took that opportunity of stating, that, in consequence of the early hour at which the House rose last night, they had not yet on their Table a bill which, he understood, had passed the Lords, with amendments. It was, nevertheless, of the greatest possible importance to the public service that the bill in question—he meant the Slave-trade Suppression Bill—should pass with as little delay as possible. There was every reason to believe it would be on the Table of the House by their usual time of meeting, five o'clock; he begged, therefore, to give notice that he should, at that hour, propose to agree to the amendments.

would take the same opportunity to call the attention of the House and the public to a fact which he had seen stated in the newspapers this morning—he meant the conspiracy elsewhere distinctly stated to exist between the Portuguese Slave-traders to make such arrangements, by having a pipe of poisoned nine on the deck, and also by poisoning the water on board, as should cause the death of the British crews who chanced, on capturing a vessel, to partake of the one or the other. It was impossible sufficiently to express indignation at such diabolical atrocity. But he apprehended that the Government, having received information to that effect, were bound, not only to inform the public of the discovery, but to apply to the Court of Portugal to prosecute those who were guilty of so infamous a conspiracy. It was impossible any country could be so barbaric in its code as not to have some means of prosecuting the miscreants who could be guilty of such a crime. He was sure he expressed the sentiments of the whole country, when he confidently anticipated that the Government would call upon Portugal to put the facts in a train of investigation, and adopt the most prompt and decisive measures for bringing to punishment those who were guilty of so horrible a conspiracy.

wished the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general, or the hon. Member for Lambeth, to explain what those amendments were. They had not been printed, and his only knowledge of them was obtained from the newspapers of the day.

The amendments might be stated under two heads: the first referred to the third clause of the bill, giving the magistrates retiring salaries, which the House of Lords had struck out; the other, which was the most important alteration, referred to the 26th clause, which had given rise to so much discussion, and which the House of Lords had also struck out. The hon. Member was aware, that that clause had been framed in conformity with the suggestions of a select committee of the House of Commons, and that it gave the magistrates, in cases of petty felony, a power of summary jurisdiction and conviction, without the intervention of a jury. Although he did not approve of those amendments, and considered the bill much better in the shape in which it passed that House, yet it was requisite to accept it, in order to preserve the power of the metropolitan police magistrates; and he, therefore, moved, that the Lords' amendments be agreed to.

said, that, in consequence of the call made upon him by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, he hoped the House would indulge him with a few minutes of their time, in order to call the attention, as well of the House as of the public, to the alterations introduced by the House of Lords. As the Solicitor-general had stated, there were two principal alterations, and but two, and both he regretted. The first alteration of the Lords was, the striking out the third clause of the bill, by which the Secretary of State was empowered to supersede, upon a fixed superannuation, certain police magistrates who, from age or other circumstances, were indisposed to continue on the bench, when far more extensive and important duties were imposed upon them. The bill, as it originally stood, comprehended, not only the removal of such magistrates as he had alluded to, but the appointment of a superior class of justices in these courts. No doubt could be entertained that the public had been, and was, dissatisfied with the mode of administering justice in these offices, and it was important, therefore, that not only justices, from whatever cause incompetent, should be removed, but that better should be appointed. The Lords had left the jurisdiction as extensive as it was when the bill left this House in nearly every respect, as he would presently show, and yet made alterations which would, in his opinion, mar its satisfactory administration. It appeared, however, that this clause was not absolutely necessary, inasmuch as the superannuation could be obtained by existing Acts. He trusted be should not be thought to take up too much time, when he remarked upon another principal alteration of the bill. The House of Lords had thought proper to strike out the 26th clause, which gave to the police magistrates a summary jurisdiction in cases of petty theft; a clause which he regretted to find no longer in the bill, as he firmly believed it was a most valuable provision, and one constantly called for, and which would have been acted upon with general consent and approbation. For the proof of the value and importance of this clause, he would just refer the House to the evidence of one of the witnesses before the committee, which put this provision in a very important point of view. Mr. Hard-wick says—

"We do exercise a very important jurisdiction at present, from a belief that it is better to decide the case at once for the interest of all parties, both the accuser and accused, in lieu of sending it to the sessions to be tried, involving as it does frequently long periods of imprisonment to the party accused. We do exercise such power perpetually, and we are assailed continually to exercise it still more, and an experienced officer said the other day, that there are few persons who have gone through a criminal proceeding that would ever complain again. There are nineteen out of twenty who have done that for the first time, not knowing what they have to go through, passing through the examination and re-examination at the police office, thence before the clerk of the Central Criminal Court taking the notes for indictment, thence to the grand jury, and thence before the petty jury and the court."

