The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-14 00:00:00

rittrlv Mbition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

quoted to the House. He hoped, therefore, he had
fully justified himself to the House fo 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 lion. Gentleman said, before quoting
the words asserted to have been used by Lord Denmin,
that he 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 tuisundr,r-
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

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
GLOBE.—We can have no occasion to direct atten-
tion to particular passages of Lord John Russell's
speech. The whole of that speech will doubt less be
perused and appreciated universally by our readers.
What is more unusual, we find " green spots" in Sir
James Graham's speech to dwell on with pleasure.
We find something like distinct announcements of
intended practical neasures for the benefit of Ire-
land. We shall n' allow any party feeling to prevent
us from expressi• , satisfaction at these announcements.
There is nothis of which we are more certain than
that the mate) ii condition of Ireland is the great
problem. If it were possible to relieve that—we do
not say party disputes would be waged no longer—
we do not say churches, corporations, and all that
sort of thing, would not still supply party topics,
and would not still serve as party demarcations. But
we do say, that neither English nor Irish are now
in the sixteenth century—that neither English nor
Irish will do battle, under municipal banners, for points
of faith. The progress of the last three centuries would
indeed have been insignificant, if it were possible, for any
such points, to revive real active hostilities. These contro-
versies may agitate bonnets in Exeter Hall—men have no
such bee in theirs. We do not mean to say that men have
ceased to have any persuasions on these points. TheDub.in
Review announces with great gratulation, that Mr. O'Con-
nell communicates every week, and holds up his edifying
example to the young men of Ireland. But men have
ceased to entertain any notion of imposing their own
persuasions on others. When we say men, we not mean
that sort of men who professionally, or extra-profession-
ally, speculate upon schemes of proselytism. We mean
men capable of leading opinion ; of really determining
public events. The men who lead Exeter Ilall find
themselves left in the lurch by even their own party.
There is another point of view in which solid
measures for material improvement in Ireland have not
merely a material, but also a moral importance. It is,
we fear, in human nature, that the aspect and tones of
multitudinous misery excite in those less unhappily
situated, a sort of shrinking aversion, as frequently as
compassion. They strike on the eye and ear too pain-
fully : there is an irritable impatience in wretchedness
that repels sympathy. There is also in it an appre-
hended contagion: a contagion not merely apprehended,
but experienced by large classes of our population from
the inroads of Irish poverty and Irish habits. All
this goes far to explain whatever exists of that English
aversion which Irishmen complain of. What may con-
tribute also to explain that aloof feeling—is, that Irish
politicians, whose ambition addresses itself to masses
thus stewed in misery, naturally echo their exacerba-
tion—adflress them with habitual violence—with fre-
quent injustice—with continual postponement of truth
and reason to the feelings of masses who demand ex-
citement to divert from pain. All this is anti-pathetic
—long may it be so—to the tone of English opinion.
But. the question is, whether all this is not natural
amongst a people conditioned like that of Ireland. A
people so conditioned is placed under moral anti politi-
cal, as well as physcal, disadvantages. And just in pro-
portion as it is possible to raise it from that condition,
will its moral and political weight be likewise
increased in the national councils. The aspect
which the Irish people exhibit at present is that
of uneasy masses, played uppn, and moved any way,
by a few men. They can be moved any way, except
to sit still, if we may speak Hibernian-wise.
This restlessness loses respect, and fatigues attention.
It is not the attitude of a people whose individual citi-
zens feel strength and self-reliance. Such a people is
not to be moved at the will of others, nor moved for
parposes not its own. Neither is it to be turned from a
purpose, once deliberately espoused, nor diverted by
dilatory pretexts. Individual self-reliance, and strength
of character, are greatly wanting in the Irish people
And it seems to us vain to deny much dependence of
these qualities on individual condition—on the feeling at
least of a condition not hopeless—a condition of struggle
it may be, but not despair.
STANDARD.—Sir Charles Napier and his gallant army
are to be envied. They last night received the unanimous
thanks of the House of Lords, and the all but unanimous thanks
of the House of Commons, for the conquest of Sinde. This is
a tribute, happily for our country, often before claimed
upon just grounds by British generals and British troops,
but we doubt whether it was ever more justly
merited, and we are sure that the honour was never
so highly enhanced by the manner in which it was conferred.
In the House of Lords the ex- Governor- General of India ; in the
House of Commons the leader of the opposition seconded the
Motion, but this is not all—ktudari a leudato is the nobles::
object of ambition—but how can the prodigal commendation
of the greatest of soldiers be appreciated ? The speech of the
Premier in proposing the vote of thanks in the House of Com-
.. mons, wanted indeed that weight of high military authority,
which no speech but the Duke of Wellington's could possess, but
it was a noble panegyric worthy of its object, and of the speaker.
Providence places the administration of the affairs of such
a country in the hands of statesmen who, when the
public interests are concerned, regard nothing but
the ability to serve and the merit of the honour-
ed instruments whom they employ, and who fling
from them with disdain all lesser considerations, when the
great consideration of the public good is in question. The
Napier family are Whigs, or something more, but this circum-
stance avails nothing with Sir 11. Peel when the public service
calls for the exercise of genius and valour—or when the
able and gallant public servant is to be rewarded by the gra-
titude of his Sovereign and fellow-subjects. It is not a Govern-
ment like Sir Robert Peel's that would supersede Beresford by
-Whitelecke. A feeble opposition to the vote of thanks was
raised by Lord Howick, supported by the precedent of "the
untoward battle of Navarino ;" but there is no analogy what-
ever between the cases. The mildest explanation of the battle
of Navarino ascribes it to an accident, but an accident which
due care would have obviated, and which, even when it
occurred, ought not to have led to a battle, which, how-
ever it might terminate, must prove detrimental to the
honour, or to the best interests of England. The gallantry of
our sailors saved us from the disgrace of defeat ; but in other
respects English honour was deeply wounded, by the attack upon
our ally ; and English interests were fatally compromised
in the destruction of the Turkish navy. In the case of
Sinde there was no accident, the war was forced on by the
treachery of our enemy, and the result was equally glorious and
• 'beneficial. As to the rule, that thanks are not due except
upon a declared war, it would preclude a nation from an ex-
pression of gratitude to those who might protect it from the
most terrible of dangers—an explosion of unsuspected and un-
provoked treachery.

