia• and tendency of ber

Majesty's Government. There never was, he believed, a t
time when there were less private associations in Ire-
land, and he trusted, therefore, the Government would
not press the Bill. If they did he should feel compelled
to vote against the third reading.
Mr. SHELL had great objections to the present Bill,
because it would furnish to informers an opportunity of
carrying on their nefarious trade, which, but for this
measure, could not be carried on. Whenever the Whigs
had brought in Bills that were calculated to extend
liberty, the present Government always selected them
as matter for avoidance, but when they brought in mea-
sures having a contrary effect, then they were taken as
examples.—(Hear. hear.) The Hon. Member for Kil-
dare had asserted that the Bill was not only liable to
abuse, but that it had been productive of abuse, and
that too in a most serious degree. In 1842 a case oc-
curred in Armagh, where a person of the name of Ha-
gan, having incited parties to commit a crime, informed
of it. Ile did not accuse the Government of being
party to such things, but they must know that such
things existed ; that informers took advantage of the
Act, and that the police had employed them had been
proved in a court of justice. Hagan, it was true, was
dismissed when he was found out ; but there were many
cases that might not be found out at all ; and that he
looked upon as substantiating their case, and, added to
this, it was well known that Ireland was a country
fertile with informers. Had the House forgotten that,
in Kilkenny, a person, high in the constabulary, had em-
ployed a policeman to go to a printer, and induce him to
print a seditious ballad, in order that he might after-
wards prefer a charge against the man whom he had
induced to commit crime 2--(Hear, hear.) Where they
had a knowledge of the people, and what was going on,
was it wise or prudent to insist upon an Act like
the present ? By the present Bill they were making
that a crime which ought only to be evidence of a crime.
The measure was only brought in from due necessity in
1839—it was not necessary in 1840, and it ought not to
exist in 1844. Let the Government follow the advice of
the Hon. Member for Kildare, and make as little distinc-
tions between this country and Ireland as possible ; he
trusted they would not avail themselves of a majority to
draw a line of demarcation between England and
Ireland.
Mr. T. B. C. SMITH (Attorney-General for Ireland)
complained that questions had been mixed up with the
present discussion in no way connected with the question
before the House. Allusion had been made to the State
Trials, but he would not discuss the subject, except to
state that, he considered himself perfectly justified in the
observationshe had made at the close of the proceedings.
With respect to the present case, the Hon. Member for
Kildare had confounded the character of a spy with that
of an informer, although they were perfectly distinct.
After having received the information of an informer,
to make use of him as an instrument t entrap others
into the commission of crime was unjustifiable, and no
man in that House would denounce it more strongly
than he would—(Hear, hear) —but in all prosecutions for
the administration of unlawful oaths, they were com-
pelled to prove that the words found on any person
were actually the pass-words of the particular society
stated in the indictment.' and this evidence could only be
given by an informer, who had been connected with the
society. It was impossible to prosecute without such
evidence. On this point he would read the opinion of'
Lord Plunkett, who admitted the necessity of having the
evidence of the informer.—(The Hon. Gentleman read a
passage from a charge to the jury. by his Lordship, in a
trial for this offence.) He could also adduce the au-
thority of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for
Clonmel, who, when Attorney-General for Ireland,
conducted the prosecution in the case of " the Queen v.
Jones." in which he made use of evidence of this kind,
after stating the defects of the existing law, and the
necessity of some statute like the one under discussion.
To show that the evidence of informers was generally
admitted, he cited a case in which a 'man named Ken-
nedy was examined, who was proved to be of the most
depraved character, having even assisted in the commi
sion of murder. Having read this man's evidence, the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that no person
could he more sensible than himself of the impropriety of
employing what were properly called spies, hut the dis-
tinction between one of these men and an informer must
be remembered. It mest also be recollected that, in the
case of secret societies, it was impossible to arrve at any
proof, unless they got the testimony of some person con-
nected with them. With respect to the case in the
county of Sligo mentioned by the Hon. Member for Kil-
dare, the policeman's name was Ogle, and he suborned a
man to charge another with having administered an un-
lawful oath. Of that he might have been guilty under
the Act of George 111., and the present Act would pro-
vide no remedy for such a case. Under the whole of the
circumstances, he trusted there was sufficient grounds
for the present Bill.
The O'CONOR DON was glad that the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had drawn a distinction be
tween spies and inf rmers. and he hoped the Gosern-
ment would in future repudiate the assistance of the in-
former ; but, unfortunately, in Ireland the man who had
been employed as an informer, generally became a spy.
Being an outcast, he was compelled to attach himself to
the police of his district, in order to supply them with
information. In the Sligo case, it was prevail that the
man Kane was entirely supported by the police. The
Crown prosecutors were so ashamed of the man's testi-
mony, that they retired in disgust from the court, and
when evidence was called to the character of the pri-
snner, the jury said they did not require any, and ac-
quitted him. But the worst of these cases was, the b-id
impression they left on the minds of the people. At the
previous assizes two men were transported on the evi-