Let it be remembered, that these proceedings all have to be taken for the most trifling, and the most numerous class of offences, the stealing a bun, or an apple, as may be seen in the reports of the inspectors of prisons. But the objections taken in the House of Lords surprised him. It was not that such petty offences were not fit objects for a good and well defined system of summary jurisdiction, but that the jurisdiction given under the bill interfered with trial by jury. Now, to that he begged to give a decided contradiction. The bill, as it went to the Lords, gave no jurisdiction over felonies, if he understood the technical meaning of the word. No such jurisdiction was ever intended or given. Felony was the crime of theft to which the law attached certain penalties, penalties which were very severe. Long periods of imprisonment, transportation, and forfeiture of goods, corruption of the blood, &c. It was never intended, nor was there anything in the bill to give such power. The crime of theft, petty thefts in particular, had long, for forty years at least, been within the jurisdiction of a single magistrate, and of the petty sessions, of justices throughout the country without the intervention of a jury. Felony, then, was never placed by this bill under the single jurisdiction of a magistrate, whilst petty thefts, under several Acts—the Vagrant Act, the Larceny Consolidation Act, introduced by Sir Robert Peel, and the Police Act—all gave this jurisdiction, and were all in full operation throughout the kingdom, certainly without any practical injustice or complaint, or any idea that the right of trial by jury was impaired. The objection, however, respecting the violation of the right of trial by jury, came with a bad grace from those to whom such observations were attributed in the papers: no doubt such remarks were very erroneously attributed to them, but such objections were attributed to Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham. The former noble Lord had sanctioned and prepared the 7th and 8th of George 4th, Sir Robert Peel's Act, and stated this in the debate in the House of Lords in June, 1827. The bill was introduced by Lord Tenterden, and the then Lord Chancellor (Lyndhurst) said, that the bill had long been under the consideration of Sir R. Peel, "who had been assisted by himself, by the late Attorney-general, and by the then Solicitor-general." Lord Brougham also took part in the debate upon Sir R. Peel's bill, and raised not one word of objection to the severe, and he must say, arbitrary provisions of that bill. By that bill, a single justice could inflict twelve months imprisonment, and fines varying from 50l. to 2l. Compared with this, which required amendment, the bill now before the House was preeminently humane and merciful. In fact, the bill was wholly in mitigation of the existing law. The utmost imprisonment which could be inflicted was two months, and the utmost fine 5l., and in all cases an appeal was allowed, where the sentence of imprisonment exceeded one month and the fine 3l. It should not be forgotten, that these magistrates were professional men, sitting in open court, under the constant influence of public opinion and the public press. But if the observations in the House of Lords surprised him, the observations made recently on the bench of the Central Criminal Court surprised him more. There he found the Recorder of London stating, "that the present House of Commons had given their sanction to a measure for trying prisoners without a jury at all." The account goes on to state, that "the jury looked astonished, as well they might." The Recorder continued: "Gentlemen might well be astonished, but it was the fact, that a bill had lately passed the House of Commons empowering a single magistrate upon his own judgment to convict prisoners in cases of felony." This, he confessed, surprised him; for no such bill ever passed, giving any single magistrate any such power. A felony, he had said, was a technical word, implying the crime of theft, and a certain amount of punishment combined. Felony, then, was never placed under the jurisdiction of a magistrate, whilst petty thefts, had, as as he had shown, been long under the cognizance of a single magistrate throughout the country. What became, then, of the statement made from the bench, and the assertion that the right of trial by jury was invaded? The fact was, that the law, when the Recorder was speaking, enabled a magistrate, on suspicion only of a felony, to convict for two months, without appeal, whilst the bill thus noticed required proof of theft to be given before conviction, and then allowed an appeal from a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one month. The law as it stood was unnoticed by the judge, whilst the bill was commented upon by the hon. Member. The impartiality of a judge was lost sight of, and he must say, that such observations appeared to him to be unbecoming the judicial character. The fact was, that this bill was only very objectionable to a certain class of legal gentlemen who were not indifferent to the fees derivable from the business of the Central Criminal Court, and they fancied, contrary to the opinion of many witnesses examined, that the more constitutional and direct jurisdiction proposed to be given by the bill would lessen the business of that court, and hence all the objections made. They could not endure, from the highest to the lowest functionary, that anything should interfere with either the fees, emoluments, or power of that little burglarious world, in which they lived and moved and had their being. Such observations as those to which he had alluded appeared to him better fitted for that House than a court of justice. He begged pardon for thus occupying the House. The remarks he had made had been called forth by the unnecessary address of the Recorder of London, to whom he had written a note, apprising him of his intention to notice it when this bill came again under discussion. He would sit down, only saying that he had a firm conviction that this bill would confer great benefits upon a vast community which had long been denied justice. There could be no excuse for not now appointing thoroughly competent justices—men who would not only do justice, but would make the administration of justice respected; and so far from thinking this bill narrowed any right of the subject, invaded any ancient right, inflicted any severe penalty, or gave any harsh power, be believed it was a bill mitigating the existing law, and creating a useful and most beneficial jurisdiction. It was very capable of improvement, he hoped it would be improved, and that in lieu of the very objectionable power now exercised indirectly by magistrates, instead of that proposed in the bill, which required the proof of the crime alleged before conviction, the bill, as it formerly stood before the Lords' alterations, would hereafter become law. A short time would only elapse before the public would, he hoped, enjoy the full benefits contemplated by the police committee, in the more orderly and satisfactory administration of justice throughout the metropolis.

