The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-30 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LON DON, SATURDAY MORNrING, APRIL 30, 1842.

Mr S. CRAWFORD then rose "to move the omission of
the words in Schedule D, which impose a tax on industrial
income." The Hon: Nlembet• said he-tvou!d divide the House
bit the motion, but would not occupy its time atter the discus-
si4 that had talteti.jdace.
ME HUME, bongidering the whole Bill a mass of injustice,
*citild vote for the motion —(Loud crirs of " Divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
. Against it...
Majority
The c'ause was then agreed to.
The Committee next went into Schedule E.
Sir C. NAPIER said naval and military officers, captains,
and commanders in the navy, and officers of similar rank in the
army, would be very severely dealt with by the Right Hon.
Baronet's measure. Almost all those officers had seen

.. 259
--209

much service, and had families, and their miserable pit-
tances ought not to be fleeced. The Gallant Com-
modore concluded tbv moving that the class of officers he
had alluded to should be exempt from the payment of the duty.
Captain CARNEGIE opposed the proposal of the Hon. and
Gallant Commodore. He should be ashamed to claim for a

particular service an exemption from a public burden at a time
of national difficulty.
Lord WORSLEY thought that the proposal was one which
ought to be acceded to.
Captain PECHELL said that the officers of the navy were
not all favourable to the proposal of an Income-tax; but many
of them disapproved of it under any circumstances. He should
vote in favour • of the amendment of the Gallant Commodore..

Captain PLUMUDGE also spoke in favour of the amend-
ment.

Sir R. PEEL said that no one had a higher respect for the
class for whom the exemption was claimed than he entertained.
No one could feel deeper gratitude to them for the services
they had rendered ; and, he was persuaded that, if they were
called upon hereafter, they would emulate the fame they had
acquired at every period when their services were required.
He c-uld also assure the Gallant Commodore, that no one
. .

could feel more unwillingness than he should feel to diminish
the comforts of such a class. But he should say that if an im-
post were to be imposed upon all the incomes exceeding 1501.
a year, he did not think it would be just to exempt any parti-
cular class from the operation of the measure. He should
also say that the Gallant Officer behind him (Capt. Carnegie)
bad repelled such a proposal with a spirit worthy of the p,o-
fesession to which he belonged ; and it was his belief
that the army and navy did not wish to be relieved from a
burden which was to fall upon all other classes. The question
was not, then, whether it was wise to impose an Inzome-tax•at

all ; but after the House had sanctioned its adoption, they were
to determine whether a particular body should be exempt from
its operation. He did not think the House would approve of

such a propoition.
Sir C. NAPIER said, that he thought the arguments of the

Gallatt Officer opposite (Captain Carnegie)—were very far
from good. He could tell the Gallant Officer and the Right
Hon. Baronet, that many a poor officer would feel severely the
pressure of the tax. If the Gallant Officer were himself a man
of family, with an income of lbOl a year, he would not perhaps
feel so satisfied with the proposal of the Government.
Lord INGESTRIE said he believed that if the naval ser-
vice were • polled out, there would'be a majority opposed to the
proposal of the Gallant Commodore. He therefore disap-
proved of the amendment.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Commit.
tee divided, when there appeared—

For Sir Charles Nap.ier's motion 32
Against it
Majority against the motion —l73
•
On the motion of Capt. PECHELL,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress and obtained leave to
s:t again.
Mr. BLEWITT rose, amidst laud cries of " Oh, oh,''and
ironical cheers. He begged to state that the Chairman had
not yet put the Ist clause.—(Laughter and ironical cheers.)
GREAT MARLOW ELECTION--..THE PRISONER

