The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-19 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANb3Rto.

Imprrial Vartiament.
__—
ELOOSE OF LORDS.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13.
Petitions, praying for the better observance of the Sabkath,
Were presented by Lord Suffield, and by the Bishop of Bath
and Wells, from certain stage-coach proprietors,—Earl Sefton
presented a petition from certain Protestant dissenters at Tox-
teth, praying for the removal of civil disabilities affecting the
Jews.—The Earl of Roden presented a petition from a place. in
Scotland against church patronage.—Petitions, praying for the
Abolition of slavery, were presented by Earl Fitzwilliam, (ten
in number) from places in lelorthamptoushire; and by the Lord
Chancellor, from -Fowey.—Adjourned.
THURSDAY.
The Marques of Westminster presented a petition, praying,
as we understood, for the repeal of all laws relating to the ob-
e r van cc of the Sabbath.
Earl Cawdor presented a petition from Carmarthen, praying
for the abolition of slavery.
Earl Grey presented a similar petition from Portsmouth, as
did also the bard of Gosford, from Caithness.
EDUCATION.
The LORD Cuatechetoe, in rising to move that a message be
sent to the Commons for a copy of certain returns connected
with the subject of education, said that. he would take that op-
portunity of explaining the reasons why he did not think it ex-
pedient now to bring forward the measures relative to popular
education, which he introduced into the House of Commons
when he was a member of that assembly. This was not a reso-
lution formed yesterday, for, six years ago, he stated his inten-
tiou not to proceed with the measure, which he first introduced
iulB2o. It appeared from returns made prior to 184 that there
existed in England and Wales a considerable number of en-
dowed and unendowed schools, in addition to Sunday schools,
- for the education of poor children, but these establishments wery
by no means adequate to the wants of the country, inasmuch aP
they furnished the means of education to only about 600,000 or
700,000 children. It was then thought, by some of the best
friends of education who had investigated the subject, that it
was not advisable to establish a compulsory rate for the support
of schools, lest those benevolent persons who then, by volun-
tary contributions, maintained 14,000 unendowed day schotes,
Ist which 478,000 were educated, should withdraw their support
from those establishments. Nevertheless he, in common with
many persons, was of opinion that a compulsory rate should be
established for the purposes of education, and for this reason—
that the support which schools received froM voluntary subscrip-
tions was of a temporary, fluctuating, and fleeting nature; so
• that not only might it vary in one year as compared with ano-
ther, but it might utterly pass,avcay. In 1826 he again brought
forward his bill, but in consequence of the serious objections
which the great body of Dissenters entertained to many of its
details, he withdrew it. In 1828 a new era opened with respect
to the Dissenters. Iu that year the repeal of the Test and Cor-
poratiou Acts removed the distinction which had principally di-
vided his Majesty's subjects into Churchmen and Dissenters,
and it then appeared to him that the objections
it which the latter
body had formerly entertained to his bill would be removed.—
But also occurred to him that it would be most material to
endeavour to ascertain whether the voluntary support which was
given to schools in this country was of so fluctuating, fleeting a
nature as he had supposed. In order to satisfy his mind upon
this point, he addressed, in his individual capacity, about 500
letters to clergymen in every county in the kingdom, requesting
information on the subject of the schools in their respective pa-
rishes. To these letters, which were addressed quite at random,
lie received nearly as many answers, and the information which
they contained was highly gyatifying. The result showed that,
whereas in 1818 there were in the whole kingdom, as he had al-
. ready stated, 14,000 unendowed day schools, educating 4./8,000
. tiri:oren, in 1828 there were in the particular places to which he
had addressed his letters alone uo less than 3,•200 schools of this
description, educating 105,0(A) children. Takine these places
as affording a fair sample of the rest of the kingcrom, as he had
• a right to do from the manner in which he had addressed his
circulars, the result would be, that there were 230,000 unendow-
ed day schools educating 1,030,00 X) children, all supported by
voluntary subscriptions, independently of the endowed schools,
which educated 165,000, and of the Sunday schools, which fur-
vished very useful and salutary education, though necessarily
. of inferior importance to that which could be obtained from day
. schools. Unuer these circumstances he became a convert to
the opinion of those who thought it would be unwise to disturb
a state of things which produced such admirable results; and
therefore he abandoeed- his plan for establishing a compulsory
rate for the purpose§ of education. Ile still, however, consi-
dered the `means of education defective in two points. In the
first place, they were defective in small parishes. There were
.500 parishes in which no schools existed at all. This was owing
to the parishes being small in size and of limited mutation.—
in many of them there were not more than 30 or 40 families.—
It was evident, that however perfect the system of education
might be, the inhabitants of such districts must depend upon
private means fur instruction. In the second case, however,