of justice and the taw.—(Hear.) It was a monstrous
doctrine to suppose that a Chief Ju-tice, or any Judge
whatever, could, under any conceivable circumstances,
or in any conceivable case, lay down the doctrine that-it
was necessary in any matter or thing to break through
or set aside the law, or infringe upon rules which had

exited 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 hail been incurred by
various parties, amounting to no less than half a
million of money. He then proceeded to oxplain
the state of the law, which was that a bet on any race,
in which a stake of money above 101. was involi. ed, 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. lie was not himself connected with horse-racing,
though he had long enough ago to render him no longer
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 the present Bill was two-fold ;he
believed all the actions were brought under the
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
Bill was to assist in an investigation of the whole law
relating to gambling, and provided that the operation
of the old Act be suspended for a limited time, till the end
of the present session, as much of it at least as conferred
on the common informer the right of trying such actions.
The present state of the law was very anomalous. A
bet on a race while it was pending was illegal; but a bet
on a race after it had been decided, between two persons,
as to which horse had won it, had been held to be a legal bet.
Under the present law the most indecent bets were
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 5001. The bet was made, and
afterwards Mr. Codrington thought the terms were too.
much in favour of Mr. Pigot. It was afterwards dis=.
covered that Mr. Pigot's father was actually deadlitit
the time the bet was made, although neither
party knew it • and acccordingly 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 description
—which did allow a person to make bets on horse-
racing without being subjected to all the chicanary 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 11., which Act was entitled an Act for the pre-
vention of fraudulent betting. The aext 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 par-
ptse 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
were 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 lion. 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, Ile 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 80,000/. 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.
But 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 Bill was founded was
familiar to the Legislature. Parliament had, for some
years past, shown a disposition to alter the law, su 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
I the mischief of these actions was, that, if a man bet and
lost 1001., and by a counter bet recovered 99/., the
1 penalties were fixed not upon the 1/. 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.—
1 (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) The Hon. Member for
I Finsbury said hear, hear.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—I am not talking to you.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY—Somebody then spoke, and
1 he (Mr. Wortley) now asked the lion. Gentleman for
Montrose (Mr. Hume) would Mr. Russell bring
these actions against a poor wan ? What would
1
r he get by it ?—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial
benches.) The parties who brought these actions
selected the rich, because it best suifed 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 was 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 Hon. Gentleman had said, important
t._9,lteen individuals, but certainly important to the public.
Hon.
dwr,atwo rGentlemanprotectioneliev eth o
from
reom whoproposedth hailot ex-
s those
l s
,o. h enact
violatedn
obeyede an t
tine
law, Plaishdtftoactltvhaietlial
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,

ILLNESS of the KING of SWEDEN.

and for almost personal ends. The Hon. Gentleman
who had introduced the Bill had, in fact, given the
.best reason possible why he (Mr. Gibson) should
persevere in his amendment.—(Hear.) He 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 maintatn. 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
gaining, 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 Bev. 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

The latest accounts from Stockholm are of the 2d of Fe-
bruary. The King had had a rather restless night, caused
chietlY by swelling and pain in the leg and foot. The bulletin
published at five o'clock in the afternoon of the 2d, states,
however, that his Majesty was better than on any preceding
day Since the commencement of his illness ; and the pain
and swelling of the leg had abated.
In consequence of the progressive improvement in the
King's health, the prayers in the palace chapel are discon-
tinued.
A Royal ordinance has been issued, conferring the full
exercise of the Royal authority on his Royal Highness the
.Crown Prince.
The King signed with his own hand both this ordinance
and a similar one for Norway.
The Daglizt Allehanda now contradicts the report which it
was the first to publish.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

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. It' the law was not what it ought to be the
Legislature had no one to thank for it but themselve,.
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 tam 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 iss course. The plaintiff had
had received 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 establishment.--(Cheers.)
He was not so much to blame for the supplying the de-
mands of those who were supposed to be raised to ele
vated situations for the purpose of setting an example
to the people. 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
tdemselves 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.
He would take the liberty of quoting from a Conserva-
tive journal an urticle on the prosecution of Bond. The
lieu. Gentleman then read an extract from the Times et
Thursday, Dec. 8, 1842, expressing the satisfac-
tion which the conduqtors 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.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Alancliebter Guardian.)
Although no great aniount of business was done yes-
terday, either in goods or yarn, the market was exceed-
ingly firm, and with somewhat more of buoyancy in
prices than has existed for some days past. Although
many of the spinners have recently turned their attention
to spinning higher counts of yarn than previously, the ge-
neral demand for light fabrics causes those descriptions
of yarn to be much inquired for, and they are still very
scarce, so that a further change from low to high counts
may be expected; and a further diminution in the con-
sumption of cotton. The prices of printing cloths con-
tinue to advance, and very high prices have been paid
this week for good 22's ; but 40-inch shirtings are rela-
tively low, though in somewhat better demand than last
week.

ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, FEB. 12.—There has
been very little change in the market to-day-from last
week. The demand continues good, but many refuse to
sell at the prices offered. The wool market is brisk, and
prices are gradually on the advance.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

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. FERG USON moved fo'r 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 trevied by the grand jury warrant of Spring Assizes,
18•tri /for each such barony or half barony, and
the ;tie per centum which eaeh such sum bears to
the valuation, also the sum ordered to be levied by the
grand 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 per
acre of such valuation, and the rate which the cost of
such valuation bears to'each 100/. of the valuation
(being in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 334,
of 1843).—Ordered.
Mr. FEFIRAND 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
aronet (Sir James Graham) the other evening, on the
su ject of what had fallen
uefrop Lord Chief Justice
Denman in the Court of
and child,
on the subject
of the separation of. mother
Queen's
athat that he (Sir
James Graham) had stated words as
those attributed to him had never been used by
his Lordship. He (Mi.. Ferrand) had stated'tl in that
eitCousrt of
House that, in giving judgment in a case in
Queen's Bench, Lord Denman had delivered
unanimous opinion of the Court that there werea some
cases in which it was necessary to break in upon an Actme
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
trIV Sl'A-ejce had advanced to the House, and that that authority
,r177-I<,s-\hjd re-asserted and confirmed his original statement.
Beferriiri, too, to the Morning Chronicle, to the Times,
t i •
"‘..Of the Il orntng Herald, and to the Post, he found the
time judgment in substance, and almost in the very
s in which he (Mr. Ferrand) had brought it before
-
House. All these papers, generally so accurate and
ai •
thful in their reports, all of them agreed in attributing
tia 46 Lord Denman almost the very same words he had