After a few words from Mr. HODSON,
Sir C. NAPIER said, that as the Attorney-General had
given his opinion that the Speaker's warrant was illegal, he
thought he ought to vote for the immediate discharge of the
person in custody, and he should therefore move that the
bringav
ne dATr
grave
freoßaSa
rvrßiPenv EaoeordnAdTe KtGF:h
beeElinu
discussiontattt havingheTmeo advnidos
panpi
old:
ntt
opposite
ht
stAheea the motion,
ochumAwejohart
yy. i o.
Tnt
understoodh,h eysi
gev
prisoner be discharged forthwith.
t.
y
e.eqr
rtu)ehe asti
tt,ehprnier
audosnntwao.
o
that the warrant was bad. He should therefore vote for the
adjournment to Monday.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said that after the opinion which had
been given by the Attorney-General and the Hon. and Learned
Member for Woodstock, he did not see how they could detain
the prisoner for one moment.—( Cheers. ) 'lie question was,
were they now exceeding their power in confining this indi-
vidual? It had been said that the lawyers would be put to
great inconvenience in being taken from the Courts of Law,
but he thought that the duties of a representative of the
people were paramount to every other. He thought that this
individual was illegally detained, and if the Hon. and Gallant
Commodore pressed his motion to a division, he should vote for
it. What would be the consequence ? All witnesses sum-
moned under the Speaker'? warrant need not attend. He did not
see the end of the inconvenience that would arise. He should
therefore vote for the motion.
Mr. THESIGER felt indebted to the Honourable and
Gallant Commodore for having brought the matter so dis-
tinctly before the )-louse; and the House would perceive that
his own motion being grounded on the strength of his convic-
tion that the warrant. was invalid, that the matter
and the question should be brought before the House,
he should not hesitate to vote for the amendment of the Hoc.
and Gallant Member. It had been suggested that the effeot of
the decision would be to destroy every other warrant issued
under similar circumstances. But he apprehended there was
no grounds for coming to such an opinion. He could
not see any great inconvenience from coining to a de-
cision as to the validity of the warrant. The effect
would be that if a warrant granted for the attendance
of witnesses during the last session was invalid, the
witnesses ought to be brought before the Election Com-
mittee by a fresh warrant or a summons of a Judge.
It appeared to him that the Southampton Committee had not
pursued a' regular course ; and he for one did not approve of
the doctrine that the proceedings before a Committee were en-
tirely beyond the control of the House. It astonished him
that they should have been so often called on by the Southamp-
ton Committee to interfere in their proceedings with witnesses.
The Courts of Law adjudicating on the greatest questions were
seldom or never driven to the necessity of dealing with severity
with witnesses for the evidence they might give; and yet
the Southamie on Committee, which had sat but for a kw days,
had called on the House, on three different times, to interfere
in the cases of witnesses examined before them. He was
strongly of opinion, that the warrant of the Speaker in the
first instance was illegal. He came to that conclusion, be-
cause it was laid down by the highest authorities that a proro-
gation put an end to all proceedings in the House of Lords or
the House of Commons. Under these circumstances he could
not think the witness was bound to obey the warrant.
He could not have been required to produce any documents.
All he could have been required to do would be t i answer the
questions put to him. Under these circumstances, and feeling
strongly that the warrant was illegal, he had come to the con-
clusion that the witness was not guilty of any contempt, and
that they would destroy their character with the country if
they were to refuse for one moment to discharge this indivi-
dual.—(Cheers.)
Sir W. SOIIIERVILLE consideredtheHon. and Learned Ge-
n had taken an unfair advantage of the House in bring-
ing forward this motion; common courtesy ought to have induced
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to have given notice to the
