The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF
_COMMONS, Feb. 14.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour

Mr. L. BRUGES took the oaths and his seat for the
borough of Devizes, in the room of Mr. Sotheron, who
has accepted the Stewardship of her Majesty's Chiltern
Hundreds. _
Mr. PAKINGTON brought in the County Coroners'
Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read
a second time on Friday next.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET brought up the
Report of the General Committee on Elections, stating
that the 4th of March next had been fixed to ballot for
Committees to try the merits of the petitions against
the returns from the city of Durham and the borough
of Athlone.
Sir G. CLERK laid upon the table returns relating to
the Post-office, the Ordnance, and other public depart-
ments.
COUNTY RATES (IRELAND).
Sir R. FERGUSON moved for a return of the several
counties, counties of cities, and counties of towns in Ire-
land, of which the valuation, under the Act 6 and 7
Will. 4, c. 84, has been completed ; specifying the name
of each barony or half barony, the acreable contents
and the valuation thereof ; stating also, the sum ordered
to be levied by the grand jury warrant of Spring Assizes,
1843, for each such barony or half barony, and
the rate per centum which each such sum bears to
the valuation; also the sum ordered to be levied by the
grand jury warrant of Summer Assizes, 1843, for each
such barony or half barony, and the rate per centum
which such sum bears to the valuation •, stating also the
name and acreable contents of each such county, county
of a city, and county of a town ; the annual value
thereof, according to the valuation under that Act ; the
amount of the expense of such valuation, the cost por
acre of such valuation, and the rate which the cost of
such valuation bears to each 1001. of the valuation
(being in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 334,
of 1843).—Ordered.
Mr. FERRAND said, he must request the indulgence
of the House for a few moments whilst he made one or
two remarks on a subject which was somewhat personal
to himself. It would be in the recollection of the House,
that in the answer he had received from the Right Hon,
Baronet (Sir James Graham) the other evening, on the
subject of what had fallen from Lord Chief Justice
Denman in the Court of Queen's Bench, on the subject
of the separation of mother and child, that he (Sir
James Graham) had stated that such words as
those attributed to him had never been used by
his Lordship. He (Mr. Ferrand) had stated in that
I House that, in giving judgment in a case in the Court of
Queen's Bench, Lord Denman had delivered it as the
unanimous opinion of the Court that there were some
cases in which it was necessary to break in upon an Act
of Parliament. Now the House might conceive that,
before he brought such a dictum as that before the
House, he had taken every precaution to be satisfied
that it had been so laid down by that Learned Lord.
He begged to say that, since the denial by the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) of the utter-
ance of the words in question by Lord Denman,
he (Mr. Ferrand) had referred to his authority for what
he had advanced to the House, and that that authority
had re-asserted and confirmed his original statement.
Referring, too, to the Morning Chronicle, to the Times,
to the Morning Herald, and to the Post, he found the
same judgment in substance, and almost in the very
words in which he (Mr. Ferrand) had brought it before
the House. All these papers, generally so accurate and
faithful in their reports, all of them agreed in attributing
to Lord Denman almost the very same words he had
quoted to the House. He hoped, therefore, he had
fully justified himself to the House for the course
he had taken.—(Hear, hear.) And now, having made
this statement, he wished to ask the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir James Graham) whether the denial of the
words in this judgment were persisted in, and whether
also the remaining words which he (Mr. Ferrand) had
put upon the notice paper had not likewise been used?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was understood to say that
he was not fully prepared to re-enter upon this subject,
but he would give all the information in his
power. The Hon. Gentleman said, before quoting
the words asserted to have been used by Lord Denman,
that be had made every inquiry to ascertain that they
had been uttered, and it was evident he had done so.
The morning papers, too, confirmed the version that his
private authority had given to him, and this, taken al-
together, he freely admitted constituted strong testimony
in its favour. But he (Sir James Graham) could again
assure the House, and that from the highest autho-
rity, that Lord Denman had been misunder-
stood in what he had been asserted to have
uttered—that he did not utter it; but that what he did
say was exactly the converse of what he was reported to
have said. What Lord Denman had stated was this,
that it was sometimes necessary to break in upon
general principles in order to get at a right
rule of conduct and maintain the strict administration
of justice and the law.--(Hear.) It was a monstrous
doctrine to suppose that a Chief Justice, or any Judge
whatever, could, under any conceivable circumstances
or in any conceivable case, lay down the doctrine thatit
was necessary in any matter or thing to break through
or set aside the law, or infringe upon rules which had
existed from all time.
SMALL DEBTS. _

The Small Debts Bill was read a second time.
The Superior Courts of Common Law Bill was also
read a second time.