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY i 4, 1844

THOMAS H IGGIN SON, pawnbroker, Liverpool, Feb. 23,
at twelve, and March 20, at eleven, at the Liverpool District
Court. Cazenove, official assignee, Liverpool ; Thompson,
Liverpool ; Norris, Allen, and Simpson, Bartlett's-buildings,
Holborn, London.
JOHN HOOSSE BARRY, merchant, Liverpool, Feb. 27,
and March 27, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court.
Turner, official assignee, Liverpool ; Sharp and Jackson, Bed-
ford-row, London ; Miller and Peel, Liverpool.
THOMAS LAY, grocer, Dudley, Worcestershire, Feb. 21,
at twelve, and March 25, at eleven, at the Birmingham Dis-
trict Court. Bittleston, official assignee, Birmingham; Collis,
Stourbridge ; Smith, Birmingham.
RICHARD LANG, tallow chandler, Mill-bridge, York-
shire, Feb. 24, and March 26, at eleven, at the Leeds District
Court. Hope, official assignee, Leeds; Jaques and Edwards,
Ely-place, London ; Watts, Dewsbury.
NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY.
E. Pither, cattle-dealer, Webb's-lane, Hammersmith.
J. Simmons, wheelwright, Hardingstone, Northamptonshire
S. Tarry, shoemaker, Maseby, Northamptonshire.
J. Wheeler, soap-boiler, Bugbrook, Northamptonshire.
W. Copson, hatter, Grantham, Lincolnshire.
M. Westphal, commission agent, Woodstock-st., Hanover-sq.
H. Carman, draper, Holywell, Flintshire.
W. Thomas, stone merchant, Cardiff.
J. Tummond, tea dealer, York.
J. Lilley, grocer, Birmingham.
C. I figginson, schoolmaster, Filkins, Oxfordshire.
W. Dawson, saddler, Chesterfield.
R. Pool, clothes dealer, Manchester.
W. Brown, baker, Waterloo-road, Surrey.
T. Rolfe, jun., journeyman wine-cooper, Great St. Helen's,
Bishopsgate- street.
R. Williams, shoe manufacturer, New Brentford.
J. Hargreaves, shoemaker, Blackburn, Lancashire.
H. Rogers, parish clerk, Melverley, Shropshire.
J. Pritchard, tailor, South-row, New-road, St. Pancras.
W. Hinchliff, haberdasher, Chelsea.
J. T. Morgan, butcher, Feckenham, Worcester.
G. Taylor, butcher, Poynton, Cheshire.
J. Wcodhouse, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Lancashire.
J. W illey, butcher, Manchester.
D. Bates, card maker, Huddersfield, Yorkshire.
C. A. Petterson, book-keeper, Leeds,
T. Owen, retail beer seller, Liverpool.
W. South, jun., brick maker, Reedness, Yorkshire.
J. Jackson, grocer, Skipton, Yorkshire.
J. Croft, patten maker, Leeds.
J. Davies, miller, Dyserth, Flintshire.
W. Cooper, corn dealer, Ryde, Isle of Wight.
T. Bland, market gardener, Christchurch, Monmouthshire.
D. White, Gloucester-place, Walsworth.
C. Nurse, plane maker, Maidstone, Kent.
J. Laws, ginger beer maker, Wells-street, Cripplegate.
R. Mayes, grazier, Ravensden, Bedfordshire. ;
C. S. Shannan, tea dealer, Bedford. '
J. Peachey, pawnbroker, Wellington street, St. Luke's.
W. Pearce, hosier, Nottingham.
J. Campbell, Boston, Lincolnshire.
J. Hambson, warehouseman, Hulme, Lancashire.
J. Marsland, weaver, Bradford, Yorkshire.
B. Wood, waterman, Mirfield, Yorkshire.
J. Mantle, perfumer, Bedford.
R. Bremridge, boot maker, Hampton.
J. Bond, tailor, Ardwick, Lancashire.
C. T. Oliver, clerk, White Hart-court, Bishopsgate-street.
H. C. Carpenter, clerk, Coborn-street, Mile-end.
B. Smith, builder, Northampton.
F. W. Winsor, warehouseman, Trafalgar-place, Walworth.
W. Hemming, coachman, Birmingham.
R. Bassam, blacksmith, Hingham, Norfolk.
J. Hands, stationer, Birmingham.
T. S. Atkins, tax surveyor, Leicester.
D. Armfield, provision dealer, Prestbury, Cheshire.
J. Fryer, grocer, Chorley, Lancashire.
W. Prockter, card maker, Rochdale, Lancashire.
C. Knowles, schoolmaster, Gawsworth, Cheshire.
T. Leach, labourer, Tongend, Lancashire.
R. Forrester, town carter, Chatham.
G. Penny, grocer, Totnes, Devonshire.
H. Cope, coal higler, Old Radford, Nottinghamshire.
W. P. Stokes, compositor, Haberdashers'-street, Hoxton.
J. Bills, lodging-house keeper, West-ham, Essex.
W. Kington Newington.
E. C. Puna:lank, comedian, Edwardes-square, Kensington.
J. W. Turnbull, glove manufacturer, Exeter.
SECOND NOTICES.
J. Routh, Camberwell-grove, Feb. 19, at twelve, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee.
R. Routh, Camberwell-grove, Feb. 19, at half.past
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee.
E. A. Evans, tobacconist, Great Surrey-street, Blackfriars-
road, Feb. 19, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Graham, official assignee.
T. B. Day, Hanover-square, Clapham-road, March 6, at
half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Lackington, of-
ficial assignee.
J. Muffins, schoolmaster, Lewes, Sussex, Feb. 24, at half-
past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official
assignee.
R. Levick, clerk, High Holborn, Feb. 17, at twelve, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee.
J. Smallshaw, gunner, R.N., Landport, Hampshire, March
5, at eleven, at the Court of _Bankruptcy. Johnson, official
assignee.
J. Cox, miller, Ipswich, Feb. 17, at one, Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Edwards, official assignee.
W. Pullin, plasterer, Tuck-street, Shoreditch, Feb. 27, at
half-past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official
assignee.
R. G. Cattell, jeweller, Buxton-street, Clerkenwell, Feb.
24, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official
assignee.
J. Mort, jun., grocer, Little Bolton, Lancashire, Feb. 20, at
twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Stanway, official
assignee.
W. Forster, whitesmith, Warrington, Lancashire, Feb. 19,
at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Stanway, official
assignee.
G. Berkeley, farmer. Eastington Longdon, Worcestershire,
Feb. 21, at one, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy,
official assignee.
I. Robson, farmer, Thornton, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven,
at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee.
G. Buckley, woollen-cloth spinner, Almondbury, Yorkshire,
Feb. 19, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young, of-
ficial assignee.
G. Foulds, stone mason, Bingley, Yorkshire, Feb. 19, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young, official assignee.
T. Pycock, farmer, Atterby, Lincolnshire, Feb. 17, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee.
T. Joy, beer seller, Liversedge, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee.