Chairman of that Committee of his intention to reflect upon
the conduct of that Committee. He also considered the re-
marks of the Right. Hon. Member for Knaresborough highly
unbeccming. He did not object to the House meeting this
day, but he could not vote for the motion of the Gallant
Commodore. He felt convinced, notwithstanding all that had
been said about the liberty of the subject, and the opinion of
the people, that the people would know how to distinguish be-
tween attacks upon the liberty of the subject and attempts to
stifle inquiry.
Mr. bCAR LET T supported the motion.
Lord WORSLEY hoped the House would not agree to the
motion of the Gallant Commodore. He thought it most im-
portant that the House should not consent either to the
motion of the Gallant Commodore, or to that of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Woodstock.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said this was a new question, and if
they decided upon it it would be quite without parallel. The
proposal was not to discharge the prisoner on the ground of
a doubt of the illegality of the warrant ; but on a great consti-
tutional question to come forward without notice, to
reverse a decision to which the House of Commons
had come to the night before, he must say that, from his expe-
rience, he considered the course without a parallel. He must
say that, after the decision of the night before of four or five to
one, it was establishing a most dangerous precedent. Had a
notice been given, it would have been their own fault if they
were not present. Had a notice been given at 5 o'clock of a
motion to be made in the course of the evening for the dis-
charge of the prisoner, it would have been a different case ;
but on the contrary, no notice whatever was given, but a motion
was made to discharge the prisoner without notice.
Sir T. D. ACLAND opposed the motion.
Mr. JERVIS asked the Hon. Member for Woodstock, whe-
ther the effect of his motion would not be to originate great
inconveniencies? He hoped, therefore, that his Hon. 1, riends
near him would come forward, as they were bound to do,
and oppose so inconvenient a precedent as this would lead to.
Sir J. TYRREL said that if there were any doubt as to the
legality of this question, they had a right to give the benefit of
that doubt to the prisoner.
Capt. I3ERNAL said that he thought the prisoner had
been unfairly treated by both parties. He hoped the Gallant
Commodore would press to a division, because every hour they
kept the•prisoner in custody they were doing him injustice.
Mr. BORTHWICK said that if the Commodore opposite
did press to a division, he hoped that he would not only con-
sider the honour, dignity, and convenience of the House, but
also the conventeece of the person whom this motion eon-
cerned.—(Laughter. )
Mr. ATTW OOD said, the arguments against the illegality
of the warrant not having been disputed, he believed that the
warrant itself was invalid. In voting for the discharge of the
prisoner, be should disregard all that had been alleged about
the inconvenience of the proceeding.
Mr. GODSON could not permit the division to take place,
without expressing his opinion, as a Member of the Committee,
that the prisoner never ought to have been committed.
Sir C. NAPIER replied. If the Right Hon. Baronet would
consent to let the House meet at two o'clock (this day), he
would withdraw his motion ; if not, he should press it.
Mr. BLEWIrf could not submit to the authority of the
Attorney and Solicitor •Generals without having an opportunity
of forming his own opinion.—(Divide, divide. )
The House then divided, when there appeared—
. For. Sir C. Napier's amendment l4
Against ... .................................... 67
Majority against the discharge,,,... —53
m The e
till H
Monday,ou s e then
when
divided
there
roen a theppe originalappeared--.
d -
For the motion
Against it ............... 42
Majority in:favour of the House sitting this day
The SPEAKER then said, as the House had decided to
meet to.day, he wished to ascertain at what hour he should
take the Chair.
Several Hon. Members having mentioned various hours,
Mr. BORTHWICK moved that the Speaker take the chair
this day at two o'clock.—Agreed to.
The House then Adjourned at a Quarter before Two
o'Clock to 'lwo o'Clock this day.