the defective, means of education could not be too much de-
plored, or too speedily taken into consideration, with the view
tsf applying a remedy,—he alluded t 6 the large towns, particu-
larly the eapitaLand the large manufacturing towns in the north
of England.. There was no part of England in which there
. was a greater number of persons more in want of the ordinary
means of obtaining the most common education. Persons una-
quainted with the subject could hardly conceive any idea of the
extent of the evil, it was the common observation of persons
who had not attended to the subject that, notwithstanding the
increase of education, the amount of crime had gone on as ra-
pidly increasing. It was too much to expect that, in the short
period of a few years, education could produce such an effect as
to show a diminution of crime on the face of the calendar.—
'1 here were various causes, into which he would not then enter,
which satisfactorily accounted for the apparent increase of
crime during the last 10 or 14 yea's. lie, however, would
maintain, and, if necessary, would..prove it to the satisfaction of
every one, that crime decreased in proportion as the people
were better instructed. It was notorious, that in all parts of
- the world where education had made progress, a diminution of
Crimes connected with violence had taken place, although the
population had gone on increasing. Persons, therefore, who
maintained that a diminution of crime was not the result of an
extension of education, talked without regard to facts or to the
essential principles of the human mind. in Russia, where edu-
cation might be said scarcely to exist, out of 5,800 crimes tom-
. Mitted within a certain period, 3,500 were accompanied by vio-
lence ; whilst in Pennsylvania, where' education was generally
diffused, out of 7,400 crimes only 640 were accompanied by vio-
lence, being iu the proportion of 1-12th of the whole number,
instead of 3-sths, as in the former case. If it was necessary to
decide this question by arithmetical results, he could easily pro-
duce abundance of evidence to support his view of the case. He
-Would, however, content himself with stating, further, that in a
gaol which it was not necessary to name, out of 400 prisoners
who were confined in it, 200 were utterly incapable of reading
and writing, and 50 more knew only the alphabet. The noble
end learned lord concluded by observing, as we understood, that
lie had felt it necessary to make these remarks in order to pre-
vent his conduct being made the subject of misconstruction. He
moved that a message be sent to the Commons for a copy of
certain returns connected with education.
Lord ELLENBOROCOH said, that after the statement made by
the noble and learned lord, it must be a subject of great gratifi-
cation to him that the measure which he had brought forward
. ten years ago had not been adopted. He had always been op-
. posed to a compulsory rate for the purposes of education, be-
cause he thought it would deprive the rich of the power of con-
. tiliating the lower classes, watch they at present possessed, by
extending to them the means of education. For the same rea-
son he was reluctant to adopt any compulsory proceeding with
respect to great towns, which the noble and learned lord still
seemed to consider necessary. He certainly had not been pre-
pared to hear such a statement as the noble and learned lord
had given of the state of ignorance which prevailed in those
great towns, because it was only a‘short time since that the ex-
• traordinary intelligence of those great towns was urged as a
reason for extending the elective franchise to them. if the in-
habitants of the great towns were in the state of ignorance de-
ecribed by the noble lord, it was their own fault. The opera-
tives, as they were called, received much higher wages than the
. agricultural labourers. He was inclined to leave it to the 'talus
rat feeling of parents to provide the means of education for their
children, amid also to large capitalists, whose duty it was to con
tribute to the wellbeing of those from whom they derived their
wealth. Without willing to enter into any argument with
respect to the noble lord's proposition, that crime was dimi-
nished in proportion as education was extended, he would
merely remark that in Ireland, where snore persons in propos-
, ton to the population could read and write than in any other
. c tuntry in the world, a greater number of crimes was perpe-
t axed.
The Earl of CLARENDON said a few words, which were in-
aulible.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said it required a refinement of in-
- genuity, for which lie had not given even the noble baron cre-
dit, to drag the Reform Bill into a discussion on the subject of
"education. The noble baron should recollect that ministers
had never recommended the establishment of universal suffrage,
though something 'tending to thatpoint had been recommenued
by the opponents of the,Reform Bill. The rich manufacturers
del contribute towards the education of the poor; Latthe means
were neverthekss instifficient.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, he must again declare, that the
noble and
.learned lord had formerly given a very different de-
scription of the population in the manufacturing towns, without
any distinctions as to, rich and poor, from that which he had
given this evening. With respect to the Reform Bill, he had
only incidentally alluded to it, and never would enter into any
general discussion upon it. , _
The motion was then agreed to.
The Law Amendment Bill was read a second time.
Adjourned.
FRIDAY.