dence of this man, whose testimony in this case was re
,jetted. This produced a feeling of universal distrust and
suspicion, which was exceedingly injurioes. In another
case, a clergyman, named Day, was fired at in the
county of Roscommon, and the parties having been
traced, it was discovered that the identical man who had
fired the shot was an informer, who had convicted several
men in the county of Louth.
Sir It. PEEL said he hoped the proposal of the Go-
vernment to continue this Bill would not lead to any
misconstruction as to their experience with regard to
the employment of spies. He did not believe there was
much difference as to the employment of' persons; but
in this country, or in Ireland, to reject the evidence of
informers—of men, who, withont any previous connec-
tion of the parties, who hail been really and bona fide
concerned in crime, would be to defeat the ends of cri-
minal justice. He recollected that in some of the must'
aggravated cases of murder, the conviction of the mur-
derer depended upon the evidence of the accomplice.—
(Hear, hear.) Look to the case of Mr. Baker. A per-
son named Keating had employed five or six persons to
murder him, and he was afterwards the person who
gave evidence against those whom he employed. lie
received a raward of 2,0001., and he actually instituted
an action against the Government for not giving hint
snore.—(Much laughter.) The parties were convicted
but they were not executed. This wretch was con-
stantly complaining because he did not get more.
To reject the evidence of informers, therefore,
would be impossible. With regard to the employment
of spies, or persons who performed the functions of
what were called spies, he would say, that to send
men with authority to invite othsrs to commit crime,
by entering into a secret society, and then for the Go-
vernment to avail itself of information an obtained—that
he thought that a Government which was guilty of
such an act ought itselt to be visited with a punishment
as severe as that of the guilty parties.—(Hear, bear,
and cheers.) Nothing could be more dangerous, dis-
graceful, or more calculated to bring disrepute on the
administration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Govern-
ment ought to be more cautious with regard to em-
ploying a man in future, who gave information of some
crime which was passed, because he would be likely to
incite others to crime, that he might make himself of
importance.—(Loud cries of " Hear," and cheers.)
Those were the principles of the Government, and the
subordinate agents of the Government in Ireland ought
to know that the Government would not countenance
any person who incited others to commit crime ; and
that if they resorted to those acts, they would meet
with no encouragement from the Government.--(Hear,
hear.) That was the principle on which his Noble
Friend acted. Those who had once become informers,
had lost their ordinary occupation—their character was
blasted. They, therefore, wished to be able to bring
forward new cases, and on that account it was neces-
sary that the greatest caution should be used in giving
them employment in future.—(Hear, hear.) He was
sure that the convictions for the possession ofpass-words
required the greatest caution, and the Government
ought to watch the conduct of subordinate agents with
great care. The Bill would only remain in force for a
year, it would then undergo serious consideration before
it was renewed, and in the interval during which it re-
mained in force, the utmost vigilance would be exer-
cised on the part of the Government. But he was sorry
that when her Majesty's Government came forward to
renew the :Act which was in existence when they came
into office, that that circumstance should be taken advan-
tage of in order to hold them up as enemies to the
liberties of Ireland.—( Hear.) Their predecessors brought
in the Bill, and when they were charged with indifference
to the peace of Ireland, they came forward and pointed
to this Bill which they passed for the suppression of un-
lawful assemblies. It was said that the Bill originated
in a Committee of the House of Lords, but the late Go-
vernment said it was their own spontaneous act.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.)" It remained in force;
and now that the present Government proposed to con-
tinue it for a year, lion. Gentlemen opposite came for-
ward and charged theta with being disposed to be tyran •
nical.—(Cheers.) It therefore became necessary to tell
theltruth.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite per-
mitted the Bill to go through the House of Commons with-
out saying one word in opposition to it.—(Cheers.) In
the book which contained the proceedings of the Howse
on that Bill, he could not find the name of the person
who introduced it —the name of a single speaker was net
found.—(Hear, hear.) It was described, " Unlawful
Oaths (Ireland) Bill ;" introduced, first reading, second
reading, Committee and report, third. reading, and not
one of the gentlemen opposite opposed the continuance
of the Act when their friends were in power, or thought
it worth while to urge a single objection against it.; and
when the Bill was under discussion in the House of
Lords, those words, " Having an unlawful excuse," which
w-re not in the Bill originally, were introduced by one
who was a member of a Conservative Administration.—
(Loud
cheers.) He read the Bill—(Cheers)—and took,
by the introduction of those words, the precaution
against the possible punishment of innocence.— (Hear,
hear.) He suggested that addition, which had never
occurred to Hon. Gentlemen opposite —and if there
were mitigation and secrecy evinced against the punish-
ment of innocence, that mitigation and that secrecy were
entirely owing to one who was a Minister in a Conser-
vative Government.—(Loud cheers.) Let them recollect
the imputations they east upon the Government, with
regard to the Arms Bill. The Government reminded
Hon. Gentlemen opposite that they let the Bill pass
when proposed by the Clgeraraant of which, they ap-
proved, and now, when the government came for Ward
this session to continue the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland)
Bill, the credit of having introduced it being claimed by