RICHARD GIBBONS.
Richard Gibbons, who had been committed to Newgate, was
called to the bar and addressed by
The SPEAKER, who said—Richard Gibbons, the Election
Committee appointed to determine the merits of the Great
Marlow Election, have recommended you to the merciful con-
sideration of this House. Yours was a very serious and grave
offence. It appears that it was not accidental, but that
you deliberately and whilst upon your oath gave evidence
before that Committee, which was subsequently contradicted
in the. most positive manner. It is very painful to find a per-
son of your respectability, and who has been respected by your
fellow-townsmen, and hitherto lived with credit to yourself,
in'so disgraceful a position as that which you now occupy. It
you are in any way alive to a sense of honour, that disgrace is
in itself a sufficient punishment. Thy House, therefore, con-
sidering the imprisonment you have already suffered,
and considering the deep regret expressed in your
petition for your misconduct, is willing to hope
that that regret is sincere, and has consented to your
being,relieved.from further confinement, and let me hope that
this lenity may not be misconstrued by others, but that it may
act as a warning to them, otherwise it will be my duty to deal
with them with the utmost severity; for the House has deter-
mined, under all the circumstances, to vindicate that privi-
lege which you have so shamelessly abused. I have now to
inform you that you are discharged, on payment of your fees.
The prisoner was then removed from the bar.
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I move that what you.
have now said may be entered in the journals of the House.—
( Loud cheers. )
On the. question being put,
Mr. T. IJUNCOMBE rose and said, he had not the slightest
objection to the words being entered on the journals of the
House. It was quite right that it should be, but of all the
severe reprimands he had ever heard made upon any individual
in that House, he must say that the censure passed upon this
individual waa perhaps the most severe that ever
was delivered in the house of Commons.—( Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Duncombe) felt, to a certain extent, compelled not
to resist the, motion,, as it was necessary to the vindication of
the privileges 'of. the House; but be before stated, that he
believed, and he still believed, that this individual, whom the
Speaker had stated to have shamelessly abused the privilege of
the House, was not guilty of that which had been attributed to
him. He (Mr. Duncombe) believed that the individual—
and he was not alone—be believed that Mr. Gibbons did not
wilfully perjure himself before the Committee. If he had,
there was no punishment sufficient for the offence ; and if that
individual had wilfully given false evidence before the Com-
mittee of that House, he (Mr. Duncombe ) said it was the duty
of the House not to release him, but it was their duty to in-