was not aware of any address having been made from the bench of the nature alluded to by the hon. Member for Lambeth, and thought the hon. Member somewhat premature in coming so rapidly to any conclusion upon that subject. He agreed, however, with that hon. Member, in entertaining an anxious desire that the bill should not be ushered into the world subject to any misrepresentation: and that, as regarded summary jurisdiction in case, of felony, the question turned more upon the technical meaning of the words than anything else. But it appeared to him that the hon. Member for Lambeth had omitted to notice one very material point. According to his (Sir C. Grey's) impression, the bill, as it passed that House, did not allow an appeal to a jury in all cases, a motion to that effect having been made by the bon. Member for East Kent and negatived. According, then, to his opinion, the bill, as it passed that House, gave power to the magistrates to punish summarily British subjects to the extent of imprisonment and hard labour for a limited period, without the right of appeal. He must say that he considered that was a strong interference with the liberty of the subject, and he had stated so when the bill was discussed in committee. He objected to the right of any magistrates to imprison without appeal to a jury. He would put the case to the hon. Member for Lambeth, how he himself should feel if placed in such circumstances, and if he found that he might be thrown into prison by the command of a single judge, subject to all the heats and infirmities of human nature, and that the right of appealing to a jury of his countrymen was denied him. It was true that parties in that situation might apply to the Secretary of State, and so long as the noble Lord now at the head of the Home Department held that situation, they would all have pretty good chance of access. But that noble Lord did not command a perpetual lease of office, and his successor might not be so willing to pay attention to the duties of his office as the noble Lord; he therefore felt it desirable that the power of appeal should exist in all cases. He could speak from his own experience, that he never knew a rogue who had been rightly convicted, appeal from the conviction. With the right of appeal, he should not object to giving summary jurisdiction to a greater extent than they did at present.

said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The present bill mitigated the severity of the existing law, by which police magistrates could imprison for three months without appeal.

certainly thought that the motion of the hon. Member for East Kent, for allowing appeals in all cases, had been negatived, and that the House of Lords had adopted that principle.

said, the Lords had done nothing. The law remained precisely the same as formerly, giving an appeal in all cases where imprisonment exceeded one month, and the penalties 3l.