the Government who persuaded them, it was found out
to be an intolerable injustice to Ireland.—(Hear. hear.)
He did not mean-to say that Hon. Gentlemen opposite
might not have opposed the Bill for the welfare of Ire-
land ; but it was neither fair nor wise to add to the

excitement of Ireland, by imputing to the Government
intentions which they could hardly really and seriously
think they entertained.—(Hear hear.) He gave the
Hon. Gentlemen opposite all credit for the firmness with
which they had resisted the attempts made to indnce
them to join in the repeal agitation, but, when they said
it was difficult to resist the cry for repeal, seeing that
there was a different law applicable to England and Ire-
land; he beeged to remind them that, in 1839, they gave
their cordial suppoi t to this very Bill.—(Cheers.) He
admitted that the criminal law of England anti Ireland
ought to be subtantially the same.—(Hear, hear.) He
would not contest that principle. All he complained of
wa-, that an attempt was made to raise what he called
unjust clamour against them for taking a course less
open to objection than that which wai taken by the
Government which they supported themsebes.—(Hear.).
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought there was more of
ingenuity than candour in what had fallen from the,
Right Hon. Baronet. The Irish Members supported
this Bill in 1839; when there was nothing beyond mere
conjecture that the provisions of the Bill would be
abused. Now they resisted its continuance, because
they had experience of its being abused. He hoped the
words of the Right Hon. Baronet would be attended to
by the officials' in Ireland, and that they would form part
of the instructions to the stipendiary magistrates. If
his Right Hon. Friend pressed his motion to a division,
he would vote with him ; but, after the speech of the
Right Hon. Baronet, he thought he would do better to
withdraw it.—(ielr, hear, from Mr. Escott.) He (Mr.
M. J. O'Connell) thought the char of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was most unfair. He came down
to the House prepared to vote with his Right Hon..
Friend ; but he took the explanation of the Right Hon.
Baronet in the spirit in which it was given.—(Bear.)
Lord ELIOT explained.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that on his side of the
House there was every disposition to take the proposition
of the Hen. Genth man in a fair spirit.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROSS did not think there was any necessity fur
the Bill, but that there was not was owing to the exer-
ti.dis of the Roman Catholic clergy, who set themselves
against secret vcieties,- and the habits of temperance
which they inculcated upon the people.
Dr. BOVVRING was much interested as an English-
man in this discussion. He thought the Bill a harsh one,
'but every credit was due to the Right Hon. Gentleman
for the benevolent interpretation which he put on it. He
though there was a good deal in the taunt of the Right
Hon. Gentleman against those Irishmen who supported
the Bill under the late Government.

