Star.
London, England, 1814-11-24 00:00:00

IMPRISONMENT TOR LISEL.

Mr. WHITBREAD said, he had a Petition to `Ai
present from a Mr. Lovell, who had been upwards
of three years imprisoned for publishing several libels.
But he was likely to remain in that state during his
life, as he was unable to pay the fine imposed on him
or to find the sureties required. He did not then
mean to make any other motion than that it should
lie on the table.
The Petition was then read—lt set forth that the
Petitioner being Proprietor of The Statesman Newspa.
per, had been convicted of, and allowed judgment to
'go by default, on four different libels, for which he
had been sentenced to three years and a half's impri-
sonment. The last sentence was eighteen mood's im-
prisonment, to pay a fine of £SOO, and to find two
sureties in 8500 each for his good behaviour during
three years; that he was unable to pay the fine or
find the sureties ; that his health was reduced by a
pulmonary complaint ; awl that he had suffered more
than four months imprisonment over the terms of his
various sentences.
Mr. WHITBREAD then expatiated on the ex-
treme hardship of this case, which he was convinced
every one would see, 'however their opinions might
differ as to the general law of libel. There was no
one but must think that three years and a halt's
imprisontneta was sufficient to expiate any libels
whatever. Two of these, also, had been copied from
other papers ; and the extreme hardship was, that in
one of them, the original authors had not been called
up for judgment, while he received one year's impel.'
sonment. In the third instance, the libel was inserted
while he was in prison, and consequently knew no-
thing of its publication. He was aware that the
House was not the regular place to apply to for re-
lief in such a case ; but application had been made
by the petitioner to Lord Sidmouth, who returned
for answer that under the circumstances of the case,
he could do nothing in it. In March last he applied
to the Lords of the Treasury, from whom no answer
had been returned. He was now come to the Bar of
that House, and he (Mt. Whitbread) trusted, the
persons who could do it, if they were willing, would
represent to the Crown that the fine should be remit-
ted, which he (Mr. Whitbread) believed the petitio-
ner was unable to pay.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, it was not
for him to give any such advice unless he was asked
to state his opinion; but he could tell the House why
mercy had not been extended to this person. In 1807
he was convicted of a libel, for which he received a
mouth's imprisonment. In Easter Term, 1810, he
was convicted of another libel; and, in Michaelmas
Term of the same year, he was convicted of a third.
;The Honourable Gentleman was misinformed as to