W. Peat, jun, Yeadon, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the
Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee.
R. S. Taylor, veterinary surgeon, York, Feb. 17, at eleven,
at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee.
J. Hallam, jun., piece maker, Skipton, Yorkshire, Feb. 17,
at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee.
T. Corlass, licensed victualler, Keighley, Yorkshire, Feb. 17,
at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee.
B. Woffenden, woollen yarn maker, Dewsbury, Yorkshire,
Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, of-
ficial assignee.
official assignee.
M. S. Lotinga, surgeon, Bishopwearmouth, Durham, Feb.
26, at twelve, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court.
Baker, official assignee.
manufacturer, Sheffield; Feb. 17, at
Leedsyleojsvr.
.ek nWslN,Draiaarli tlekskt,terehrFi:ceetat
bLanC.bedoel cud,. jrs,t. knifea
W ti
earl
lilomeekptveleern,,j
hcloth
Leedsweavers,
District
C. Armitage, engraver, Sheffield, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the
Court.
at
Fearne, official assignee.
ofr,
B Bankruptcy,rom pt
on B
Kent,as nAgiha ar lel
h- s e
ae
Grecetolaurndt:
Freeman, official assignee.
DIVIDENDS.
at eleven-
J. Harrison, coach builder, Brighton, March 7, at half-past
one-C. Marshall, brewer, Old Castle-street, Whitechapel,
March 7, at one--G. Bishop, merchant, St. Mary-axe, City,
March 7, at half-past twelve-F. W. E. Barandon, merchant,
G. NeAtttlethtoen, Courttailo
Pbilpot-lane, City. March 6, at half-past two-A. Mason,
coach proprietor, Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk, March 5, at
half-past eleven-. A.. and C. Duncan, merchants, Tokenhouse-
yard, City, March 6, at half-past one.
In the Country.
J. Brown, merchant, Sheffield, March 8, at eleven, at the
Leeds District Court--G. and W. Boyd, millwrights, Hull,
March 7, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court-St. John
Cartwright, grocer, Worksop, Nottinghamshire, March 7, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court-S. Ferris, J. H. Butler,
and J. Butler, merchants, Liverpool, March 9, at eleven, at
the Liverpool District Court-W. Jacks, merchant, Bristol,
March 6, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court-G. Holds-
worth, worsted spinner, Northowram, Yorkshire, March at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court-R. Hansford, grocer,
Weymouth, Dorsetshire, March 7, at twelve, at the Leeds
District Court-W. P. Georges, wine merchant, Devonport,
March 7, at twelve,at the Exeter District Court-J. R. Mun-
den, flax spinner, Barwick, Somersetshire, March 7, at one, at
the Exeter District Court-A. Webb, carpet seller, Liverpool,
March 8, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court-G.
Hood, earthenware manufacturer, Burslem, Staffordshire,
March 6, at one, at the Birmingham District Court-J. Bate,
ironmonger, Dudley, Worcestershire, March 9, at half-past
eleven, at the Birmingham District Court-T. W. Jones,
draper, Wellington, Shropshire, March 7, at twelve, at the
Birmingham District Court-G. Wheldon, clothier, Dudley,
Worcestershire, March 9, at eleven, at the Birmingham District
Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the
contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.
A. Wells, surgeon, Wickford, Essex, March 7-J. M•Lean,
statuary, Sun-street, Bishopsgate-street Without, March 7-
J. Dobson, ship's carpenter, Old Gravel-lane, Ratcliffe-high-
way, March 7-P. Beyfus, steel-pen manufacturer, Hounds-
ditch, March 7-J. Gnnton. butcher, Cambridge, March 7-
E. Thompson, tailor, Southampton, March 5-J. Andrews,
licensed victualler, Guildford-street East, Wilmington-square,
March 5-C. Willsmer, draper, Tillingham Essex, March 7-
A. G. Roussac, merchant, Austin-friars, City, March 5-W.
Read, engraver, King-street, Covent-garden, March 7-H.
Cotman, draper, Norwich, March 5-A. W. and T. S. Low-
man, cheesemongers, Eastcheap, City, March 6-J. Wolland,
turner, Exeter, 11Iarch 6-J. Bowles, worsted manufacturer,
Leicester, March 6-J. Baylis, victualler, Deritend, Warwick-
shire, March 9-F. Peters, wine merchant, Manchester,
March 8-R. Prince, stuff printer, Manchester, March 6-J.
Smalley, iron founder, Sneinton, Nottinghamshire, March 5-
W. Dickinson, merchant, Bexley, Kent, March 5-J. Web-
ster, newspaper proprietor, Sheffield, March 5.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Knight and E. Cutress, millers Preston, near Brighton
-F. W. Edwards and J. Foy, commission agents, Alderman-
bury-T. Purcell and T. W. Nichols, tallow chandlers, Bat-
tersea-T. Littledale, H. Littledale, R. Aspinall, and T. Lit-
tledale, jun., tea brokers, Liverpool (so far as regards R. Aspi-
nall)-R. Richardson and J. Holliday, tailors, Liverpool-G.
Barnes and C. Beswick, newspaper proprietors, Sunderland-
Deane, Youle, and Co., general commission merchants, Per-
nambuco, Brazil (so far as regards W. Atkinson and R. S.
Graham)-J. Ellerton and T. .nel, warehousemen, Law-
rence-lane, City-T. Hankey, J. A. Hankey, and T. Hankey,
jun. (so far as regards T. Hankey)-W. Wilkinson and J.
Adams, black ornament makers, Birmingham-F. Harrison
and H. Shuckford, hosiers, Greenwich-J. Bradder and J.
Wood, butchers, Stafford-R. Briercliffe, T. Briercliffe, and
S. Barrett, cotton-waste dealers, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire
-W. Adams and W. Pearson, spar and marble manufacturers,
Matlock, Derbyshire-Ed. and Eh. Grainger, mercers, Dudley,
Worcestershire-B. Slipper and J. Cornick, builders, Little
Britain, City-J. Marrian and J. J Reynolds, stampers, Bir-
mingham-G. Rands, sen., and C. /lands, leather sellers,
Northampton-E. and C. Margetts, brokers, Liverpool-W.
H. H. Turner and C. Hunt, joiners, Chorlton-upon-Medlock,
Lancashire-J. Yeomans and W. Standfield, merchants, Shef-
field-T. T. Cattley and R. L. Young, lead 'vim/tants,
Cousin-lane, Upper Thames-street-J. and W. J:Bilint,"snr-
geons, Edgeware-road-D. Hoyle and G. Sykes, cheese
factors, Huddersfield, Yorkshire-H. Linney and J. Tanner,
boot makers, Alton, Ilampshire-S. Hatfield and G. Brazilier,
tailors, South Holton-street, Oxford-street-J. H. Crosland
and J. Hemingway, painters, Leeds.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.
DAVID STOCKS, farmer, Cameron bridge, Fifeshire,
Feb. 19 and March 11, at twelve, at Smith's Inn, Kirkaldy.