Mr. M. O'FERRALL expressed himself so satisfied
with the speech 'of the Right Hon. Baronet, which he
considered so much more useful than a division, that he
would not divide the House.—(Hear.) ' He would sug-
gest that the punishment of transportation should be
changed to two years' imprisonment._
Sir R. PEEL said it would be better to leave the mat-
ter to the responsibility of Government.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill
was read a third time and passed.

• • POOL-LAN. '
•
On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM the House went
into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill.
Clause 61 was agreed to.
On clause 62 being proposed,
Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause, as an attempt to
give justices of quarter sessions power to act as judges
of assize, having to decide difficult points of law.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that at present the board of
guardians were exposed to very unfair inconvenience as
respected the debts eue to them. The persons of the
guardians themselves were not responsible for debts in-
curred, and even when actions were decided in the cre-
ditor's favour, there was no property to be seized. Al-
though a novel enactment, it was a necessary one.
Mr. DARBY objected to the clause, because it gave
no power of appeal.
Sir J. GRAHAM postponed the clause, for the pur-.
pose of taking the. matter into consideration.
On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, clause 63 was
struck out.

. Clause 64 was agreed to.
On Clause 65 being proposed,
• Captain PECHELL said he had yesterday called the
attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to a case in which a
woman, wishing tO see her relation, who was about to be
-confined in a workhouse, was not allowed access to her.
He wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had
given that subject his consideration with a view to some
future regulation ? He also complained of the employ-
tnent of the inmates of workhouses in grinding bones,
and hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would express his
disapprobation of such a system.
• Sir JAMES GEAMAM said that, with every desire
to superintend the working of the poor-law, it was im-
possible for him to attend to every minute regulation.
Power was granted to the guardians, subject only to the
control of the guardians, and he was persuaded that in
every well-regulated workhouse, admission in cases like
that mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman would be granted.
With reference to the introduction of bone-grinding in
workhouses, he had last year, he did now, and he would
on all occasions, express his dis,ent to the use of that
particular employnient.—(Hear, hear.)
The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 66
and 67.''

Schedules A and B were also agreed tn.
Sir J. GR .1 lIAM then brought up the following
elau..e to inserts d instead of clause 14 :

" And be it enacted, that no owner of property shall
be entitled to vote as such, under the provisions of the
said
,recited Act. either in person or proxy, during the
year following the 25th day of March in any year, un-
lesS before the
.Ist day of February next preceding such
25th day of March he had given to the overseers the
statement required by the said Act, signed by him, nor
unless such statements contain a description of the nature
of the interest or estate he may have in such property,
and a statement of the amount of all rent-service (if any)
which he may -receive or pay in respect thereof, and of
the persons for whom he may receive or to whom he
may pay such rent-service ' • and no person shall be
entitled- to vote as proiy until fourteen days after he have
made his claim so to vote in the manner required by the
said Act; and no person shall be entitled to vote as
proxy for more than four owners of property in any one
parisb(except he he a steward, bailiff, or land agent, or
collector of rents for the cwners of property for whom
he may b, appointed to vote); and no appointment of
proxy shall remain- in force for a longer period than
two years from the making thereof, excepting only in
the ease in which an owner appoints his bailiff, steward,
land agent or collector of rents to be his proxy; in
which case such appointment shall remain in force so
long as the proxy may continue to be such bailiff,
steward, land agent, or collector, and while such ap-
pointment remains unrevoked."—Agreed to.
Clause to follow clause 14 : _