struct the Law Officers of the Crown to indict that individual
for perjury. It was only a few days since that they had had
before them another individual of the name of Wrenn.
Mr. Wrenn was called to the bar, having refused to
give testimony before the Committee of the House ap-
pointed to try the merits of the Southampton Election
Petition. lie was called to the bar ; he was asked,

"Do Sou intend to persist in refusing to give the evidence re-
quired before this Committee?" Mr. Wrenn answered, " Yes,
I do, because it may criminate myself; became I believe such
. .

testimony will crim.nate myself; but if it is the desire of this
House that 1 should give this evidence, I will bow to that de-
cision." What happened on the following day? Another in-
dividual, a Member of that House, Mr. Fleming, was called
upon in that House to explain why he had refused to give
before that Committee evidence that was considered of im-
portance, but which was liable to criminate. In answer to the
question, why he had refused to give this evidence, lie said,
" I did, as a man of honour, refuse to answer that question."
He said it was no perjury—the man had net perjured himself
at all.—(" Oh, oh.") These were individuals; and every per-
son connected with that individual who had just left the bar
were ready to come forward and say that he was as incapable of
giving false testimony us any Gentleman in that House. On
their authority he (Mr. Duncombe) brought forward his peti-
tion on a former occasion—now a fortnight since —and
the evidence had been pt inted. He should like to know
how many Hon. Aiembeis had read the evidence,
for if they had read it he was sure they would not believe him
guilty of perjury. His friends would not believe the charge,
and would not care for the reprimand of the House. But it
might affect him in the eyes of the public, although they must
see that he had not been treated as an Hon. Member of the
House. He had been taken into the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms, and had been conveyed away to
Newgate without being allowed to say one word in his own
defence. He (Mr. Duncombe) said that he left that House
without one stain upon his character.—(oll, oh. )
S.r R. PEEL said that he had heard with great regret the
observations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury —( Hear, hear)—
in reference to the reprimand made by the Speaker in pur-
suance with the motion of that House.—(Year, hear. ) Of the
individual case in question, he (Sir R. Peel) knew nothing, he
only followed the usual custom, and moved that whatthe Speaker
had said be entered on the Journals of the House. It was
entered on the Journals that Sir J. Y. Buller reported from the
Committee appointed to try the Great Marlow Elec-
tion, that they had determined first, that Richard Gib-
bons had been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence,
and the House determined that Richard Gibbons for the same
offence be committed to her Majesty's gaol of Newgate, and
that Air. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. To-day
the motion was "Ordered that Richard Gibbons, now in her
Majesty's gaol of Newgate, be brought to the bar of the House,
and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. Or-
dered that the same Richard Gibbons be reprimanded by Mr.
Speaker, and discha-ged." The Speaker therefore of the
House of Commons had acted merely ministerially ; if he had
acted otherwise, he wouldhave neglected his duty—as it was, he
had acted in the most fitting and becoming manner.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not quarrel- with the Hon. Gentleman for dis-
senting from the resolution of the Committee of which he was
a Aleniber ; what he regretted was, that he should have made
those remarks, which he he had made with reference to the
chief authority of the House.
Air. JERVIS said he merely rose to deprecate discussions of
this kind. If it were true, and he thought that would appear
from the evidence, that the individual gave false evidence, in his
(Mr. Jervis's) opinion no censure could be too severe.—( Hear,
hear.) He did think this was a very ill-judged objection.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said that he thought it would appear
from the evidence that the Committee had not acted rashly in
this case.—( Hear.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE said if he had uttered a single word
which could give the slightest pain to the Speaker, he was ex-
tremely sorry for it. he party whose conduct he intended to
impugn, was the House itself, in reference to this subject. He
contended that the individual who had just left the bar had
not been fairly treated.—(Question, question.)
The SPEAKER stated that the Honourable Gentleman
must confine himself strictly to an explanation.
Mr. DUNCOMBE had said that he did not intend to
impugn the conduct of the Speaker; he had acted in obedience
to the order of the House, and could not do otherwise. It was
the conduct of the House that he wished to blame; and when
the House ordered this reprimand to be entered on the
Journals of the House, then was the time to make his
observations. He had not had the opportunity.--(Order. )
Now could anything be more unjust than this ? He would
sit down and leave the country to judge of the question.
The resolution for inserting the reprimand on the Journals
was then put by the Speaker and carried.
The Orders of the Day were then disposed of; on the
question that the House on its rising do adjourn till Monday,
Mr. THESIGER said he must move as an amendment that
the House do adjourn till twelve o'clock to-day.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) On the discussion of the resolution committing one
of the witnesses before the Southampton Committee (Mr.
Mabson) to custody, he had ventured to express a very
strong opinion of the illegality of the warrant of
committal for the alleged contempt. Certainly at
that time he did not maturely consider that
warrant, so as to render the opinion he expressed of very great
weight. He was reproved by the Hon. Alember for Sheffield,
whom he did not now see in his place, for having converted a
doubt expressed by his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Solicitor-
General) into an assertion. But he had since care-
fully considered the subject of the warrant, and he had
been more confirmed in the strong opinion he expressed
last night. The forms of the House did not permit him to
move the immediate discharge of that individual from custody,
but if the House consented to the adjournment, this person,
whom he believed to be illegally and unjustly confined, must re-
main in custody the whale of to-morrow, the whole
of Sunday, and tho greater part of Monday. He
was quite sure it was not the desire of the House to permit
so gr., ss an injustice. If he could satisfy them that the war-
rant was bad, and no contempt committed, they would feel the
most earnest wish to repair \the injustice committed. He
hoped,• under these circumstances, that the House at its rising
would adjourn to twelve o'clock that day, in order that they
might have an opportunity of eonsidering'this most important
question—a question in which the liberty of the subject was
1 involved.