HORSE-RACING PENALTIES' REPEAL BILL.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY moved the second reading of
this Bill. The Hon. Gentleman stated that, in perfect
ignorance of the law, penalties had been incurred by
various parties, amounting to no less than half a
million of money. He then proceeded to explain
the state of the law, which was that a bet on any race,
in which a stake of money above 10/. was involved, was
an illegal bet. These qui tam actions had been com-
menced by informers for the express purpose of reco-
vering the penalties incurred under an obsolete statute of
the 9th of Queen Anne, and another of 16th of Charles the
Second. He was not himself connected with horse-racing,
though he had, long enough two to render him no longerliable,
liable, won and lost as much as ten pounds at a time on
a race. But though he had adopted the profession of
the law, and might say that he had some experience, he
was still in perfect ignorance that he was then acting
illegally. The object of thepresent Bill was two-fold ; he
presentAmgeo tansbni sbssl
onsnpe,
informerna ads netn
iddhdueedecided,
providedc.orhieidgoaeh:omtb
believed all the actions were brought under the
t
9th of Anne, and all the present Bill proposed
to do was, to enact that these vexatious ac-
tions, on payment of the costs to the parties bringing
them, should be stopped. The only other object of the
ofll
trying
tttt
relt
vyhldeeiaaent tinsgntti
tsheawu,es
ctohoi
persons,te
ci teai
conferredot
ei
nno sd.
Bill was to assist in an investigation of the whole law
000 nff relatingtttihhi eceoelodtmo
pending was illegal; but a bet
veanist;he most indecent bets were
The present state of .the law was very anomalous. A
had been held to be a legal bet.
asuon
bet Under
(da,oei,
race
the
rhhaae
horse
after
rrr%
sveiehst
hei
hlnaeadt
di
It
vlbanoe%n•
legal. A most famous instance of this occurred in the
year 1771, between two young men, the one named Cod-
rington, the son of Sir William Codrington, and the
other named Pigot. They ran their fathers' lives as it
were against each other, and they made a bet as to which
would die first. The bet was referred to Lord Ossory as
to what the odds should be, and he thought they
ought to be 1,6001 to 500/. The bet was made, and
afterwards Mr. Codrington thought the terms were too
much in favour of Air. Pigot. It was afterwards dis-
covered. that Mr. Pigot's father was actually dead at
the time the bet was made, although neither
party knew it ; and aeccordingly Mr. Pigot lost
the bet, but he disputed it, and the case was
tried before Lord Mansfield, who directed the jury
to find for the plaintiff; and the 5001. was recovered
Could they conceive a greater anomaly than the law
which allowed bets of so disgusting a descriptioa—
which did not allow a person to make bets on hor&a-
racing without being subjected to all the chicanery any
attorney's clerk might think proper to adopt ? The
present actions had been commenced for the mere
purpose of extortion, and not for any moral
purpose. The first Act which was passed with
reference to this subject was in the reign of
Charles IL, which Act was entitled an Act for the Pre-
vention of Fraudulent Betting. The next Act was the
present one—namely, the Act of the 9th of Anne. It
was remarkable that this Sovereign indulged largely in
the sports of the field; and only two days before she
died one of. her own horses won the cup at York. This
Bill was brought in in the
.year 1711, for the pur-
pose of imposing fresh penalties for excessive gaming.
It was evident that the clause in the Bill was not in-
'tended to apply to horse-racing, for there was a clause
in the Act declaring that it was not intended to extend
to games played within the precincts of the Palace.
Now, he could not well understand how races could
take place in the drawing-room of the Palace.
In the reign of George 11. two Acts were passed for the
encouragement of horse-racing, one of which enacted
that races should not be run for any sum under
501. After these Acts had passed, the construction now
relied on had been given to the law by the judges
but that was in a civil case, and the House was aware
that the constraint placed upon an Act of Parliament, in
a civil case, was very different from that which would be
placed on it in a criminal proceeding. That case had
been decided in the year 1744 ; and it was then de-
termined by the judges that horse-racing was included in
the clause,which mentioned " all other games whatsoever."
The penal clauses of the statute had never been attempted
to be enforced against persons making bets on horse-
races. For one hundred and thirty-three years that
clause had remained unnoticed and forgotten. Persons
had broken the law without any knowledge that they
wore doing anything illegal. The persons against whom
these actions had been brought were quite unaware
that they were doing anything illegal—and he believed
that if any Hon. Gentleman would take the Act of Par-
liament and read it, and nothing else, he would not
say that it was intended that the Act should
apply to horse-racing. no should next proceed
to show that the actions had been vexatiously
brought. Who were the parties bringing them ? An
attorney and an attorney's clerk. He had been to
the Exchequer-office for the purpose of_ ascertaining by
whom these actions had been brought. All of them ex-
cept one had been brought by Charles Russell, and
James Russell was the attorney ; and in the other action
James Russell was both the informer and the attorney.
He held in his hand five writs against one of the most
honourable men in this country, for sums amounting to
nearly 80,0001 The members of the bar, the House
were aware, were incapable of acting except at
the intervention of an attorney, between whom
and themselves the greatest confidence was felt.
Rut this attorney went to a distinguished man
one of the ablest men in his profession, representing
himself by name as the attorney in one of these actions,
and by this means he got the opinion of his Learned and
esteemed Friend, and stole a march upon the defendant.