::•And the overseers of every parish containing a
population exceeding two thousand persons, according to
the last enumeration of the population published by the
authority of Parliament, shall, on or before the sth day
of the month of February in every year, enter in the
book to be from time to time provided for the purpose
the names and addresses of all persons who, before the
Ist day of the said' month of February, have given such
statement or made such claims as owners or proxies as
aforesaid ; and such overseers shall allow any person to
peruse such book, without payment of any fee, at all
reasonable hours, between the said sth day and the 10th
day of February ; and any person who has given
such statement or made such claim, or any ratepayer of
such parish, may, on or before the 15th day of the said
month of February, object to any MM. person as not
being entitled to vote as such owner, by delivering to the
clerk of the board of guardians of the said parish, or of
the union in which it may be comprised, and at the ad-
dress of the person objected to, notice in writing of the
grounds of such objection ; and, on or before the 20th
day of such month of February, such clerk shall send to
the overseers of such parish, notice of some day, between
the 24th of the said month and the Ist of March then
next, on which he will hear evidence in relation to such
objections, and of the place within the parish or union at
which he will attend to hear such evidence ; and such
overseers shall forthwith cause a copy of such notice to
be fixed on or near the doors of all churches or chapels
within such parish and at all the usual places of affixing
notices of parochial business ; and such clerk shall at-
' tend on the day and at the place so appointed, and shall,
in the prcsence of all persons who may think fit
to be present, hear any matter adduced in sup.
poll of such grounds of objection, or in oppo-
sition thereto, but none others ; and the overseers of
the said parish shall thin and there attend and produce
to such clerk the rate-books of the parish for the whole
year preceding, and., shall answer all su3h questions as
such clerk may put to them, or any of them, touching
the matter of any such objection ' • and such clerk shall
retain in the said book the name of all persons to whom
no objection has been duly made, and of all persons ob-
jected to, unless the party objecting have appeared in
support of his objection ; and when the name of any
person has been duly' objected to, suck clerk shall re-
quire proof of the right of such person to vote, as owner;
and in case any matter be adduced in support of the
objection, and the right of the pet son objected
to be not proved to the satisfaction of such clerk, he
shall expunge the name of such person ' from
such book ; and such clerk shall have power to adjourn,
from time to time, and administer an oath to the over-
seers of any parish, and to all persons attending before
him, claiming a right to vote as owners, or objecting to
such right, and to all witnesses who be tendered'or exp
amined on either side ; and such clerk shall write his
initials against every name struck out, and sign his name
to every page of the said book ; and the persons whose
names as owners are retained by such clerk in such book
shall be deemed to be the persons entitled to vote in
such parish, as owners of property, for the year follow-
ing the 25th of March next ensuing, and no other person
shall be deemed to be so entitled : provided always, that
the said dommissioners may,*if they see fit, by order
under their hands and seal, direct the guardians of such
parish or union to appoint some person other than the
clerk to such guardians, as a paid officer, to hear and
decide - the matter of such objections as aforesaid."—
Agreed to.-
Second clause to follow clause 14:—
" And whereas, by the said first-recited Act it is pro-
vided that no person shall be deemed a ratepayer, or be
entitled to vote, or do any other act, matter or thing as
such, under the provisions of that Act, unless he shall
have been rated to the relief of the poor for the whole
year immediately preceding his so voting or otherwise
acting as such ratepayer, and shall have paid the
parochial rates and assessments made and assessed upon
him for the period of one whole year, as well as
those due from him at the time of so voting or acting,
except such as shall have been made or become due
within six months immediately' preceding such voting or
acting-; be it enacted, that such parochial rates and as-
sessments shall be deemed to extend only to rates made
for the relief of the poor."—Agreed to.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then proposed, that after