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS DESTROYED.—The
village of Charlton-on-Otmoor, situate within a few miles
of Oxford, has latterly been the scene of several very lawless
proceedings. Some of the labourers, for the want of employ-
ment, have been driven to the Bicester union workhouse,
which has caused a great deal of excitement and dissatis-
faction in the minds of those remaining. Several of the re-
spectable inhabitants have had their windows broken, and on
the night of the 26th of January three ploughs were de-
stroyed, by cutting them to pieces. Each plough belonged
to a different farmer of the village. A paper was left on one
of them, with the following written on it ;—" A fully belly
does not know what an empty one feels."

THE REBECCAITE CONVICTS.—Shoni Scybor Fawr
and Dailr Cantwrs, sentenced at the last Winter Assizes, the
former to transportation for life, and the, latter for 20 years,
are now in Millbank Penitentiary, preparatory to their em-
barkation for a penal settlement.

Sovereign and a Protestant Church, in this country, and he
explained that what he meant by the word Protestant was,
they should not have any minions of Popery in that
Government. ( Hear, hear.) These were the words
of the Member for Worcester; but were they not terms of
abuse, and were they not contumelious terms ?—( Loud cheers.)
Was his Right Hon. Friend Mr. Sheil— was Mr. Wyse—was
Mr. More O'Ferral, were these minions of Popery ?—( Cheers. )
But more than this, two years ago, a Right Hon. Gentleman
brought forward a motion of want confidence in the existing
Government, which was carried by a majority of one, and the
appointment of those three gentleman to office had been
alluded to, of whom he would only say that they were hardly
placed in a position high enough for their merits. The Hon.
Member for Canterbury (Mr. Bradshaw) a constant supporter
of the present Government, and one of that majority, attacked
those appointments; and said that each of them was a direct
insult to the nation, and that the Government was upheld by a
body of Irish Papists who were elected by savages not more
civilized than the inhabitants of New Zealand.—(Loud
cheers.) Such was the language used at that time, and POW
they had prosecuted some of the ablest men in Ireland, and to
conviction, for endeavouring to excite hostility against
the people of England.—( Loud cheers.) His belief
was, that these directions against the people of Ireland
were part of the stock in trade of the party now in power.
He believed that they worked upon the prejudices, the honest
but ignorant prejudices, of the people of England. They made
them believe that the Roman Catholics were about to hold the
highest offices in the State, and they thus animated them, far
their own purposes, against that portion of the empire.—
(Loud cheers.) He alluded to this subject, because it was
now said that the Roman Catholics could not be placed in office
because they belonged not to the political party in power ; but,
he asked, what man of the least feeling, of the smallest ,spirit,
could join a patty who treated with contempt and insult, and
unendurable injustice, the great body of the Roman Catholics,
who belonged to an ancient religion, and who constituted more
than 6,000,1100 of the people of Ireland?—(Great cheering. )
Having stated what he thought was the injustice done to the
people of Ireland with regard to the administration of justice,
with regard to the franchise, and the disposal of power
and patronage, he would now review the conduct
of the different Governments with regard to thoSe
subjects. From 1836, the gentlemen who held
the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for Ire-
lan.l, determined to give a new direction with regard to the
administration of justice ; and for this purpose they directed
the Crown solicitors that Catholics and Protestants should be
equally entitled to serve on juries, excepting cases of special
objection. It appeared by the evidence of Sir Michael
O'Loghlin, that after three years' experience of this system,
the confidence of the people of Ireland in the administration of
justice was greatly increased. Evidence to the same effect was
given by Sir W. Somerville ; and let it be recollected that this
evidence was given before the Lords' Committee of 1839, which
was appointed to inquire into the state of crime in Ireland,
under the administration of Lord Nnrmanhy.—( Hear, hear. )
The evidence showed that crime had greatly diminished; that
there was more security for life ; and that property was
worth more by four or five years' purchase, than it had been
some years before.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the muni-
cipal franchise, the late Government were of opinion that the
same principle should be adopted in Ireland and in England.
This House agreed with them, but the House of Lords rejected
the Bill. But had not the people of Ireland good reason to
complain? The late Government were not in the same
posit ion with regard to administration and legisla-
tion. It appeared to him, and the, people of
Ireland were of the same opinion, that on the whole it were
better for them to have a Goveinment whose administration
was favourable to them, although their legislation in their be-
half has obstructed them—than that they should have a.Govern-
ment whose laws would not be more favourable, and whose
administration would be adverse to them.—( Hear:hear. ) In
1841 the Right Hon. Gentleman had Ireland delivered over to
him in a state of political tranquillity.—t Cheers.) He did
not wish to exaggerate. He knew there were evils to be
cured, which could not be done in a few years; but the
temper of the people had improved.—(Loud cheers.) They
had more confidence in the administration of justice • the
national wealth of the people had increased ; the price Of land
had advanced ; life and property were more secure ; and per.
sons were more willing to embark capital in the country. He
had seen, in the appointment of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Eliot) the germ of a hope that.things in Ireland would go on
smoothly. The Noble Lord himself was in favour of impar-
tiality. At the commencement of the present Ministry, he
(Lord John Russell) had expressed an opinion in favour of that
appointment. His (Lord John Russell's) belief was, and he
stated It now, that notwithstanding the wrong and injustice
they had suffered, the Irish people would have suited their own
interest better if they had remained in tranquillity, until, by a
gradual increase of strength, they could have produced such
an impression on the Government and the Parliament of this
country, as would have been irresistible in favour of just prin-
ciples. That was not the case. Those who had pos-
sessed more peculiarly the confidence of the Irish people,
were indignant at the treatment they had sustained.
They maintained, with great force, that a remedy for those
evils never could be obtained from the English Parliament.
They said the only remedy for them would be found in a re-
peal of the union. It was a matter for consideration with the
Government how that cry was to be met. The Government
might, either by a motion of their own, or on the motion of
the Hon. Member for Limerick, who asked them temperately
to consider the subject, have done so. The Government
refused to do this. They stood with confidence on the Act of
Union. They said they would not inquire into the fairness or
the justice of the Act of Union, but they seemed determined to
act up to its very letter. What was the consequence of that ?
It appeared, from the indictment lately prepared, that meet-
ings had been held in Ireland at which between three and
four millions of persons had been present. These meetings
were held for the pupose of agitating the repeal of the union ;
and resolutions were passed in favour of such repeal.—
(Hear, hear.) Was it not alarming to find so great
a portion of the population of Ireland was discontented?
More than forty years after the union the people of Ireland