The principle upon which this . Dill
was fowled was

familiar to the Legislature. Parliament had, for some
years past, shown a disposition to alter the law, so far as
it gave any remedy to a common informer. As far
back as 1806, informers had been deprived of power to
bring an action in the Excise department. There was
high constitutional authority to show that this was no
infraction of justice. In 1814 a Bill was brought in to
stop certain actions brought against certain members of
the clergy. On that occasion Lord Eldon said, " It
was certainly a delicate proceeding, but it had
been the practice in all times, when an informer
made a vexatious use of the law, to shield
those against whom he was proceeding." He ap-
prehended that the case before the House must rest
not on the moral culpabilities of those who were
sued, but on the vexatious nature of the actions. He
had ascertained that actions had been commenced
against twenty-one parties, and that the penalties
amounted to nearly half a million of money. One of
the parties was the Earl of Eglintoun, another Mr.
Greatorex, a third Lord George Bentinck, who was
there to answer for himself, and did not at
all appear ashamed of his position.—(Laughter.)
Amongst those gentlemen was one who had formerly
been a Member of that House, and for whom Hon.
Gentlemen on the other side had, no doubt, a very great
respect—he meant Mr. John Gully, the late Mem-
ber for Pontefract. Some Honourable Members
were, no doubt, aware of the practice that was
called " hedging," which meant betting both ways, and
the mischief of these actions was, that, if a man bet and
lost 1001., and by a counter bet recovered 991., the
penalties were fixed not upon the IL that had been ac-
tually lost, but upon the 100/. which had been lost in
the first instance, and hence the enormous
amounts for which the action for these penal-
ties was brought. One of the grounds of opposition
to the Bill was that it was said there would be no inter-
ference if the parties interested were not rich men.—
(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) The Hon. Member for
Finsbury said Hear, hear.
Mr. 'l'. DUNCOMBE—I am not talking to you.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY—Somebody then spoke, and
he (Mr. Wortley) now asked the Hon. Gentleman for
Montrose (Mr. Hume) would Mr. Russell bring
these actions against a poor man ? What would
he get by it ?—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial
benches.) The parties who brought these actions
selected the rich, because it best suited their
purpose so to do. This he trusted would be
considered as an answer to that objection. He
hoped that the House would agree to the Bill ; and
he would not have ventured to introduce it, but that he
thought it a as important not merely to the individuals,
but to the public.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said that there was no necessity for
the Hon. Gentleman to apologise for the time which
he had occupied in bringing forward his motion. The
Bill involved considerations of the most important kind
—perhaps, as the lion. Gentleman had said, important
to the individuals, but certainly important to the public.
When the Hon. Gentleman proposed to enact an ex
post facto law, to relieve those who had violated the law,
and to withdraw protection from those who obeyed it, a
very satisfactory explanation of his reasons must have
been expected and required. In proposing to the House
the amendment which he(Mr. Gibson) had risen to move,
it was necessary for him to state, that he thought the
House had nothing to do with the character of the parties.
The House ought to dismiss the question of character
entirely from its consideration—they ought to have no-
thing whatever to do with considerations of character or
station in such a matter as this. To allow such con-
siderations to influence them was to legislate, not on
principles and for principles, but from personal motives,
and for almost personal ends. The lion. Gentleman
who had introduced the Bill had, in fact, given the
best reason possible why he (Mr. Gibson) should
persevere in his .amendment.—(llear.) lie said
the law affecting these subjects was so bad, that it re-
quired revision altogether. He did not, however, tell
them what might be the effect of looking carefully and
searchingly into the effects of these laws. It ,might
turn out, after inquiry by a Committee of the
House, that the Legislature might still maintain the
opinion that this very position of the law it would
be desirable to maintain. And should this be
the case, as very likely it might be, they would, if
they consented to this Bill, be saving those who
violated the law by a sort of parenthesis. The House
might report it to be desirable that certain penalties
now attached to acts of gaming should still be retained.
He (Mr. Gibson) had heard that people on the other
side were very fond of trying to make the nation moral
and religious by Act of Parliament—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—and he, therefore would not, if he
could help it, allow great men, and rich men, and
influential men, to escape the infliction of laws
which they had made for other people.—(Cheers.)
They might ask them to suspend the actions, but not to
discontinue the law ; but the actions were not to be sus-
pended, they were to be put an end to altogether. Now
he did not believe there was so much ignorance prevail-
ing as to the existing law respecting gaming as the Hon.
Gentleman seemed to think ; on the contrary, scarcely
a term passed in which actions were not brought under
these statutes of Charles and Anne.
Mr. WORTLEY—There has not been a single action.
Mr. GIBSON—Wait till you have heard the other side.
Mr. WORTLEY—There has not been any action
brought for horse-racing.
Mr. GlBSON—Really they could not sit there to
draw distinctions of this kind. The Acts were levelled
against gaming in general, and not against any parti-
cular sport. But that it would be occupying
, the time of the House, he would move that this
statute be read by the clerk at • the table.
The Act of Charles was to prevent deceitful and exces-
sive gaming. There were certain pastimes and games
enumerated in that Act, and amongst those games and
pastimes horse-racing was named. There could be no
doubt that that Act, which was meant to apply to
gaming, applied also to horse-racing. He thought that
those who supported this Bill in the other House of.
Parliament must have been jesting when they called this
Bill at present before the House a "manly sport and a
wholesome pastime Bill." This was an absurd ground for
Right Rev. Prelates to take for supporting the Bill. It
put him in mind of the lines
" Great men may jest with saints, 'tis wit in them,
But with the less foul profanation."