Colintrn's New Monthly Magazine for May keeps
up its character as one of the most entertaining of the peri-
odicals. Thorns Hood, the Editor, furnishes his quota of
amusement in a paper entitled " ;Mr. Wakley and the Poets."
Mrs. Trollope is again on her favourite ground in the chapters
here given of her " Barnabys in America,.,
and the picture
they convey of life and manners at .NeW Orleans must always
rank with her most characteristic sketches of American society.
The " Recreations in Natural History" are continued with
the ability so prominent throughout this interesting series.
" Female Arithmeticians," by Laman Blanchard, Esq., i°
an illustration of Cocker, as novel as it is ingenious. " Con-
fessions of an Avaricious Man," by the late H. D. Inglis, Esq.,
are concluded, and with very striking effect. "In French
Cooks and French Cookery," a most attractive subject is most
attractively disposed of. " Graduates and Under-Graduates,"
by the author of Peter Priggins," affords an able illustration
of the result of talents misapplied. " The late Andrew Ducrow"
has due justice done to his abilities by the writer of an article
with this title, and " Phineas Quiddy" is allowed by his
amusing author, Mr. Poole, to continue his career of sheer
industry, without any diminution of interest. " The Poetry
of the Law, and the Law of Poetry," and Horace Smith's
Short Rides in an Author's Omnibus," will filinish the reader
with much amusement ; and the editor, it, hii whispering
Gallery," is as libero ever vf44 his apothegms and p3lns•