Petitions praying for the better observance of the Sabbath
were presented by the Bishop of Bangor, from a place in Berk-
shire ; by the Bishop of Bristol, from the town. of Pembroke-,
by the Marquis of Cholmondeley, from Chipping-Sodbury and
by Earl Fitzwilliani, from a place in Yorkshire.—Petitions
praying for the abolition of slavery were presented by the Earl
of 'Albemarle, from Tavistock ,• by Lord Teynham, from a
place in Ayrshire; and by Earl Fitzwilliam, from two •parishes
in Yorkshire.—The Earl of Roden presented a petition from
the Isle of Skye against church patronage in Scotland.—Ad-
journed to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, MAltsu 13.
ADJOURNED SITTING.

At five o'clock the house resumed.

Sir J. BYING brought up the report of the committee on the
Newry borough election petition, stating that though the sitting
and duly returned Member, Lord A. Hill, was not implicated,
bribery and corruption were extensively practised at that elec-
tion, and they particularly called the attention of the house to
the part taken in those practices by James Lisle and other
electors. The petition was declared to be neither frivolous nor
vexatious.

• The iiiinutes of evidence were ordered to be printed: '
The Si;iikkErt having informed the house that the petitioners
against the returns for the king's county, for the county of
Carlow; (Mr. Bruen,) fOr the' county of Gafway,'ancLfor
had not entered into the proper recognilanees; the orders of the
day for the consideration of those petitions were diScharged.
On the motion of Sir H. VERNEY, returns ivere ordered of
the number of persons charged and punished by penalty for
breaches of the customs 'and excise laws last year.

Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from Portsmouth for an
amendment of its chartdred municipal laws and institutions.
On the inotion of the same hon. member, returns were ordered
of the number of commissioners of excise and customs who en-
joyed retiring pensions since 1810, stating the amount of salary
and pension in each case.
Lard SANDON gave notice that he would to-morrow move,
on Presenting a petition to that effect, 'that the corporation of
Liverpool be heard by their counsel before the Liverpool bri-
bery committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL obtained leaie to bring in a bill for amend
ing the, aw of fine and recoveries in Ireland. He adopted the
principle of the Solicitor-General's bill for t ngland, the dif-
ference of provisions being consequent upon the difference of
land tenure in Ireland.

Mr. W. PATTEN postponed his motion to 'an earlyday (not
named) for a commission to receive evidence respecting the
labour in factories. His only object was to enable these manu-
facturers and employers who were inculpated by the former
evidence to rebut the charges against them. His motion was
not designed with any view to defeat the bill brought in by
Lord Ashley for regulating the hours of labour in factories.
Lord ALTHORP moved the order of the day for the house
resolving itself into a committee on the