declared that nothing but repeal could give them satisfaction.
The people made various speculations upon the intended con-
duct of the Government, and various opinions were given.
Some said they thought the meetings were clearly illegal, or
accompanied with circumstances of illegality ; the Govern-
ment should at once issue a proclamation to prevent any fur-
ther meetings. Others said that such would have been a very
unwise course; if the meetings were allowed to continue mere
numbers would not produce any considerable effect, and at
length the leaders who presided at these meetings would
desist of their own accord, or else resort to some steps
which would be clearly illegal, and on such steps proceedings
would be grounded. The Government took neither of these
courses. 'They dismissed some twenty or thirty magistrates in
the most strange manner.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Lord Chancellor of Ireland declared that certain persists
who were in the commission of the peace in Ireland, could not
hold that commission because they held repeal opinions and
attended repeal meetings, and that after a Member or
Members had made certain declarations in the House
of Commons they should be dismissed for acting
contrary to those opinions, although, as had been pro-
perly remarked in that House last night, the sentiments of the
Right lion. Baronet respecting repeal could he only known by
a,breach of the privileges of that House.—( Hear, hear.) In
fact, these could not be known, except through the newspapers,
and the magistrates of Ireland were not aware that the Times,
the Morning Chronicle, and the Herald, were the recognised
organs of Ministers and of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) But
yet those magistrates were dismissed because they did not act
in accordance with the opinions so delivered. Those proceed-
ings—this 'dismissal, did not diminish thedanger of those meet-
ings—did not lessen the numbers who attendedthese meetings,
and many magistrates were dismissed, in whom the people
placed the greatest trust, and who were the means of removing
from the magistracy of Ireland, by that confidence, the odium
which formerly attached to that body. Those meetings were
allowed to go on from March until October, and then suddenly,
early one morning, the Lord Lieutenant and the Chancellor
landed at Kingstown—the meetings which had been hitherto
held undisturbed were decried by proclamation, and their sup-
pression immediately directed.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
There was one circumstance attending that proclama-
tion of a very extraordinary character. He alluded
to the meeting which was to be held at Clontarf. All the
arrangements had been made for that meeting, and had been
published and declared at the Donnybrook meeting, which
preceded it some time previously. In fact, it had been uni-
versally known, for many days before, that a repeal meeting was
to take place at Clontarf, yet not a single step was taken for
its prevention, but a proclamation was issued upon the Saturday
afternoon which immediately preceded the Sunday on which
the meeting was to be held. Those who issued that proclama-
tion were responsible for the time at which it was issued.—
( Hear, hear.) He would not say—he should be sorry to make
such a statement—that they had issued it in the hope of blood-
shed—( Hear, hear)—but in doing so they had acted with a
carelessness that showed they had not a sufficient value for:life.
—( Hear, hear.) What had prevented the people from coming
up in crowds ?—( Hear, hear.) What but the exertions of
Mr. O'Connell and his associates?—(Great cheering.) Not
the care of a paternal Government—(Hear, hear)—but by a
few irresponsible men, and one of those had become a victim in
the cause of peace.—( Hear, hear.) Did not it therefore be-
come that House to make an inquiry—( Hear)—a strict and
searching inquiry, why that which was known to all
the world was not known to -the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
and the Council in which he issued the late proclamation ?
( Hear, hear.) He was not one of those who approved of
meetings that were calculated to excite tumults, or might
end in forcible intimidation.—( Hear, hear.) Previous to
the commencement of the meeting at Clontarf, the proclama-
tion he had adverted to had been issued, stating that it was
dangerous to the public peace, illegal, and unconstitutional.—
( Hear, hear.) What had been the result of that proclamation ?
Far different to what it would have been but for the inter-
ference of Mr. O'Connell.—(Hear,. hear.) But, however,
much they might triumph in sending Mr. O'Connell to gaol,
let them not forget that Mr. O'Connell had on every occasion
persuaded the people to keep the peace, and dissuaded them
from violence.—(Cheers.) At the thne that he (Lord John
Russell) had held office, he had on several occasions felt
anxious as to the course which Mr. O'Connell might adopt.
At the time the outbreak took place among the Catholics of
Canada, he had watched the course of Mr. O'Connell with the
greatest anxiety. Mr. O'Connell had held up the conduct of
the insurgents to odium, and had warned all who had any con-
fidence in him not to be guilty of a breach of the peace.
Again, when outbreak was threatened by the Chartists of
England, Mr. O'Connell told the Irish people that the object'
of the Chartists could only be obtained by physical force, and
that a resort to physical force could not be justified under'any
eircumstances.—(Cheers. ) Then, again, at the time of the
agitation respecting trades unions, Mr. O'Connell had not
only exposed his popularity, but his life, to discourage' the
movement in favour of trades' unions.—(Cheers.) ',These
things were worthy the serious consideration of the GOvern-
ment ; and when multitudes vi ere assembled far the purpose of
discussing the obvious and admitted grievances under which
Ireland laboured, surely it was some safety for a Government
to know, that at the head of that movement was a man who had
always persuaded the people to peace, and dissuaded them from
a resort to physical force.—( Cheers.) It was singular that the
Government should have taken no steps to put a stop to
those meetings, until the time at which the Clontarf meeting
was to have been held, and they had nearly come to an end,
but having done so, they might very well have stopped them,
and waited till Mr. O'Connell should have taken some other
steps too dangerous to pass unnoticed. But they had thought
that it would be better to have recourse to a prosecution, and
that prosecution was for all these meetings which they them-
selves had allowed to pass, for all those acts of which
they had taken no notice--(Cheers)—for articles in news-
papers—which might have been prosecuted as seditious libels—
( Loud cheers)—acts which had been suffered to proceed
without interruption for nine months together, while one of
the persons prosecuted had only joined the Association at a late
period, when it might well have been supposed, from the supine-
ness of the Government that there was nothing illegal in it, and
that any person holding repeal principles might safely join it.
—(Cheers.) They did not prosecute them for these separate
meetings but for a conspiracy, and he had been reminded by
this prosecution most strongly of the prosecution against
Horne Tooke and Hardy.—(Cheers.) 'they had brought
together acts extending over a period of nine months in pre-
cisely the same manner as had been done in that instance, and
which had brought down upon the prosecutors the eloquent
denunciations of Erskine.—(Loud cheers.) These persons
were indicted for conspiracy to obtain some common end by
illegal means. Those means were the meetings which had
been suffered by the Government to go on without interrup-
tion for nine months.—(Hear, hear.) He had read the able
and temperate speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland,
the able and equally temperate speech of the Solicitor..
General, and the able, but by no means temperate,