Mr. MACKENZIE seconded the motion.
Mr. DARBY concurred in the propriety of the motion. (slum THE EVENING PILFERS OF YESTERDAY.) .
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL,said,,that after _great con- : es. have recently occurred in
{! SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. i
GLOBE.—Two. cases.
sideration, he had come to the opinion that the warrant was Ireland, which
bad; but notwithstanding that, he trusted his Hon, : and Government a that
Learned Friend, the Member for Woodatock, would not per- able degree the. spirit in which the
severe in his amendment, but would allow the House to ad- eosin
appear to illustrate in a very
try 'is at present parried on; and it easily
journ till Monday, as he felt convinced the House could not de- I be seen how far the Irish administration is entitled to
!ermine the question;without great discusiiion and consideration. 1 the praises which the Conservative press occasicmally
It was impossible to expect that, having sat now tip td, one Inch
ventures to bestow on it. In the first case to W .
o'clock, the Members should be in their places this day at , • mayremark remark- 1
for a thirti
twelve. Nor would they have had time enough to consider so .we alludet a man named Hugnes, whom two Juiles
important a question—a question, perhaps, involving the neces- had refused to cond-amn, was arraigned .
sity of ireroduciog an Act of Parliament; and therefore, he
trusted the House would not act so precipitately as his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member farWoodstoek required them to do. -.-
time' on a chdrge of murder; when, in order tol
The
Mr. THESIGER refused delay. They did not require de- Jury consisting exclusively of
ensure conviction, care wag takernrottoestipulrtosc.ure a
lay to imprison this individual—(Cheers)—and they ought not man was found guilty and L'ugedi 1 .
now to fear precipitation in releasing him. been tried, as Lord Lyndhurst must au..Tult, py„a
Mr. •G. BANKS concurred with the Hon. and Learned haiving
dozen " aliens" in religion ; though twice, vvii.7ll ms
Member for Woodstock. judges did not consist wholly of men belonging to
Mr. FERRAND thought that no time should be lost in dis-
different from own,
a creed . his his prosecutors failed
charging a man who had refused to obey a warrant which the
Attorney-General had declared to be an illegal document. in convicting him. But this zeal to obtain a condem-
Mr. C. BULLER concurred with his Honourable and natory verdict arose, of course, from a desire on the
Learned Friend, that there was no just ground for the part of the Government to bring to justice one whom
motion of the Honourablo and Learned Gentleman opposite they knew to be a murderer, though two juries had
(Mr. Thesiger). When notice of that motion was given there .
refused to pronounce him one. To condemn an in-
was no intimation made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
that he desired discussion on the subject, and should dividual in one's own mind on the appearances against
the House meet to-day, Hon. Gentlemen would come him, before he is brought to trial, is a common error
unprepared for that discusssion ; besides they wanted opportunity among the mass of the public ; but such pre judgment
to look for precedents to ascertain the nature of the objections is dangerous indeed when people in authority not
entertained on the question. Hon. Gentlemen who so con- .
only form it, but use every means in their power
fidently expressed their opinions on the suhj ect were not aware
of the grounds on which the Attorney- Cieneral had founded to act on it. The Irish Government is assumed by its
his opinions. He (Mr. C. Buller) concurred in that opinion, friends to have had a moral conviction of the guilt of
and would support the original motion of adjourning the House Hughes—but no conclusion on the subject could or
to Monday. ought to have been founded on anything but the evi-
Sir R. PEEL said he had every reason for voting for the
dence adduced at the trial, and of this the Jurymen
ameadment, seeing, as he did, that if their decision was
postponed till Monday, it would occupy that time which he who heard it were the best, and assuredly the only
would desire to see devoted to tha Income-rag.—(Hear, hear.) lawful, judges. . Two Juries failed to see in this evi-
He thought they ought to put out of their consideration deuce sufficient to convict the accused; but the Go-
altogether the conduct of the witness.—( Hear.) He hoped vernment, having made up its own mind of his guilt,
that the doubts with respect to it would be cleared up. The
determined to refer the matter to a third tribunal,
only question sea=, whether they were justkOed in detaining "
consisting exclusively of
him under the warrant. He thought the presumption was in aliens" in creed to the un-
favour of the legality of the warrant, the Speaker having acted fortunate prisoner. Ha difference in religious opinions
under the best legal advice that could be obtained. Cog- was believed to be the reason for a verdict not having
sidering, however, that it was then a quarter past I been' come to, why' should it have been presumed
one, and the short notice which would be given,
that the Catholics, rather than the Protestants, were the
it appeared to him impossible that they could decide on the
matter at twelve o'clock to-morrow. For himself, he must men who put a wrong interpretation on the evidence ?
say that he could not form a satisfactory opinion in so short a It may be replied, that the majority were for finding
time. He thought, therefore, that it would be much better for him guilty : and as the majority consisted of Protest-
his Hon. Friend to give notice that he would, on. Monday next, ants, it was thought unanimity would be obtained by
move for the discharge of the witness, on account of the illega-
lity of the warrant. making the jury entirely Protestant. But was unan-
Mr. ATT WOOD said, he hoped the Honourable Member imity to he purchased at the price of justice ? and
for Woodstock would persevere in his motion, or else what right has any Government to impute murder to
move that the witness should be at once discharged. It a human being upon grounds which the law and con-
appeared that the highest legal authorities doubted the legality stitution do not recognise as sufficient for doing so"!
of the warrant ; therefore they had no proof that the witness • A . ,• , of
guilty
was not justified in his disobedienee. • vercuct il must unanimous in order to be
Lord EBRINGTON concurred that it was impossible for effective ; ,and life and death are not to be disposed of
the House to make up their minds on the question between by mere majorities; though our Contemporary, the
that hour and twelve o'clock, and he must therefore oppose Post, seems disposed to think it ought to be otherwise.
the adjournment. So much for the first case to which we have to