Ithe second libel, for the author of it was given up and
ptwsecuted. A 3 to the petitioner not knowing of the
insertion of the third libel, every one must know, that
aperson deriving profit from the publication of a
Newspaper was answerable for every libel inserted in
it, whether he had seen it or not ; and this man, even
while in custody, had made his Paper the vehicle of
both public and private libels. There would be a
difficulty in advising the Crown to remit any part of
the sentence, since his former punishments had not
deterred him from similar offences.
Mr. ANTHONY BROWN could AM help saying,
that the observations of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman were such as would have done him more
credit delivered to a tribunal, before passing of sen-
tence, than in that House, in answer to an applica-
tion for mercy at the end of nearly four years' impri-
sonment. It was alinost impossible not to suppose that
the sentence in this case must have appeared extra-
vagantly severe by tbe.Court who inflicted it. What
offence was there on earth for which a three years and
a half lingering imprisonment was not a sufficient ex-
piation ? What human transgression was there which
could merit a severer treatment ? A sentence of death
was mercy comparedwith it. But what was the offence
for which this severe punishment had been awarded ?
—lt was one which unavoidably grew out of a free
government. The freedom of discussion, without
which no country could be free, made- it frequently
a difficult matter to avoid the commission of what
was termed a libel. The laws on the subject of libel
were of such a nature that they were frequently
a more honoured i,n the breach than the observance."
But, whatever might be the policy of the law, the im-
prisonmnit in this case had already continued beyond
even the long term of the seittence, and the question
now was, whether a period should not at lest be put
to the sufferings of this unfortunate man ?He hoped
that at some future period of the Session, if a period
were not put to his imprisonment, the subject would
again be brought before the. House, and that his Ho-
nourable Friend would not relax in his efforts.
Sir G. HEATHCOTE said, that although he
believed the House could not well take cognisance
of this offence, he hoped the Honourable and Learn-
ed Gentlemen opposite would rec immend mercy to
this unfortunate man. He noticed the cases of Cob-
bett and Finnerty, whose sentences had been ren-
dered snore severe by the way in which they had
been carried into execution. Persons imprisoned for
political offences should not be treated as the worst
of felons.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS said, the Hon. Baronet
was under a mistake, it he supposed that Mr. Cobbett
had been .confined among the criminals. He had
received htdulgenties as well as Mr. Lovell, the pro-
p! iety of which he would not then advocate. But
he hoped that as Mr. Lovell had not the means to
piny Ms fine, that Isis Majesty's Government would
extend mercy to him, particularly as he is in very al
health, and has suffered more than tour m nohs ad-
ditional imprisonment. Mr. Lovell had no means
of paying toe fine but by a public subscription ; hut
he hoped that Government would give up the fine
entirely.
Mr. PONSONBY said, that by the Bill of Rights
excessive fines were declared to be illegal; and it was
probable that the Court of King's Bench had nut
been informed of Mr. Lovell's circumstances at the
time of imposing the fine on him. It now was evi.
pent that the fine was excessive, since Mr. Lovell had
remained five months in Newgate without being able
to pay it ; therefore he (Mr. Ponsonby) thought
.this a fit case for the interference of the House.—
Courts of Justice should also be very careful how
they imposed excessive securities on persons convicted
of libel. If they believed that Mr. Lovell could not
pay his fine, they must consider this a fit case to be,
recommended to the mercy of the Crown.
Mr. BATHURST thought the fine made the
smallest part of the sentence, since it appeared that
this person could not obtain any one to be security
for him • which evidently shewed what sort of esti.'
melon ;his man was held in by those who were best
acquainted with him. It seemed, that after he had
forfeited his firmer securities; no one would come
forward in his favour again. Besides, this man had
not been confined for one offence, but for an accti.
ululation of them ; in as much, th•st it appeared as it
no punishment would deter him from publishing
libels. In recommending this case to the attention
of the Regent, it should be considered also how far it
rniii,ht interfere with public security.
I.4r.WHITBREAD believed that Mr. Lovell was
utterly unable to pay the fine, and that his health
wui s so bad, that a continuance of his imprisonment
would soon put a period to his existence.
The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
THE TENTH LIGHT DRAGOONS.
Mr. TIERNEY rose and spoke as follows--The
House need not be informed, that yesterday a nptice
was gven of a renewed discussion relative to the pro-
ceedings of a Court-martial on Colonel Quentin, and
the conduct of Government towards the Officers of
the 10th Regiment of Light Dragoons. I was not
aware then that I was at all implicated by the Paper to
which the Honourable Colonel alluded; but when it
was afterwards put into my hands, I found that my
conduct had been called into question to the full as
much as that of the Honourable Colonel. So far I
differ from him upon this occasion, that I think the
sooner that Paper is noticed the better, and for that
purpose I beg leave to call the attention of the House
to a subject on which, consideri the part I have
taken, it may naturally be supposed that my feelings
are very much alive. It is a Paper of which Ido not
mean to complain in the harsh sense of the word. I
know that all public men are liable to animadversion,
and had it purported to be the opinion of the Editor of
the Journal in which it was published, I should not
have troubled the House upon this occasion, bat the
document is given as from authority, and although
do not mean to state what that authority is, under the
circumstances, I suppose there is not a Coutleman,
here who will ui3t feel certain that it is ao ordinary