—(Hear, hear.) Qui tam actions it was well known
had been often brought before for small penalties, yet
they never before heard of a gentleman going to that
House, and asking for a Bill of Indemnity.—(Hear, hear.)
There had been numerous cases in which qui tam actions
had been brought of late years. In 1816, a person
named Hill had been prosecuted; in 1827, a person named
Wilton had brought a qui tam action for gambling against
a person named Taylor. That case was a remakable one.
It had attracted the general attention of the country.
It had been brought before the House of Lords by writ
of error, yet no one had thought of introducing a Bill of
Indemnity. If the law was not what it ought to be, the
Legislature had noone to thank for it but themselves.
They had invited informers to take upon themselves
the odium and the expense of prosecuting those
cases ; and they had a right to complain if the
Legislature attempted to deprive them of those vested
rights which it had bestowed upon them. It had been
the policy of the Legislature which had held out to the
informer the advantages which had given rise to these
actions. Was it justice now to interfere to deprive the
informer of his vested interest ?—(hear, hear.) Would
it not tend to lower the character of the Legislature with
the people ? Would it not be said that all those who had
friends in high stations could suspend the operation of
the law—could have Bills of Indemnity introduced to re-
lease them from the liability to penalties which they had
incurred. In the year 1842 qui tarn actions had been brought
under the provisions of this very clause against a person
named Bond—actions of a precisely.similar character
to those now under discussion.—(Cheers.) The law
had been allowed to take its course. The plaintiff
had recovered the full amount of the penalties.
There was no insinuation that Bond had per-
mitted unfair play, but merely that he had
offended against this particular statute.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not consider that Bond was so much to blame as
the parties who supported his establishmept.—(Cheers.)
lie was not so much to blame for the supplying
the demands of those who were supposed to be
raised to elevated situations for the purpose of
setting an example to the people, as those parties
themselves. He felt bound to oppose the passing of
this Bill of Indemnity until he had a resolution passed
pledging the House to appoint a Committee to revise the
laws relating to gambling. The pledge of a single
Member was not sufficient. They had got them now
into a corner, and it would not be right to let them
escape out of their difficulty, until they had pledged
themselves to revise the law generally. He, there-
fore, must press the resolution which he intended
to propose as an amendment to the motion of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to a division.
lie would take the liberty of quoting from a Conserva-
tive journal an article on the prosecution of Bond. The
Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the Times of
Thursday, Dec. 8, 1842 expressing the satisfac-
tion which the conductors of that journal felt at
the result of the prosecution of Bond, and stating
that the country was not indebted to the Attorney and
Solicitor Generals, nor to the Home Secretary, nor to
the Society for the Prosecution of Vice, for that pro-
secution, as all those authorities seemed to consider that
the Corinthian atmosphere of St. James's was out of
their jurisdiction; they were indebted for it to an artist of
the name of Smith, and to an Act of the good old
days of Queen Anne.—(Loud cheers.) That showed
that the statute was perfectly well known. Bond had
been ruined and forced to leave the country. No Bill of
Indemnity had been brought in for him ; no statute had
been passed to prevent the rich from setting a bad ex-
ample to the poor. Judge Blackstone said that gaming
in high life demanded the attention of the magis-
trates ; it was a passion to which every valuable con-
sideration was sacrificed, and which we seemed to have
inherited from our ancestors, the Germans, whom
Tacitus described as bewildered with the spirit of play.
lion. Members opposite had proposed stringent Acts for
the regulation of public morals, and they could not
now come forward to protect those who had violated
the law.—(hear, hear.) The Hon. Member said it was
a very common thing to come down to the House
to relieve from penalties parties who had violated exist-
ing statutes. Ile was quite aware that circumstances
had arisen in which it was desirable for the Legislature
to interfere; but, as regarded the case of Mr. Wright,
who prosecuted the clergy for not attending to their
spiritual duties, he believed a more objectionable interfe-
rence had never occurred. The present Lord Chancellor
on that occasion defended the common informer. He
wished to rake the matter on public principles. They
must decide the question simply upon the grounds
whether it was a case in which The LegislatUre should
take the unusual course. of adopting ex post facto legis-
lation. They must pledge themselves to revise the
gaming laws before they discontinued those actions.
They had given no such pledge. All they propctsffi Ives
to relieve certain powerful iot4lyil Nltils f pt the 'operation
of those lams, This was Ilflt an ohsolee law. It had
been acted upon last par, and QYVU a ftw day§ ago, and

Lord Chief Justice Denman had pronounced a judgment
under it not a week past. Penalties from Bond had been
recovered under it not long since. It was impossible to
maintain the plea that had been urged of ignorance of
these laws. They were suspected of not wishing to re-
peal obsolete statutes. How often had magistrates under
obsolete statutes fined and imprisoned poor men, and
yet no one heard of giving the aggrieved party any in-
demnity, or of repealing the statutes under which they
were punished ? lie would read for them extracts from the
Reports of the Inspectors of PriSons.—(Cries of " Oh,
oh.") A man, J. C., stated that he had been sentenced
to pay a fine of one shilling, and 14s. costs, and because
he was unable to pay these sums, he had been in prison
for ten years.—(Hear, hear.) He had been summarily
convicted before two magistrates for not attending
Church on Sundays, and for not showing any reasonable
cause for being absent. He was kept in prison until the
fine was paid. Was there any leniency shown there—
any Bill of Indemnity ? This law was admitted to be an
antiquated law, but the man suffered.—(Hear, hear.)