allude, and which may be regarded as an example
of the stern and uncompromising principle which
actuates the present Irish Government in criminal
affairs ; but the second instance is a specimen of its
milder qualities. A Mr. Biddulph, a magistrate,
advises certain prisoners to run away ; and after
having done his best to defeat the ends of justice, and
thus encourage parties to violate the law, he is re-
tained among the list of those who are employed in
enforcing it. As the Marquis of Normanby is
to call attention to this subject in his place in
Parliament, it may be as well to say no more
sn this subject, until some explanation of the cir-
cumstances attending it has been given ; but the
looseness exhibited in one case seems to contrast
strongly and strangely with the eagerness shown in
the other instance to subject a suspected person to
capital punishment. The scale of justice cannot be
kept even by violently jerking it from side to side,
now throwing in a degree of rigour that looks like
vindictiveness, and then casting on the balance an
amount of tbrbearance that has all the appearance of
weakness. It is not thus that the scale can be duly
peised, but by the even and uniform employment of
justice and of mercy, neither of which should ever
be used in their extremes of ill-judged lenity on the
one hand, or harshness on the other.
STANDARD. -- The zeal of the Southamp-
ton Committee gave occasion for a debate which occu-
pied the House of Commons last night during much
the greater part of its sitting. Zeal is a good thing,
but when zeal carries men beyond the limits of law
and moderation, it becomes an evil; and we fear that
the zeal of the Southampton Committee is carrying
its members beyond these limits. The documents
required from Mr. Mabson last night were remains
of a cheque-book, possessing the counterfoils, and
two or three trifling accounts admitted to
be of no importance ; and Mr. Mabson's account of
his conduct was as follows :—He had, on the 13th of
September received the Speaker's warrant, requiring
him to attend the House, with all the papers connected
with the late Southampton election. These papers
he retained in his possession until about three months
ago, when he sent them to Mr. Ward, Chairman of
the Conservative Committee in Southampton. The
only paper that could be of any importance was
the remnant of the cheque-book, containing the
csiinterfoils, and it was understood that the
cheques themselves were in the hands of the Com-
mittee. This delivering of the papers to Capt. Wani
is the act of disobedience to the Speaker's warrant—
is the offence complained of—and for this the Com-
mittee reported Mr. Mabson to the House, without
waiting to inquire whether the papers may not be
forthcoming in Captain Ward's hands. Surely this
was premature. Mr. Mabson, it appeared, had re•
tamed the papers in his hands for several months
after the service of the Speaker's warrant, including
the -whole of the last session of Parliament; and
one can easily suppose many innocent reasons for
his sending them to the gentleman who had the
principal share in managing the election (say
the settlement of accounts, among others, at
the end of six months from the election)—all
of which might be explained satisfactorily by that
gentleman's evidence, had the Committee wanted to
examine him. What evil could have followed an ex-
ercise of patience, which might have even placed the
desired documents in the hands of the Committee ?
This, however, is not all. The Solicitor-General (and
who will question either the legal learning, or the
honourable candour and impartiality of Sir William
Follett ?) avowed that he had grave doubts of the
validity of the Speaker's warrant after the termination
of the session for which it was issued. Nay, the
Speaker confessed that he had himself enter-
tained such doubts until they had been removed
by the opinion of his legal adviser. Now,• where the
facile princeps of living I:4liglish common lawyers has
doubts—where the appointed oracle of Parliamentary
law has doubted—it surely is excusable in gentlemen
engaged in trade, as Mr. Mabson is, to have come to
an erroneous conclusion. Nothing could be more
natural than for a gentleman so circumstanced to
reason in this way : I have been summoned for the
Session of 1841—the Session of 1841 is at an end ;
I will, therefore, rid myself of the trouble and
responsibility of this affair by sending all the election
papers to the Chairman of the Committee, who is the
proper party to give an account to Parliament if one
shall be required. This is the way in which most
men would reason in such a case ; few of us are so in-
genious as to assume, that a summons for one session
means a summons for an indefinite number of
successive sessions and, as the Speaker acknow-
ledged, this extraordinary fiction had not, in Sep-
tember, nor has it yet, received the sanction of
legal authority. Let men surmise as they may
of Mr. Mabson's motives, every one is entitled to
have his motives construed favourably if they will
admit of a favourable construction ; and in this case
an innocent motive for getting rid of the papers is
quite obvious in the wish which a man, extensively
engaged in business, must have to relieve himself
frcan the trouble and the loss incidental to a pro-
tracted attendance before an Election Committee—a
prospect uninviting enough without a bullying law-
yer, or excessively zealous Committee, with the Ser-
geant-at-Arms and Newgate in the background.
COURIER.—There is a Society, called the Colo-
nial Society, whose locale may be found in St.
James's-square. It presents, in fact, a fair repre-
sentation of colonial opinion and interests, and, if well
conducted, must rise, as it has risen, into more im-
portance every day. Entertaining a sincere regard
for its meritorious objects, as well as a personal re-
spect for many of its members, we cannot but
regret the very deplorable and inefficient man-
ner in which, when taking, as justly entitled,
the lead in paying a public compliment and
offering a public welcome to a noble citizen,
of whom not Canada alone but the whole empire may
be justly proud, the Society, as represented by its
Committee, fulfilled its important mission. On the
occasion of Sir Allan M'Nab's visit to this country,
it was very properly resolved by the Committee to of-
fer him something in the shape of a public entertain-
ment, as a mark of respect and admiration for the sig-
nal, services rendered by that distinguished man to
his country and to Cana-da, in a season of imminent
peril and perplexity. And what was the course pur-
sued to give the greatest effect to this very praise-
worthy determination ? Why, instead of taking
the customary means to give the greatest pub-
licity possible to an intention which would have been
hailed and responded to throughout the whole extent
of this great metropolis by men of all parties, the
dinner was just left to be talked about among the
members of the Society, and within the walls
'of their club house, and so when the great de-
monstration came off the consequence naturally
was that fifty persons only were found to assist
at a banquet which • was to represent to Ca-
nada the magnificent reception and hospitality of Erig-
land to one of her noblest sons.

. BRISTOL SUGAR MARKET, APRIL 27.--,--Part of
the cargo of the Eling, from Trinidad, sold on Saturday, at full
rates, since which we have been entirely destitute of samples.—
Bristol Gracile.
Mr. Pocock of Shaw, in this county, has no less
than 99 children and grandchildren; and a more respectable
family (says a correspondent) the kingdom does not produce--
all living near Devizes„ Ten of his sops occupy ten good farms.
—.Devizes Gasetic.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
, MOUSE OF LORDS, April 28.
The Hout sat to-day to hear appeal 4. The Peers present
were the Lol 'd Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham,
and Lord Ca mph ell.