authority. It gives a contrad►ction to a statement I
feint my duty to make to the House of facts which I
adduced to support my argument a/ to tl:t i.ard &tui-
tion in which the Officers of the 10th 'lesser, were
-pieced by the conduct of Government. The p twigs
to which T particularly advert is the following Is
the same Paper, Mr. Tierney is made to sa), ' that
Colonel Quentin applied to the Officers at the mess,
demanding, as he stated, by the authority of the Re-
gent, that the letter Should be delivered to him ; but
this demand was not complied with, and upon refe-
rence to the Regent, it was found that no such autho.
rity bad been given to him. That on a subsequent
audience the Regent demanded this letter from Co-
lonel Palmer, and it was accordingly surrendered to
his Royal Highness, through whom it found its way
to the Horse Guards and Colonel Quentin." And
Mr. Tierney is also made to say e. That Colonel Ro-
bases, for the gallantry and good conduct of the regi•
ment under his auspices, while subject to the in-peetien
of the Duke of Wellington, had been raised to the rank
of Lieutenant-Colonel, from his station of Major."—
As to the latter words of the paragraph, I do not com-
prehend what is the difference between what I am re-
presented as having said, and the subsequent state.
ment given from authority. If it bk thought that I
meant to deny the kindness of his Royal- Highness
towards the officer named, my relation, I was cer-
tainly misunderstood—l expressly added, that nothing
could make me forget the sentiments of gratitude
that ought to be felt. It is asserted from authority,
that Colonel Roberts was raised to the rank of Lieu-
tenant-Colonel by the unsolicited favour of the Prince
Regent, to whom, as Colonel of the 10th Hussars, he
presented himself immediately on his return from the
Peninsula. The fact is, that there bad been an ac-
tion in which Colouel Robarts had distinguished him.-
self ; but, at the same time, I admit that it was a•
act of favour on the part of the Prince Regent—l
never have, and never will deny it. It is only amen.
tioned in this account from authority, to shew that
WAS endeavouring to detract from the kindness of hie
Royal Highness on this occasion, when, but for the
favour of his Royal Highness, Colonel Roberts would
not have been promoted. The truth is, that I have
understood from several. military gentlemen, that
where an officer has had the command of a regi-
ment, and had so distinguished himself as to induce
she Commander of the Forces to mention his name
is the dispatches, it is the uniform practiee to ad-
vance that ollcer one step in rank. But whether this
Jlw or be nor the rule, it makes no difference, since
Colonel Robarts had,. until this affair, received many
marks of the kindness and favour of the Prince Re-
gent. As to the former part of the paragraph that I
read. I am most anxious that the House should be
made distinctly to understand, that I did not, at least
wilfully, gate any fact oil the former night which
was not borne out by the evidence. I know that in
making my statement I male on extremely delicate
ground ; but I think the House will do me the jus-
tice to think that I did not lacing forward as fact that
which I do not believe to be so, or without sufficient
evidence, which, if called upon, I could adduce.—
( Hear, hear!)—The thing denied by me is that this
letter was, by the desire of the officers of the regi-
ment, given to the Prince Regent. Ire:affirm it. I
maintain, that the letter was not given by Colonel
Palmer to the Prince Regent at the desire of the Of-
ficers. The precise contrary was the fact ; for the
Officers of the 10th were most anxious that the letter
should not be given to his Royal Highness. I re-
affirm that when Colonel Quentin made the demand
for the letter as from the rrioce Regent, the officers
refused ; and I call upon my gallant friend behind
me (Colonel Palmer) to state whether he bad any
authority to give the letter to the Price Regent, and
whether he was not, on the contrary, desired to con-
sider the letter as cancelled ? whether, although it
had been sigued, they did not wish to withdraw it ?
This is a most material part of the transaction, be-
cause upon that, give me Terre to say, turns the whole
evidence against the officers. There is nothing but
that letter, which some persons, have called a round
robin, against them : the Order from the Hero
Guards states, that the whole proceeding originates in
that letter, which would not and could nit have heen
produced, if that conduct had been pursued, which it
WAS supposed would have been pursued. I teen fore
call upon the Honourable Gentlem in (Col. Palmer)
to state, whether when Colonel Quentin made an ap-
plication to the Officers to give up the letter, having•,
AS he said, the command of the Pi ince Regent to
require ir, the Officers did not unanimously refuse
to resign it ? Is it, or is it not, the fret, that Co-
lonel Palmer, did afterwards go with the letter
to the Prince Regent, by whom he was command-
ed to give it up, and without which command he
would not have resigned the possession of it. The
consequence was that the letter was put into the hands
of the prisoner, and the Officers were visited by the
dreadful punishment which has since been inflicted.
I wish the House distinctly to understand that what
I asserted on a former night, .is borne out by the
fact, that the officers never did consent that the letter
should be delivered to the Prince Regent, on the con-
trary, that they wished it to be considered as if the
letter had never been written. The truth► is, that his
Royal Highness being made aware of the existence of
such a letter, did command Colonel Palmer to give it
up, and that his Royal Highness did rake the letter
from his hands, and did thereby furnish. evidence to the
prisoner.on which his Royal Highness did feel himself
justified in passing that most severe sentence upon the
Officers of the 10th Hussars. I' is not my intention
upon this occasion to go into ran argument upon the
subject, or to provoke any r,ew discussion : it is the
last thing I have in my coietemplation : I had hoped
that there would be no occasion to trouble the House
at all, but placed in my peculiar situation, charged,
as I am from authority tand no man can doubt what
that authority is, especially when the wr.rds are print-
ed in Italics), L reel that I am bound in duty to my
own character to call upon the Honourable Gentle-
man to state, whether, in the assertion I made, u re