What had the Legislature done to abolish or modify
those cruel laws ? Had they shown any disposition to
bring in a Bill on the subject ? In 1839, it appeared
from the same Report that several persons underwent
imprisonment for trifling violations of the ecclesiastical
law. One underwent 63 days' imprisonment, another
61, a third 16, a fourth 12, a fifth 17, a sixth 12, a
seventh 26, an eighth 16, a ninth 27, and a tenth three
days' imprisonment—(Hear, hear)—and when those
people were released they were released on the payment
of the fine and costs. The people believed that that
House did not legislate for them, but for themselves.
They believed that those laws on horse-racing would
not have been altered but 'that certain Hon. Members
and Noble Lords were not interested in their continu-
ance. They were not altered for the general welfare of
the community—they were obsolete and antiquated laws,
and were something similar to those on which the late
State prosecutions in Ireland were founded.—
(Oh, oh.) No, the great bulk of the people, he
repeated, were not aware that in attending those
meetings they had been guilty of any offence,
against the laws. The people of Ireland saw men high
in station, legislators, ministers, contributing to public
associations, and participating in public demonstrations.
—(Hear, hear.) Why did not the Government prose-
cute the Anti-Corn-law League? They dared not
prosecute the League.—(Hear, hear.) They used these
antiquated statutes and unknown laws to serve their
own purposes, and they had shown no disposition to
administer justice without respect of persons.—(Hear,
hear.) He would force his motion, and he would see
whether gentlemen opposite were prepared to take away
the penalties upon all gambling—whether of the-poor
or the rich, or only upon those kinds of gambling
in which their own class was concerned.—(Hear, hear.)
It would be wrong to deny that much had been done to
repeal obnoxious statutes ; and especially in the laws
relating to excise and customs, through the industry and
sagacity of Mr. Deacon Hume, hundreds of Acts of
Parliament had been compressed into one small volume.
But when the gentlemen opposite repealed the Acts
inflicting the penalties for offences against the excise
and custom laws, they did not, suspend the qui tam
actions. The actions were persevered in, and the penal-
ties were enforced. He was bound to pay this tribute
to a distinguished public servant, Mr. Hume, not only for
his writings on political economy, but for the activity
with which he discharged the duties which had been
officially entrusted to him.—(Hear, hear.) He would
not allow this to be treated as an unimportant question.
(Hear, hear.) Many of the gentlemen who had intro-
duced him into that House were deeply concerned in the
gambling of the turf, but there were also many other of
his constituents who thought that all kinds of betting
were immoral, and ought to be put down. He
was, therefore, placed in a difficult position ;
but he would take the course which he con-
sidered to be right, without considering what
might please any section of his constituents. For many
of these gentlemen he had a great respect, but if they
were his own brothers, he would stand up in that House
and resist any proposition for an ex post facto law to re-
lieve people of rank from the consequences of their trans-
gressions. —(Laughter.) He thought he should neglect
his duty if he did not stand up and see that they legis-
lated equally for all classes of her Majesty's subjects.
Before he sat down, he would. make an appeal to the
Government, for he presumed that this was a Cabinet
question. It had received the consideration of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers, and was sanctioned by them in
the House of Lords—at least, none of them
opposed it—and he thought he was entitled
in a matter of such importance as the interference with
proceedings in the courts of law, to have the deliberate
opinion, not only of the Prime Minister, if he were in his
place, but of the law-officers of the Crown. He thought
he was entitled especially to have the opinion of the At-
torney-General as to what he thought was the justice of
the case, when so many others had paid penalties for
similar transgressions of the law. He conceived that
they were entitled to the deliberate opinion of her Ma-
jesty's Government, whether they approved of a measure
like this, which permitted an ex post facto law to ride
over the ancient enactments of our code. He said that
those who wore occupying the benches opposite, and to
whom attached the responsibility of administering the
laws of the country, were bound to say whether they
were in favour or not of this sudden and partial altera-
tion of the law.—(Cries of "Hear, hear," and " Oh.") For
it would not do for them to let this measure pass quietly,
and then pretend to the country that they were not in
favour of gaming—they must not set up that character
without any notice being taken of this measure by them.