IRISH DISTURBANCES BILL.
On the suggestion of Mr. FERGUSON, the noble lord con-
sented to postpone the court-martial clause till the others were
disposed of.
Lord ALTIIORP said, that in consequence of the strong repre-
sentations which has. been made by several supporters of the
principle of the bill, ministers had agreed upon effecting two
alterations in its provisions—the one in the court-martial clause,
the other in the'clause relating to the domiciliary visits by night.
(Hear.) They proposed that no officer should be permitted to
sit in the court-martial under the rank of captain; (hear) and,
secondly, that when the number on the court-martial did not
exceed seven persons, that no verdict should be valid unless at
least five out of the seven agreed upon it; (that if the court-
martial consist but of five persons, that no verdict should hold
good in which all five had not agreed; (hear) and that when
the number exceeded seven persons, that seven must agree to
the verdict. (Hear.) They also proposed that in the case of
a domiciliary visit, where the party summoned answered by
name, the civil force should not possess the power of enforcing
an entrance. (Heat, hear.)
Mr. ROBINSON conceived the proposition insisting upon the
perfect unanimity of a court-martial consisting of but five persons
to be objectionable, as the chances of acquittal under it were dis-
proportionately greater than under a more numerous tribunal.
Lord ALTHORP said that the smaller the number the greater
was the necessity of unanimity. (Cheers.)
Mr. WadayirroN asked whether the commanding. officer
would possess the power of sending back a verdict for re-con-
sideration, as in ordinary courts-martial?
No answer was given to the question. •
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to propose, as an amendment, that it be
an instruction to the committee to preserve inviolate the right
of petition to the King's subjects in Ireland for redress of griev-
ances, the petitions to be addressed to the throne and the two
houses of Parliament. 'He had intended to have offered a direct
opposition to the Speaker's leaving the chair; but, after the
overwhelming majority which had voted against him on a for-
mer occasion, he thought it needless to give hon. members the
trouble attendant upon a division, and therefore adopted the
less direct and more convenient form of opposition. He would,
however, make no farther concession, and wouldlake the sense
and opinion of the house on the principle of each ,clause. He
began with the first section of the first clause, that which went
to deprive the people of Ireland of the sacred and constitutional
right of petition, and he was anxious to afford every hon. mem-
ber au opportunity of expressing his opinion on the principle
involved in it—in fact,'of declaring whether or not Ireland was
to be deprived of every vestige of the British constitution, and
whether its connection with this county} is or is not to remain
a bitter mockery ? His amendment was merely to preserve to
the people of Ireland the power of peaceably meeting for the
purpose of petitioning for the redress of grievances—bona fide
grievances—for he would not object to such provision as would
prevent the power being abused to other than botiafide griev-
ances, and only in the cases of addressing either houses of Par-
liament or the King in person. '1 he hon. and learned member,
after contending that the existing law was sufficiently strong to
prevent the Use of inflammatory language at public meetings,
and that the clause to which he had directed the attention of
the house was unnecessary for that purpose, concluded by mov-
ing—"'That it be au instruction to the 'committee to preserve
inviolate and effectual the undoubted right of his Majesty's sub-
j ects in Ireland peaceably. to propose, prepare, and present
petitions for redressing grievances to his Majesty and to both
houses of Parliament."

Mr. F. O'CONNOR seconded the amendment.

Lord ALTHORP was not quite sure whether, according to the
ordinary practice of the house, the hon. and learned gentleman
was quite justified in moving au instruction to the committee
of the nature proposed. ' He had always heard it laid down as
a rule of that house, that instructions to a committee, not giving
that committee power beyond what it possessed before, could
not be moved. The committee already possessed the power of
altering the clause to which the hon, and learned member had
referred, and therefore his instruction, to say the least, was un-
necessary. It appeared to him that the moving of such au
instruction coulu only be intended for the purpose of delay.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman had told the
house what he wished to take its opinion upon three great
constitutions) questions—first, upon the impropriety of abolish-
ing the right of petition; next, upon the impropriety of abolish-
ing the trial by jury; and, thirdly, upon the impolicv of sus-
pending the Habeas Corpus Act. Taking these questions as
abstract questions, it would, no doubt, be favourable to the
hon. And learned gentleman's object to ask the house whether
it was favourably disposed or not to the right of petition ; for
there could be no question that every member would agree that
the right of petition was one of the most valuable rights enjoyed.
by British subjects. he hon. and learned gentleman said,
that by the first clause of this bill the right of petitioning was
done away with altogether. Now, nothing could be a greater
exaggeration than such. a statement (hear, hear;)
,for the first
clause of the bill merely said that the Lord-Lieutenant might,
by order, prohibit or suppress the meeting of any assembly
deemed by him to be dangerous to the public peace, or incon-
venient with the due administration of the law. As to the right
of meeting to petition in a district proclaimed all disturbed, he
really saw nothing more mischievous, nothing more likely to
continue the disturbances which all sides wished to check, than
the assembling of large meetings at which discussions were to
take place similar to those which had recently taken place in
Dublin. (hear.)