.is one single 'syllable which is not established by the
? As to what passed between the gallant Colonel
and the Prince Regent. there can be no other testi-
' moray but his own. With respect to the Officernren
fusing to deliv.T up the letter in the mess-room, I evy
adduce every Officer 'sho was present; but waist
call upon the HoneurableColonel to state is, tvbetlien.
he, by desire of the Officers of the 10th Hussars, had
put the letter into the possession of the Ptitici Regent,
and whether his Royal Highness did not avail him-
self of his situation to furnish the prisoner with evi-
dence against the Officers by giving up.that letter,
which was made the foundation of their punishment ?
Colonel PALMER :wed that he came down to
the House inconsequence of a note from his Right
Hon. Friend teas morning, and after what i.e had
said, latent: it necessary to enter into an explanation,
which he should have wished to have avoided, until
he eetered into the whole of the Circumstances.
With respect to the letter in question, he knew
nothing of it until it was delivered to him by the offi
cers of the regiment, to be used at his diseletion.,
He had felt it right, in the first instance, in point of
fairness and honour, as any Gentleman present would
have done under such circumstances, to communicate
it to Colonel Quentin ; but considered that it was a
matter of confidence between that officer and him-
self, nor did he conceive himself further bound to
Colonel Qtaentin than to communicate the com-
plaints of the OfficersAo his Royal Highness, which
be did instnedisitely afterwards, as Commanding
Officet, in the 'absence of Colonel Quentin, when
he thought :it' his duty to wait upon the Prince
Regent to inform his Royal Highness of the state of
the regiment, but did not say any thing regarding the
letter. Colonel Quentin was at that time absent, but
he unexpectedly returned, and WAS present during
the rest of the conversat:on. Colonel Palmer was
desired to go to the officers of the regiment, and de-
liver the commands of the Prince Regent, that they
should prefer charges against Colonel Quentin. While
the officers were considering the subject, Colonel
Quentin came to he mess-rqem, and demanded the
letter. The officers refused, asserting that the letter
had not been delivered, and was in effect cancelled.
Colonel Quentin then said, that he had the order of
the Prince Regent that they should deliver it up, and
stated his intention of inclosing it to his Royal High-
ness. The officers replied, that they would not dis-
obey the Prince Regent's command', nut requested
Colonel Palmer to go with the letter, and learn ex-
ceessly from the Regent whether.his Royal Highness
had in truth authotized Colonel Quentin to demand
it ? Colonel Palmer went in consequence, and told
his Royal Highness the exact circumstances under
which the officers had been induced to give it up, and
added, that if his Royal Highness demanded the let-
ter, it was at his service. His Royal Highness de-
nied over and over again having authorized Colonel
Quentin to demand the letter, nor would Colonel
Palmer have parted with it it the Prince Regent had
not asked fer it ; and it was not to be supposed that
he (Colonel Palmer) could make a condition with
his Royal Highness the Prince Regent in present.'
ing it to him, though lie should have done so, if
he could have enicrefined the slightest idea that it
was to be used to the prejudice of the Officers.—
This letterwas certainly ve:id in the 'presence of Co.'
lonel Quentin, bar not the letter• signed ley Cclonel
Robarts, es stated in the newspaper, forit was not
even written at the time, 'sad that was itinnsmer to
the Regent's commands to bring forward. charges;
.neither were the whole sent tti ihs-Cemnsander in
-Chief by the Regent, as he modeistcbd Colbnel
Ro-
burrs afterwards sate she first letter in tie possession.
.of Colonel Quentin, and felt inclined to throw it is
the tire, considering tile means by which it had been
obtained. That, with respect to the Regent's not
laving interfered in any shape in making him (Co-
lonel Palmer) ti:e Prcsecutnr, the Honourable Mem-
ber stated, that if lie was not absolutely command-
ed, that the Regent had expressed his sentiments and
wishes in a way that was tantamount to a command.
—He had waited on his Ltslal Highness espressly
say, that he would not undertake the prosecution I
though commanded ley the Mike of York, as he did
not conceive his Royal Hizhness cenfid insist on it, as
he (Colonel Palmer) having been in so way
cited in the business, bet that the Regent, in a con-
versation of nearly two lours, pressed him to it in a
may that be could not refuse, by saying, that his de-
clining it would be considered as a desertion of their
cause by his brother Officers, and in consenting to
uneberteke it, Colonel Palmer told his Royal High-
pegs that he should consider it his duty to exert him-
selr to tke utmost to bring home the charges against
Colonel Qisentin, entrusted to him by the Officers—
The necessity of which the Regent admitted. Colonel
Palmer concluded with regretting that his Right
Honourable Friend did not approve of postponing
the motion on the subject till after the recess ; but
conceived that the object he had in view would be
best obtained by the delay, as it would give him time
to circulate the papers, and enable him to lay the
case fully and fairly before the public, whom he
trusted he should satisfy, that his brother 'officers had:
been most harshly and unjustly dealt by.
Mr. TIERNEY. —lt is unnecessary to confirm the
statement of the Honourable Officer, and I .hope the
House is now satisfied that I was warranted in making
the assertions of a former night. (Hear, hear.) The
Honourable Colonel was not desired by the Officers
to deliver the letter to the Prince, on the contrary, it
was strongly resisted by them. So that the state-
;nent in the paper is a direct falsehood. It now ap-
pears distinctly that Colonel Palmer was not desired
to deliver the letter to the Prince Regent, but that it
was obtained by his Royal Highness, solely by the in-
fluence of his high station—by his command that the
letter should be delivered up. (Bear, Lear.)
Mr. M. 5i TT ON said, that he could of course
know nothing it the letters in question until they offi-
cielly came be;cse him on the Court-martial. He did,
no: esen know of their existence. On the trial the,
letters were put in, aud were authenticated by Colonel
Palmer, who aecorni.s iiied 1.4 evidence with a state-
ment that he should tit' it necessary to apprise the
Court of the circureetanons belonging to these letters,
as to the a ode in which they came into the: possession
pf Colonel Quentin. As Ear as he could recollect, his
evidence then Wdli perfectly coincident with the szate-
trent made by the llonoutable Celesta now,—it was
net the same in words, but in substance. The letters
therefore being produced with this explanation, the
toutfe in forminivio .dolaion* was fully possessed of