stated, that the hon. Member for East Kent had moved in the com- mittee, that parties should have an appeal in all cases, but that amendment was negatived. We were going on abolishing the trial by jury by degrees, until at last we should arrive at the Turkish state in which the criminal law was administered by the will of the magistrate alone. He was most averse to depriving her Majesty's subjects of the protection of trial by jury.

was very sorry to hear the hon. and learned Solicitor-general declare, that he was ready to agree to these amendments of the Lords. To that declaration he could by no means assent; and unquestionably he should take the sense of the House upon them. He rejoiced, however, that the Lords had struck out of the bill the summary clause. If it were right to give such jurisdiction to magistrates, why was the clause to be limited to a circle of fifteen miles round London, and why was not the benefit of it to be extended to the rest of the country? The real alteration, however, of the Lords, to which he wished to call the attention of the Commons, was one which completely spoiled the bill altogether. The Lords had struck out of the bill the third clause. That clause gave the responsible advisers of the Crown, the power of superseding the existing magistrates on payment of a pension or retiring allowance, not exceeding in amount two-thirds of their present salaries. The House of Commons, by a subsequent clause, had increased the salary of the future police magistrates, from 800l. to 1,200l. a-year, and had been induced to accede to that increase, from the declaration of Ministers, that under the third clause they should be able to get rid of all the weak, worn-out, imbecile old fixtures in Worship-street and in Queen-square. Yes, all the Whites, and Gregorys, and Nortons were to be swept clean away, and in their stead, we were to get young barristers of seven years standing, distinguished for great learning and legal talent. Now, the consequence of the Lords striking out the third clause, would be this—that Ministers would not be able to supersede the existing magistrates; and the result of that would be, that these old, worn-out, incompetent magistrates would get 1,200l. a-year, instead of the 800l. a-year which they now had, and would continue fixtures on the bench as long as they could either see, write, or eat. When the Lords struck out the third clause, they should also have struck out the clause increasing the salaries of the magistrates. To do Lord Lyndhurst justice, he had come forward to strike out that clause; but then down came the Whigs in flocks, and defeated him for the sake of the golden fleece. After the superseding clause was struck out, the salary-increasing clause ought not to have been kept in. He should move that there amendments be read a second time this, day three months. If he succeeded, as he trusted that he should succeed, in carrying that amendment, the effect of it would be the loss of the bill. He was aware that the Police Act expired in the present year, but nothing could be more easy than for Ministers to have recourse to their ordinary practice, and to bring in a short bill to continue it for another year.

observed, that considerable misconception appeared to prevail in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, respecting the provisions of this bill. His hon. Friend's observations were quite inapplicable to the real facts of the case. If this bill were to be rejected, and a continuing bill were to be introduced, as his hon. Friend advised, all the objections which had been urged against the present defectiveness of the police system, would remain n full force. In the bill, as it passed the House of Commons, the salaries of the police magistrates were increased with a view to obtain a better administration of justice, through the hands of professional men of learning and experience, than could be obtained from the services of some of those who were now employed by the Government as police magistrates, but whom he would not allude to by name, as they were not present to defend themselves. The clause granting that increase of salary, was coupled with another clause, enabling the Crown to supersede, at its discretion, certain magistrates upon retired allowances of a limited amount. The latter clause had been rejected by the Lords; and, therefore, to a certain extent, the public would not obtain the benefit which the bill as it passed the Commons was calculated to give them. But there were two circumstances which his hon. Friend had overlooked. In the first place, all the existing magistrates held their offices during pleasure; but that circumstance would not justify the Crown in removing them, so long as they discharged the duties of their stations faithfully and efficiently. In the next place, the retiring allowances to be granted to them, did not rest upon this superseding clause; for they were provided for by the Act of 4th and 5th of William IV., cap. 24, an Act passed in 1834, for the purpose of regulating pensions and retiring allowances. In the schedule to that Act, were contained the retiring allowances to be granted to the police magistrates in the county of Middlesex, the city of Westminster, and the borough of Southwark. The Crown, by that Act, could enforce the superannuation of the police magistrates. As the consequence of rejecting the present bill would be to leave the present state of the police of the metropolis very defective, he did hope, that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, would not persist in pressing his amendment. One word more before he sat down. His hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. Pryme), had declared himself most averse to abolishing the trial by jury, which he described as one of the most efficacious protections of her Majesty's subjects. Undoubtedly so it was, and most hostile should he and the rest of his colleagues be to any proposition which went the length of abolishing the jurisdiction of the petty jury. But the jurisdiction of the grand jury was also a protection to her Majesty's subjects; and yet his hon. Friend and colleague had proposed to abolish it altogether. On the next occasion on which his hon. Friend brought forward that proposition, he must pair off with himself, as nothing could be more contradictory than his opinions on the utility of grand and petty juries.