charge of the Chief Justice—( Che.ers and laughter
and, for his ewn part, Ile could not but come to the conclu-
sion that the meetings attacked were either legal and innocent,
or illegal and criminal. If they were legal and innooent, bow
could the attending them, or any number of them, eonstitute a
crime? If the had been illegal and criminal, why ;zed they
been allowed to pee. nine months unnoticed ?—(Cheers.)
y
Surely the Government did not expect that these meeting!
would cease of themselves, when no notice had been given 01
their illegality ?—( Cheers. ) It had been said that they hid
been suffered to pass unnoticed, because the Government had
not at the moment a sufficient force in Ireland to suppress theist.
It was impossible to believe that such could be the case. It vets
impossible to believe that the. Government would seek thus to
entrap men— ( Cheers)—t hae they would conceal their
opinions for the purpose of sweteping all these persons nits
their net—( Loud cheers)—that they would seek to obtain,
conviction fur acts which they theneselves had passed over
unnoticed. —( Cheers. ) The indictment was for conspirse
and it appeared from the charge of the Cicief Justice,.that t tee
present law of conspiracy was not the ancient law of the land.
By the ancient law of the land, the combination of people 3,1 i
secret to commit injustice was necessary to be prove*,
in order to substantiate the charge of conspiracy.--( Het
hear.) The alteration in the law had not been many
by statute. The new law of conspiracy was what Alr'
Bentham would call judge-made law, and he had read a
note.
from the last edition of Hale's Pleas of the Crown, which stated
that the law of conspiracy had of late been carried :Duch for,'
ther than it ever had been in ancient tildes, and that Lem
Ellenborough had stated that it had been carried far enougit•
e:t
(Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Russell) theme ht that he
to
at
caution should be used in the application of that doctrine
Aceordl g
meetings held for the discussion of public subjects.
to that doctrine, any person might be involved in a charge_
of conspiracy.—.( Hear, hear.) Take the Anti-C:orneeLaTe
League, for instance. Suppose that, in etensequelie
scarcity, violent epeeches should he made, and P! di
should be guilty of riot ; it might be very proper to I,l' an
those persons for their conduct, but what would thee say 1 d
indictment for conspiracy which should include the M.rea 's -
Westminster and Jr.A Jones Loyd, because they were 'ecru;
bers of the Anti-Corn-Law League?—(Cheers and lau,ghl!r'to
Or, if a Government of a different opinion should collie 'fle
power, he could not see why the Agricultural League
might not be indicted for conspiracy.—(Cheers and laughter.
The being present at an illegal meeting, as he had said berfores
was merely a single point to be proved by evidence, aye o
and the jury could come to a clear decision upon it. Butritoar;
conspiracy everything was involved, everything was
where the law and the fact were at such e distance trd
of
each other, and it required the utmost clearness Of head "that
understanding to consider the subject. It was obvious to
this law of conspiracy might be used for the opprcsssion of .w
e availed
subject, but what was the remedy ? It was that vitieieu aveene
in the case of Hardy and Horne Tooke. It was a fair ,'„e„.
impartial trial by jury.—(Cheers)) Was there such a iceoce.e..
tion in Ireland ?—( Loud cheers. He returned to the IA
anent which he had quoted of Sir Michael O'Loghlin, thoee;
had been the practice since the union to strike off Gathol_we;
and liberal Protestants from the jury. He bogged the fir
to consider what had lately taken place in Ireland. en the P
place, it appeared by affidavit that in the general list of pees
sons qualified to serve on:special juries there were sixty ea'
omitted. t heels
Mr. SHAW (Re; order of Dublin)—That has no •
stated on affidavit.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was stated in the challengoe :
the array. (l he Noble Lord here read the challenge.) eat,
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite contradicted this statenee_d_
but he (Lord John Russell) believed that it had been,
e
mitted by the Attorney-General and the law officers of the
Crown upon demurrer.—( Hear, hear.) The Right WY
Gentleman denied this, but the traversers said there seere Se of
names omitted, and Mr. O'Connell said that thirty'fi
those sixty were Roman Catholics, being a much greater rtio
portion than was on the array when it was finally struck.
j,lo-it
(Lord J. Russell) did not. charge any person with fre beet
even supposing that it was dune innocently, and with the it.
intentions, still he thought, under the circumstatieee2ot
was the duty of the law officers of the Crown and the Govere7o,
itself, to see that no advantage was taken of the eircureostaninse
It was the custom formerly in Ireland to exempt r- bad
Catholics from juries, and on this occasion ten persoeel
been rejected by the law officers of the Crown, because
were Roman Catholics. This proceeding was of
cient to deprive those-State prosecutions of the moral °reef*
which they would have justly had under other circunistatie,
If the object of the Government had been to ensure a ce,,ulieset
tion he could understand the mode of proceeding—if 'Zt
in the case of a private individual, where a private rig.,“ tog.
contested, he could very well understand this made Of r"
a jury. The Noble Lord then read an extract from of
toe
itself s_i4to
dente of Mr. Keeemis, given before a Committee ed if
House in 1839, when Mr. Kemmis was aged
'he did not think that placing the greater o'onese
of Protestants on a jury where, in the ordinary c not
of the panel, the Catholics would preponderate, weclobee
packing a jury ? Mr. Kemmis said he thought not „„sete
asked what he thought packing a jury signified, he said , vino
ting in a jury to convict or acquit.' There were 01 to-
Roman Catholics among these forty-eight ; and all tbostbir
versers with the exception of Mr. Steele, were
lies ; yet from this roll was st uck out all the Ro ielleonmr Ireland
a circumstance which would induce the people ,1;
believe that the jury was appointed to convict.--ell• eel;eoal
was impossible that, under such circumstances, the Pect
artiel
believe that their leaders had been tried by a fair and uPPer the
jury. He could very well understand why members that
Repeal Association should be excluded from the jurrete „ere
he would himself object ; but two of these ten Perseus. tier
not, and never had been, members of the Repeal Assoctbeeos
and had never contributed to its funds. Ile was, ,tenaie
fore. bound to believe that these two gee`
had been objected to solely because they werewolf
man Catholics, and that the other eight, whether they [Ler° titre'
repeal principles or not, would have been excluded ovs'afee
they were Roman Catholics. He held in his hand aeneeer
davit of one of these gentlemen, declaring that he had ever
been a member of the Repeal Association, and had a of
subscribed to its funds. With regard to the proceedignii
the trial itself, he did not mean to enter into theta• d al•
respect to the conduct of the Attorney-General, it l's old
ready been made a subject of comment in that House, The
he had been excused by the Ministers of the Crown.
Attorney-General, in a court of justice, when the Judges v - 10
about to enter, surrounded by all the majesty of justice,