He deeply regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
R. Peel) was not present on that most important occa-
sion.—(Laughter on the Ministerial benches, answered
by cheers from the Opposition.) Yes, it was on an oc-
casion like the present that they wanted the assistance
of a man like him, who had great experience, to guide
them in all their proceedings, and who had also
influence enough with his party to make them
do that which he might think the most proper
and just. He said that in not being present on that
occasion the Right Hon. Baronet was neglecting his
duty.—(Laughter from the Treasury benches.) Why
he guided his party ; they all of them opposite followed
him in the most docile manner.—(Great cheering and
uproar.) He could make them pass this law, or throw
it out, by his individual dictum.—(Great cheering from
the Opposition.) When, therefore, the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet chose to assume such an immense responsibility as
lie did in guiding he party which had to make the laws
for the country, surely to allow it to be sup-
posed that he shrank from his duty from an
aversion to offend the prejudices of his friends, was not
exactly commendable conduct.—(Hear, hear.) He re-
gretted also to observe the absence upon this occasion
of all those Hon. Members who arrogated to themselves
the guardianship of the morals and religion of the
country.—(Cheers.) He did not choose to impute in-
tentions, but he could not refrain from saying, that it
was a remarkable coincidence that upon a question so
important to the morals of the country there should
not be present in the House any of those Ho-
nourable Members who, when the poor were to
be schooled, when they were to be legislated into
all sorts of virtuous and pious habits, were most promi-
nent in that labour.—(Cheers.) Those remarkable coin-
cidences certainly happened to all men—they had hap-
pened to himself' sometimes.—(A laugh.) In conclusion
lie begged to say, that in his opinion the House ought
not to have been called upon to consider a Manly Sports
Bill, and the liabilities any indulgencein betting on those
sports subjected individuals to; nor the question whether
they ought to protect those who had violated the law to
the injury of those who had not. If the attention of the
House was to be called to the subject at all, it
ought to be to the whole subject—with reference
to the future, and not to the past. And therefore, enter-
taining strongly these opinions, he- felt called upon to
move, as an amendment to the motion, " That this House
is of opinion, that if Parliament think fit to interfere for
the purpose of staying legal proceedings which have
been commenced under the sanction and authority of
existing statutes, upon the ground that such statutes
have become either obsolete, or, that they ought not to
be enforced, it is incumbent upon the Legislature to
define some rule by which her Majesty's subjects may
be able to ascertain those laws which are considered to
have become obsolete, or those to which obedience will
not be required. That a Select Committee be appointed,
to inquire into the existing statutes against gaming of
every kind, and what penalties are enacted by such sta-
tutes, and whether the same, or any and what parts of
such statutes have fallen into desuetude, or ought to be
repealed."

Lord J. MANNERS said the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down had not only been the advocate of one
side in this particular question, but had also been the
advocate of one Hon. Member who was not present to
speak for himself. The lion. Gentleman said that he
had no guarantee that the House, if it consented to this
Bill, would not still sanction the imposition of penalties
on gambling ; thus, persons might hereafter be prose-
cuted for offences under the Act; while persons who had
already offended could be relieved from the conse-
quences of their illegal acts. But it must be recollected
that these offences had been committed inadvertently.
tile class of persons who were considered as tribunes of
the people did not deserve the confidence of the people.
He wished all those distinctions which had been created
by obsolete statutes between the rich and the poor ab-
rogated altogether. It should, however, be recollected,
that the public attention had been just directed to the
case of the person imprisoned for not attending church,
by his Hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. The
law under which that person had suffered was the rem-
nant of a wise and consistent system of legislation—
(Hear)—which had been abrogated by the political an-
cestors of the Hon. Gentleman opposite.—(lronical
cheers.) It was partly a system by which, after
the poor people had attended th'e parish church, on the
Sunday, they were permitted to indulge in manly sports
and recreations during the rest ofthe day. The po-
litical ancestors of Hon. Gentlemen opposite had re-
tained the odious part of the law, imposing the penalty,
but had abrogated the cheerful part of it. He should
support the Bill.—(Cheers.)
•
Captain BERKELEY agreed, with a great deal of
' what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who introduced this Bill. But he wished the House
would pause before it attempted. to legislate on this sub-
ject. The present system of horse-racing was fraught
with dishonesty and trickery. It was not the best horse
that always won. There was a system called PP betting
in existence which had been productive of the tneAt mis-
chievous effects. He thought the better MIMI for the
House to pursue would be to stay for a period the pend-
ing actions, and in the Inoantline to take the whole
subject of gambling into Its consideration. If that course
were pursued he should be prepared to vote with the
Hon. Gentleman opposite, but so,e,rd,r than lend himself
in any way to the coutißuauce of the present dislxoneM
practices in hppetracing he would vote with the Hon.
Member , t
144.,i,Pa him (Mr. Gibson); It was a very eom ;
rIP
ipqn saymg nat hp who went upon the turf without
deteilitttioll to ha a vogue was next akin to a fool
(cil@er4 and laughter.) If the rules of the House xx 4,14
permit him, ho ('Captain Berkelo') weito 919. r. that this

•
debate be adjourned, in order that they might proceed
with the debate on Irish affairs.

Mr. 11.. f. MILNES thought that Hon. Gentlemen opPo'
site might agree to this Bill, which was ono simply to
relieve parties from enormous penalties which they had
unwittingly incurred, and they could still have the Com-
mittee for which the Hon. Member for Manchester had
moved.

Mr. VERNON SMITH did not think a sufficient case
had been made out for the House of Commons to enter-
tain this question. He did not think that the allegations
in the preamble of the Bill had been made out. He
thought the proper course the Hon. Gentleman opposite
ought to have pursued, would have been to have moved
for the production of the Report of the Select Commit-
tee appointed by the other Ilouse of Parliament, to in
quire into the.subject. He thought without this a suf.
ficient case had not been made out in favour of those in,
whose behalf this Bill had been introduced. .