all the facts that had just now been detailed.
the letters came into the hands of the Adjutant-Gene-
ral, he (Mr. M. Sutton) of coarse, knew nothing of
the transactions relating to them. He regretted that
the statement made by bim on a former night had not
been satisfactory to the Honourable Colonel ; it was
not from a wish to pass over any part of the accusa-
tion of the Honourable Colonel without reply.
The SPEAKER inquired whether any motion
was to be proposed ?
Mr. TIERNEY was not aware that any was ne-
cessary : had the statement of which he had com-
plained come only from the other side of the House,
he should not have thought it necessary to make any
remarks upon it; but purporting to be given from such
high authority, it required some reply. That reply, he
believed, was satisfactory—( Hear, hear, hear.)
The subject was then dropped.
COURTS OF JUSTICE.
Sir J. NEWPORT complained of the delays in
making the Returns to the Resolutions of the House.
for Accounts of the Fees and Emoluments of Officers
and Clerks in Courts of Justice ; and that no Royal
Commission had been appointed to make the return,
as requested by the House, and promised by the
Prince Regent. It had been stated to him, that Mi.
nisters hid been debating for four or five months on
the appointment of this Commission, so that the doors
of Courts of Justice remained shut to the Public as
much as before. It had been stated that a Commis.
sion had been appointed to examine the state of the
Courts in England, three of whom were Masters in
Chancery, appointed ti look into the abuses of their
own Courts. This was treating the Resolutions of that
House with perfect contempt—but he trusted the
House would shew that no combination of Law Offi-
cers, or others, would counteract the Resolutions of
that House. He then moved, that a Copy of the Royal,
Commission appointed to enquire into the state of Fees
and Emoluments in Courts of Justice in England and
Ireland, with a similar Account of its Proceedings, be
laid before the House.
Mr. BATHURST denied that there was any wish
'on the part of Government, or the Judges, to shut
the doe's of Courts of Justice to the Public, either in
England or in Ireland. He denied that there was in
England any increase of fees to warrant this enquiry.
The Right Hon. Baronet had not informed the House
who were the fit persons to execute this office, nor
had he stated what salaries he would apportion, sup-
posing proper persons were selected. He assured
the Right Honourable Baronet that the Commission
is ready, and waits only for the selection to carry it
into effect.