Mr. H. GRATTAN conceived that those who were opposed to
this bill were bound to express their objections to it at every
stage of it. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to condemn
the bill, because it took away the right of petition; because it
destroyed the liberty of the press and freedom of discussion;
because it was intended to promote the collection of tithes ;
because severe as it was, it was not adequate to the purposes for

, ,

which it was intended; and because the justification of it was
not' made out—a justification which rested on the increase of
crime in Ireland having been greater during the last three
years than the increase of crime in England; but which was
completely contradicted by returns which were on the table of
the house, and which had been quoted with such triumphant
effect on a former night by the hon. and learned member for
Dublin. He concluded by calling upon the right non. secre-
tary for Ireland to give the house a distinct avowal that he
did not intend to use this bill as an engine for the more certain
collection of tithes.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the num-
bers were :

For adopting Mr. O'Connell's instruction 63
Against it

Majority
There was a second division on the question " That the
Speaker do now leave the chair." The numbers were—
For the motion l5l
Against it

Majority
On our readmission to the gallery we found the house in
committee, Mr. Baring in the chair.
On the question being put "That the preamble be postponed,"
Mr. O'Corimut, rose and said, that the preamble contained
a recital to W„hich he entirely objected. It set forth—" And
$t whereas divers3Peetin s grid assemblies, inconsistent with the
public peace and/ safer ' and with the exercise of regular go-
vernment, have for som time past been held in Ireland; and
whereas the laws now in force in that part of the united king-
dom have been found inadequate to the prompt and effectual
suppression of the said mischiefs, and the interposition of' Par-
liament is necessary for the purpoSe of checking the further
progress of the same." Now, he denied the truth of that as-
sertion. He should therefore move, that after the words "that
the preamble be postponed," there be added these. words, " the
same containing an untrue recital."
Mr. COBBETT said the preamble of every bill ought to be
strictly true. He should heartily second the amendment, and
he hoped that the hon. and learned gentleman would divide the
house on the question, and carry his point.
Mr. ClieNkiAN opposed the amendment. He had sufficient
confidence in his Alajesty's ministers to indulge in the hope
that they would not pass the bill without some qualifications.
Mr. O'llwypn condemned the preamble as untrue. The
right hon. secretary'for Ireland had endeavoured to prove its
correctness by adducing evidence on which a man could not be
convicted even of petty larceny. It was his determination to
support his hon...and learned friend, and to divide the house
With him.

Mr. C. FERGESSON said the opposition to the preamble would
be extremely reasonable at the proper time, but the postpone-
ment of it was only a matter of form. It must be considered
hereafter. It was said that the existing laws were sufficient for
the suppression of disturbance in Ireland, while at the very
same time it was admitted that some new laws were necessary
for the pacification of that country. If new laws were consi-
dered necessary, then it was clear that the present laws were
insufficient. He should vote against the amendment. There
was, however, one part of the bill to which he was opposed. He
did not approve of giving over any portion of his Majesty's
subjects to a military tribunal.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the preamble set forth that "the
laws now in force in Ireland are inadequate to the prompt and
effectual suppression of disturbance." He wanted proof of
what was asserted in the preamble ; he called for that proof;
and if it were not given, then it would be impossible for the
house to carry this measure with anv show of justice.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said, he would_ support the amendment on
the ground taken by. the hon. and learned member for Dublin—
namely, diat there no foUndation for the recital. He, as a
barrister, had opportunities of seeing many criminal cases, and
he never knew any want of witnesses or of Jurors.
Mr. STANLEY would read one sentence from the preamble of
the bill, and a short passage from the report of the committee
on the state of Ireland, and having done so, he should
leave it to the house to determine how far the assertion of the
hon. and learned member for Dublin, that the preamble was
negatived by the report, could be considered to be borne out
by the facts of the case. The preamble stated that " Whereas
the laws now in force, in Ireland have been found inadequate to
the prompt and effectual, suppression of the said mischiefs."—
The committee state in 'their report " that although it is quite
true, as has been stated by the Chief Justice of the King's
Bench in his charge to the grand jury of the Queen's county,
that the ordinary and regular laws had been found sufficient to
put down the various Whiteboy associations which have from
tune to time existed, it is equally true that in every instance
every association has made itself complete masters of the
county where it has been formed, and committed all kinds of
crimes and enormities with impunity for a cOnsiderable period
before the enforcement of the powers of the law has produced
a remedy." Could it be said, after this, that the report nega-
tived the allegation " that the laws now in force had been-
found inadequate to the prompt and effectual suppression of the
mischiefs." Thus, instead of the preamble being contradicted,
it was fully borne out and strengththened by the authority
quoted by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. (Cheers.)
Mr. HOME was of opinion that the report did contradict the
preamble. At a future time he should be prepared to agree
with his learned friend that no part of the allegation was borne
out by the facts of the case.
Mr. O'CONNELL reiterated his former assertion that the re-
port negatived the preamble, but was willing, in conformity
with the recommendation of his lion. friend- the member for
Middlesex. to withdraw his amendment.