Colonel PEEL could say that he knew that many of
those persons conscientiously believel that, in making
bets upon horse-racing, they were committing no offence.
They believed, and he understood that this belief Was
borne out by the opinion of counsel, that bets made On,
the turf were legal. He himself had not been serve;
with any notice of action (he had no doubt that he shod('
be), but if he were to be summoned to give evidence in
any the trials, as to what bets he had made, he ques-
tioned whether a judge would caution him that in givil
such evidence, he was making a case against hilt's" '
He thought the preamble of the Bill had been fully borne
out, and he for one could say that he had always con-
scientiously believed that bets on the turf were legal.
Mr. HUME said that if the opinion of counsel had
been taken upon this matter, there was no necessity
for this Bill, inasmuch as from what had fallen from
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that opiniVi,
was in favour of the legality of the bets. He thong'''.
the best plan in this case would be to suspend tha
pending actions fur three months, in order that the
subject might be well considered. The present Bill
gave power to any person against whoni actions for
penalties for gambling were brought, to call upon:
judge to dismiss the case with costs. He did not thin
they were in a position to grant this. He thought they
ought to agree to the adjournment of the debate, as he
thought that on a subject of such importance the presence
of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern'
ment was absolutely necessary. This was a gambling
Bill, and indirectly promoted and protected gambling.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that if the.
Right Hon. Gentleman looked more closely to the
clauses of the Bill, that provision was expressly
for the point to which he referred. The operation 0
the Act was not to extend beyond the space of three
months, and any proceedings at law would be stayed.
Mr. HUME—Yes, after the lapse of three months. ,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Just so. Although
by this Bill the pending cases would be discontinnq
there was nothing to prevent the actions being broil:l'
afresh unless they were quashed by the Legislature'
When the Bill went into Committee the Hon. Gentleman
must move for the insertion of the word " suspend"
stead of "discontinue," which he apprehended Alt,.
ens% er all his purposes.—(Hear.) The Hon. Men'ii.
for Manchester talked about this Bill disregarding the
poor, and having reference only to the amusements of
the rich. He did not know what particular section of
the House the Hon. Member meant by " you," or W„,he-
ther he meant to allude to any particular Member. Fob
his own part, he (the Attorney-General) would say t",,',„
he had never been behindhand in evincing synr, t1;1
for the poor, or in protecting their privileges. 2'1%8
was no Hon. Member more ready or willing than 0,
was to abolish obsolete Acts, through which the pele
might unwittingly have offended against the laws.
hoped the Bill would be allowed to go into Committeeile
After a few words from Mr. C. BERKELEY", t
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
_ _

Majority
On .our admission to the Gallery, we found the Wit
discussing the propriety of going into' Committee 04
Bill. That discussion having been concluded, the
was ordered to be committed on Wednesday next.. ilia
Lord 'JOHN RUSSELL wished to ask what wasn-ja
intention of the Government as to public business. -',tlht
they intend that the important motion he had brag
th t
forward should be proceeded with that night, or ~
other business that had been put upon the paper, esTA
cially that of the Hon. Member for Montrose, should
proeeeded with in preference?
Sir J. GRAHA M said that it was the intention 0-r
del"
Government to give precedence to the adjourned deP"
on the Irish question.—(Hear.)

IRELAND.—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE- ,
s •
Lord LEVESON then rose to address the 111/9-:;
He believed that in the speech of the Noble Lord,
night those great principles were contained, on w°4.,)
Ireland alone could be properly governed.—(Hear, hero,
He wished to see liberal principles infused into Irel°o,
—(Hear)—for it was impossible to deny that the Pe
of Ireland had been kept up lately by military foree;o-
-(llear.) He hoped they would never continue the 'he
vernment by such means.—(Hear, hear.) Had, tea
would ask, the government of Ireland been COndietate
properly ?—(Hear.) Why the first offices of the Zoe
had been given to men whosa principles and 'yd....-
politics were not congenial to the people of Irelanthey
What had been the case at the late trial ? Why, ital.
had been tried before four Protestant judges, by red
of twelve Orangemen.—(Hear.) Was it be won( 0.
at that the people of Ireland should feel some exasPebol
Lion at this ?—(Cheers.) The Established Church,. the
not prospered, in consequence, in his opinion,. °top
protection it had received from the State. It did to tba
its duty if it performed nothing for the education el r
people.--(Hear, hear.) He considered that many Pete,ft
sons thought too much of the protection of the Stole
Whoever travelled through France, Belgium, 01°01
North of Germany, must perceive the difference •
a to
existed between those countries and England, owle;iteli
this exclusive protection. After trespassing SO,hoe
on the time of the House, he could not do better :teat
conclude with the words of one of the most ei"oo'
men who ever sat in this House. Mr. Brougham, hole
Lord Brougham, cautioned the House to beware °v'
they converted discontent into rage ; how they evief
raged discontent to rage with new weapons. itioe,
alone were responsible if, through their oPP°sl.5.)