the midst of a great and important trial, so far lost his teneril
Hs
and outraged decency, as to invite a breach of the peace.
had been excused on the ground of irritation by eecil
of the members of her Majesty's Government ; but if eii.st
allowance was made for the feelings and irritability of thenow
law cfficer of the Crown, should there not also be sorties3.,bo
ance made for the exclamations of the Roman Catholf'
had been for years subjected to the grossest irnputatioda, a
(Hear, hear.) Had not their priesthood been denominate
priesthood ?—had not their religion been slandered
had not the people been called barbarians, and worse than 'the
Zealanders ?—and yet they were held less excusable than de,
Attorney-General, who had transgressed the bounds that'
cency. He perceived, by the newspapers of that day', Der.
meeting had been held to celebrate the liberation o'd paid
Oastler—( Hear, hear)— and a Noble Lord who preside.eed ite
all kinds of compliments to Mr. Oastler, who was recogOl°
ball
the organ of the feelings of a party, but who, PerhaPs'oiloo
given expression to the feelings of that party with tea ti he''
liveliness—he could not but remember that espressiou_eor
fallen from this same Mr. Oastler which might well be pie
pared with the speeches which had been made by those °raised'
victuals who were the subject of the State prosecutions in, ' iche.de
With regard to the traversers who have been conic $3
they shall have received their sentence your proceediegosoor
be at an end for the present. But would this have all these
Bating effects?—(Cheers.) What de you expect frolotrinoj
proceedings?—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'Connell, as aat en
phant speaker—as a man who had forced the Governteeeocipsi
Parliament of England into the concession of the Elliot:4oo.f
tion Act—as a triumphant speaker,was, no doubt, air
admiration to the people of Ireland, but he doubted ""essle,e
Mr. O'Connell, convicted by a jury, purposely and eaPreeisoei
Protestants—( Loud cheers)—convicted and sent tol;isiole
and suffering for the people of Ireland, for whom he at 11/1
such results—suffering, perhaps, in health, 3 0110
advanced age, in a prison, would not have,. a f I,t.en;
greater hold upon the affnctions of the peoP''
as
eb
land—he very much doubted if the sufferingtoo
whom you imprisoned would not have more sympathYtettli7f
triumphant leader whom you disliked.—(Cheers.) „ oste
consider what they could do with regard to the
ether `bore
Ireland—whether there were not measures--wht; eebe
was not a course, by which they might roe
the people of Ireland to this eeentrVerY °I 0
evils of the present state of things must be felt on coot aid
If they considered the finances, what expense must iteeticta,,,
to govern Ireland by military force and the fr,.-eige
and
fortresses ? If they considered the state of their 't„,' etrlJed
lations, and if any differences existed between this c"je r•-be
any foreign State, what advantage would not his lleh feeliehe
have with both countries united, and supported hY
and affections of the United Kingdom—(Clicie,ts?ded vide')
Minister of Foreign Affairs, who represented a f aral',eot
one portion ef whom was governed only by force °he pre; to
(Cheers.) On every account they ought tiof setttiele, twiiiitbbeoe lora:
state of affairs. Let them take care care.
maintain the union, that the people of Ireland Chad anere of
nefits of that union, all those advantages which theli.lef A.
ao
mired, and which had been sanctioned by the 11 e•
!„,tice"
if
1829. Let them have ne partial administration 01,_,J;05.) re.
partial, no sectarian administration of justice.—(.' b I
the House went into Committee, his first resolution 0.0
spect this subject. He would next endeavour to frahTe to
ttit;/,
franchise- for the people of Ireland ae might be agreuceic coo)
and conformable with the law prevailing in at bee',
If they could not have a 40s, franchise, they slip., o'.
have one equal to the franchise in this country. eotio_,tlete;
nell complained that the whole of the agricul of Vote,
Ireland had not more electors than the single county of
,r,be
that while Wales -had 36,000 electors, the coo,,,etlion. e'tbel
whiCh was nearly Null in population, had only 'oeiee i 0 i 1 sl?
were obvious inequalities, which must be reraelf.' ith
wished to proceed in-concert, and acted in gooed way notebise
to the engagements of Mr. Pitt in 1799. It y'e, free- tlie
O'Connell alone who spoke of the inequalities of,f t:tieinaef.„otd
in the two countries; but the Right Hon. eeee od a
Member foe Waterford, and the Duke of Leinsters' age fore'
Charlemont, who were no levellers, no agitatehrt' Of!, de'
representing it as a great evil. They eug, o'n 9811'
to set about a cure. They ought to ac` „0 ia ;data,
claration' of the Right Honourable GentlerrtbeY sip
There were two courses they might pursue. It'roly that e
tamed 'the law as it formerly stood, they had truly
oe
eerily of scruples, justice to all parties, and „isecur be• ar./ 0 I'l
they passed the Act they lost the whole..--("e„a-;esoluti:bjece-,
should, therefore, assert that principle in any to to as',.°6llol-4'
should propose to the House. He came ne”ta of Ad')
which nearly touched and related to the PeeP_ ; seta— fle
upon which they atte:npted to legislate, but not
eesoo'hese/
either for the people of Ireland, or for ail, rfear, thoj
alluded to the Ecclesiastical Eetablishmenteeee statr' see
Wherever that was advocated it was invariabeydeteee!! see
our Establishment raised jealousies, produced Tooiple 1;f re;
Pr:„isters t se"
other evils. With regard to the voluntary
stated, that the evil of it would be that the_olerfrape.ts'tite:l'
ligion would be dependent upon their flocks fore
acts t.
that, being so, they would join in every act of petl'he fdtser,
..—( Hear, hear.). With regard to the last objeetifeusiottelll'eff
it was evident 'every where. But the eee'joh he I'
in Ireland combined both the objections to a"reerteeetti
verted. The people felt that they were excluded— ear, Peet.;
—that there was a class paramount over the10.77)00013,
But then he would come to the evils of theeva'e $ 2,05,
ciple. What was the fact with respect to tnoinieofspic.o
the clergy of six millions and a half of the C lett,
were supported by its But it was said that glee' by, In,
to whom the greatest praise was due, were
of
_eo, doe >i°
political discussion more than any other set of eat coo
_,intto
Quarterly Review he had seen it stated thatt,..o% 'the hfourer, t)
or other, it was necessary to remove the clergy there beer:,
and the platform. Would it not be bettei, Hear, of tr.
unite' both systems in one great principle e.
retaining to re,
Then withrespect to the union. If the mgr'lrOiatable_of
terms of; the union was not in accordance Fet
,see abi;ereie
people of Ireland, for his own part he could vigor, eve tee
jection to the alteration of the Act of Union•----,d reow 500
He confessed that he did not think they Cou'oaorto tto
grievances of the people in Ireland, but hYfor oee did pr
alteration in the Established Church• He • The Weet
think that the voluntary system would be effective;
the e the
he should prefer would he one that would
ehae:ci
putting the Established Church of 'England nip the i< the/
Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian Chic ever, thieet
pe
of Ireland, upon an equality. He did not hoa
that could be done at the present ant'°Tl"'OP
the House would only proceed- in a spirit of