111 r. H. GuivrTAN said, that the six judges in their charges
to grand juries had completely contradicted the allegations in
the preamble, that such " alarm and intimidation ' had been
created " as materially to impede the due course of public jus-
tice, and to frustrate the ordinary modes of criminal prose-
cution."

Mr. STANLEY, in reply to the hon. member for Meath, had
only to repeat what he had distinctly stated on a former occa-
sion, namely, that it was not the intention of government to
make this act in any way available for the enforcement of any
civil process, whether for the recovery of rent or tithes.
Mr. J. GRATTAN had no doubt, after this explanation, that
the act was to be applied to the collection of tithes. He main-
tained that there was no "conspiracy against the rights of pro-
perty," with the exception of tithe property • and asked the
right hon. secretary to state what he considered to be the other
rights of property that were invaded in Ireland ;
Mr. STAMEY.—The hon. gentleman asked him " what he
considered to be rights of property?" He was perfectly pre-
pared to answer the hon. gentleman. lie considered it to be a
right of property that a man should be allowed to let his own
land to whom he pleased. (Hear, hear.) He considered it to
be a right of property that a man should be permitted to take
land from whom he pleased. (Hear.) It was a right of property
cultivate land as a man pleased. (Hear.) It was a right of
property that a man should be maintained in the safe and se-
cure enjoyment of his dwelling and his land, without being ex-
.posed to the incursions of nightly marauders and murderers,
terrifyinc, the peaceable inhabitants, burning their houses over
their heads, dragging them from their beds, murdering them at
their doors, and parading the roads and highways by night and
by day in the commission of every atrocity. (Loud cheering.)
complained that the right hon. secretary only
adopted such a portion of the report as he thought suitable to
his purpose, at the same time that he introduced a measure ne-
ver contemplated by the committee. Ile took the liberty, with
great respect, of asking the right hon. secretary whether, as far
as a judgment could yet be formed from the result of the assizes
now taking place, he conceived that justice had or had not been
fairly and fearlessly administered ? (Cheers.)
Lord ALTHORP said that a good deal of confusion had been
produced by the different subjects and questions introduced to
the notice of the house on this occasion. With respect to the
assizes now in progress, if he were not misinformed, though
there might have been some convictions for offences described
in the bill at the assizes, the outrages were still going on, and
it could not be affirmed that the assizes had been successful in
the repression of crime.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the question raised was, whether the bill
was not, in truth and in fact, a tithe bill, though it embraced
some other objects? He was of opinion that it was a tithe bill.
What had all the meetings referred to in the preamble, and
which it was sought by this bill to repress—what had they been
held for if not for an abolition of tithes ?

Mr. SHAW said that he, for one, would not be indebted for
the preservation of his life and property to the breath of the
hon. and learned member for Dublin. If that hon. gentleman
could give them peace he surely could destroy it—he was at
least as powerful to do evil as to do good, and he, (Mr. Shaw)
for one, would never consent that the peace of Ireland should
be dependent upon his mandates.
Mr. O'CONNELL very much doubted whether it was becoming
on the part of a judge of the land to pursue the course which
the lion. and learned gentleman was now pursuing.
Mr. M. I YFERRALL remarked, that if the right hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Stanley) had adopted the measures recommended in
the report of the committee of last session. such a measure as
the present would not be at all required.
Mr. SHAW said that he was not a judge of the land, but that
even if he were, had he been wholly unconnected with the trials
in question, he did not see how it would be unbecoming on his
part to give an oinion on the subject, and he fancied that he
Lad as good a right to do so as the prisoner's counseL