Ireland was torn from the mother country.—(lheeb the
Mr. B. COCHRANE said he had listened wit The
greatest pleasure to the speech of the Noble Lord' ,001
evils which afflicted Ireland had been attributed t°4l; the
causes ; to the existence of the Established Chum but,
union,-the state of the suffrage, and ether sources'
d 6e' reel
in his opinion, none of them was the real evil. rf' aserf
evil they had to deal with, was the great physical -f
the
which existed in the country. The resource' f .300
country were great, yet the country Was, ° rWith
years, in a state of wretchedness and disaffection. ,4 the
regard to the Church it was universally knowstoes
Catholic clergy would refuse a provision from the. EDP'
and at a late meeting of the Roman Catholics 01 Ness
laud, Lord Camoys, who presided at that meeti rre'S
reported to have said. that he entirely coneyby the
in the propriety of the decision come t,°, WY;
Irish Roman Catholic Bishops. They count-elan'
thing then, in that direction, for- the benefit of
of th°
If the Noble Lord wished to appropriate a Port t enofir
revenues of the Established Church, he did utter
how it could be received by the Roman Ott ic
it. j
je
their late declaration to refuse State provisi° add
was kindly disposed towards the people of Irelat" a str.
towards their religion. He was of opinion °lathe 11°'
perior class of persons ought to be educated lorbe veer
man Catholic Church in Ireland. The evil of
try was its misery, and when they considereo
sical wants which the people of that country el theiiiifieti•ot
was not to be wondered at that they coon' old
(Hear, hear:) People in their situation e,,° then'
reason ; they could only complain. lie hoPe"t„, aale,
fore, that some measure would be introdueedrhe
liorate the social condition of the people. Bsilre,go
Gentleman then referred to the report of the „Dd
Commission to show the state of the country,
oda were
b,
the greatest benefits would' result if the waste was r
reclaimed.--(Hear, hear.) ' Another great el' le of Jr,
absentee drain, and while it continued the petri,t, that
land would not cease to complain. It appeared t° I,;f whirls,*
would be a great benefit if the Lord Lieutenant
i•ta
was not changed with every change of the
oiliatla
Such men as Lord Nortnanby and the Doke eopi° ;
in former times, who were beloved, by the atoong:t
Ireland, ought to have been allowed to rematitberece,a
them. The Hon. Gentleman then referred t°;lidelei,s
trials. He thought this was not a time to
_:„,,tl btot
harsh tirades.—(Hear, hear.) A man who nen Aiec
in the estimation of the, people of Ireland Woe d1"000
convicted of a conspiracy aainst the State• doe sc
pretend. to say that Mr. O'Connell had not nt
good for his country—that at the commeneeneliA ssPbe
career let might not have been influenced hr ante,
rations, but that formed no excuse for his cortioto Stays
present time. Manlius, who saved the lle.lt it.
reaf.
was afterwards punished for a conspiraeY. agate tli if ebe
trusted the people of Ireland would now take_.,ol(l the
view of the question, and that this conviction jack
great service to the country. He wouldo wot
words of a great judge, that it was not thr
attplisoa
ing the sides of the Constitution, not 13Y.'„r,,,, to °vjact
the laws of the country, that they could "Y
loch e°ll. 01.
the results they sought. It was not b, - other' r.)
they could enlist the sympathies of oattr, belittle
add to the number of their friends.--( for re,
le an o°.
They should always feel with the IX°P Lt.' the . ter'
people, and cheer them on with hopes .10 qentbetette4
He quite agreed with the Noble Lord, ft far
i!) id
the City of London, that it would haveoee2. _
e :
if the proclamation had been issued earlier'
ee
ventured in that House to sugl
gest theatlop b ede
cive measures. That observation was e' rola it
sarcasm
This
'eller MI inj°ll
broke up no one imagined what coulne.,o_, Geo:. ea
wasoifuthteheNomboleutlh.oorfd,
July.
Sanecdrewtabri
j..40.b05ite:,4
Government would take. The 13.4,ght II it
c?i.j
at the Head of the Home Department,...St,"•ta
account of the meeting. At Clontarf, wltoun e'tbli
and visible signs, that the proclamation
aboot
_or
tually issued, There was nothino„eanrea,PLA
in tiro indictnient, the charges in which ofotti;t ;
the space of nine months.
—Meer.) In I 3 'for d
might understand it. If meeting after e
the nature naantdu conspiracyre o ecr crime e
shouldshould bee
held, and men did not know that whatwords of Sleld 701
was illegal, they might ask, in the
Fussell)s 0.0(
L
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (L
or
"°
they should legislate for Ireland, not
hit.. coe_reue.
" Where has this treason been so_loOlnlic.
wise principles, but generously.
He
( in a gel,o-.61,-,
trusted that they would legislate for Irelandv,
_,,,rieio vow,
spirit; that their future victories would btet" ,1 ae
•daib.
so clear had cboeml
Ovations and sympathies of that noble
uurenit'oess,
hearted nation • and that by constant happis,
consideration for' their welfare, peace
ant es
truth and juetiea, religion and, charity, 'l4
is Ireland. iatetatir`
•
Lord'CLEMENTS had listened with ter
J. Grab
to the speech of thellight I qn. Datunet