Sir S. ROMILLY thought the House were treat-
ed with disrespect, in not issuing the Commission
sooler. He denied there was any difficulty in finding
proper persons to execute the office. Barristers were
the persons best calculated to fill the situation, and
there was no want of Learned Gentlemen ; many of
them would with pleasure execute the duties.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL defended the
conduct of Government, but admitted that many
Gentlemen at the Bar were competent to fill tke
office, though objections might be raised in some
quarters on account (unjustly raised, he would con-
fess) of the supposed interest they might take upon
the subject of fees.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE contended that Govern-
ment, in delaying the Commission, had violated the
Order of the House ; fur in the resolution passed, it
was the intention cf the House, that au early report
should be laid on the table.

Mr. H. ADDINGTON declared, that much of
the difficulty had arisen in finding proper persons;
dicte WAS required such a conv;ivati ,n of qualifica-
tions, rarely to be met w.tli in the same person—such
as integrity, talents and application.
Mr. PONSONBY thought Ministers had :hewn a
peculiar degree of ilidiffetence to the subject.
it:tr J. NEWPORT rciqie,l; when the motion
an Address was agmed to.
The Right Honourable Baronet then moved for an
Account of the Fees in the Office of the Register of
Deeds; also for the Number of Writs of Lathe:4 un-
der and over 4e20, issued within the last seven years
out of the Law Courts of Ireland.—Ordered.

Mr. WHITBREAD brought in a Bill for extend-
ing th.? provisions of the 35th and 37th of the King,
le,pezting False Weights, to Measures also.—Read
a first time ; second reading to-morrow, and to be
printed.

• • • MESSAGE FROM THE PRINCE REGENT.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
brought up a similar Message to that in the Lords,
recommending the grant of an Annuity of x• 3000 to
Lord Walsingham.—The Message was referred to a
.Committee of the House to-morrow.
IRISH EXPORTS.

A Resolution was moved by Mr. FITZGERALD
for instructions to the Committee, in respect to the
Custom Duties.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT took occasion to notice
the situation of the peasantry in Ireland, and recom-
mended to Government to allow them timber att a
cheaper rate. The Right Honourable Baronet then
contended, that exports furnished a material inicre-
diem in producing the comforts to the people of Ire-
land he t.o much desired they should have—he aljsi.
ded to timber. The rise of duty on the article of
staves was from 7s. to 255. He hoped Government
would attend lathe subject. He recommended de-
)lay and consideration in forwarding any measures
which relate to Ireland or Scotland.

Mr. FITZGERALD vindicated his conduct; and
assured the House, that he was not iikoosed -to lay
unnecessary burthens on the people of I-eland. He
had stated, on a former evening, his ssish to assimi-
late the duties with those of England ; and denied
that the duties were so much increased as some per-
sons, interested, described. The price of timber is
less now than it was for the last five years. The
Right Honourable Gentleman admitted, that incon-'
ven►encies might arise in not allowing more time for.
discussing topics connected with Ireland ; but in some
instances it was necessary to avoid delay, particu-
larly on the subject of measures aft:sting the Duties
on Customs.
Mr. PONSONBY contended, that there was ro
country in which the bad effects of imposing Duties
on Timber would be so severely felt. Ireland afforded
but very little limber. To shew the partiality of the
natives for kiteign timber, the Right Hon. Gentle-
man related a story of a Gentleman who had some
Irish fir for sale. The timber-meraanti wool i not
gi,e him s price, assigning as a reason, tbat it was

not foreign fir. On this the Go an= edt lowa his
trees, and shipped them for the port of Corks and
from thence the timber was brought back, and ao•
wally sold for foreign fir. For the permanent good
of Ireland, it was expedient to introduce timber as
cheap as possible.
Mr. PEELE maintained, that in some parts of
England the peasantry were much worse situated than
those in Ireland. He deprecated the idea of holding
out the miserable state of the lower orders of the
people of Ireland, when, in point of fact, another part
of the Empire were similarly circumstanced.
The motion was then agreed in.
On the question for the House going into a Commit.
tee en the Peace Preservation Bill for Ireland, Sir J.
NEWPORT made some obsevations. The Bill afterwards
went through the Committee.—Report on Friday.
The Glass Bill was passed.—Adjourned. •