said, that his right hon. Friend and colleague had just shown that he had not listened to his speech on the subject of grand juries, for, if he had listened to that speech, he would have known that the abolition of the functions of a grand jury would not impair, but strengthen the functions of a petty jury.

observed, that the Act to which his right hon. Friend had referred was passed in 1834. As in the interval which had elapsed since the passing of that Act—her Majesty's Ministers, had not removed on retiring allowances any of those gentlemen who were such ornaments of the bench, he inferred that they had no intention to remove them now. He must, persist in his amendment.

said, that her Majesty's Ministers had not till very recently received the recommendation of two committees that some of the present magistrates should be set aside. If, therefore, they had set them aside without such a good cause, they would have been accused of removing the magistrates from improper motives. By the present bill they would be authorized to remove the magistrates, and to procure in their room legal gentlemen of greater competency.

wished to ask two questions of the noble Secretary-at-War—first, whether or not the children of soldiers were forced to attend the regimental schools, and to be educated solely in the religion of the Established Church? And, secondly, whether there was any intention of relaxing the rule which had hitherto been acted upon, and which had the effect of depriving the children of Roman Catholics, as well as Presbyterians and Protestant Dissenters generally, of the benefit of the Asylum School at Chelsea, unless they were educated in the doctrines of the Established Church?

answered, that no change whatever had been introduced into the practice of the army by the late order on the subject. In the regimental schools, no children were required to be educated in any religion of which their parents disapproved. With respect to the education of children in the Asylum School at Chelsea, the education of the children there was wholly in the doctrines of the Church of England. He had some time ago seriously deliberated upon this subject, in concert with the commissioners, and after a very full consideration they had been compelled to come to the conclusion that it was impossible in that institution, as it was constituted, that the children who are there, and who are entirely provided for within the institution, could be educated, under any practicable arrangement, in any religion but that of the Established Church.

, seeing the hon. Member for Lambeth in his place, hoped the House would grant him the usual indulgence, when he re- quested the hon. Member to state what had occurred that morning in reference to an intimation which the hon. Member had sent to him, that the hon. Member intended to notice some observations he was reported to have made in the course of a trial at the Central Criminal Court. He was aware that he must throw himself upon the indulgence of the House, in begging that the question might be answered; and he did so as well from being a Member of that House, as also because the matter was connected with the discharge of his judicial functions. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would state the substance of any complaint he had to make in consequence of anything he was reported to have said.

really did not know whether he were called upon to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. Had the hon. and learned Member been in his place in the morning, as he ought to have been, he would have heard the statement he had made; and he thought it too much to be called upon to state over again the observations which, in the discharge of his public duty, he had thought it right to make. He could not, perhaps, recollect the exact phraseology he had used, and he must say, that it appeared to him a most unnatural course, having intimated to the hon. and learned Member in the course of Friday, that he should take an opportunity when the Police Courts Bill came before the House, to notice (not to complain, for he had no complaint to make) an address reported to have been made to a jury in the Central Criminal Court. He had yesterday requested the noble Lord, who had charge of it, to postpone the bill till today, in order that the hon. Member from whom he had received no answer till three o'clock that day, might have full notice. He was now in the hands of the House, and was willing, if it thought proper to enter upon the debate. ["No, no."] If the House wished it he was ready to defend what he then stated, but it was rather too much to ask him to repeat his observations.

assured the hon. Member and the House, that although the hon. Member's letter to him was dated on Friday last, he being out of town, did not receive it until one o'clock yesterday. He immediately returned to town at great personal inconvenience to himself, and arrived at the door of the House at a-quarter before four o'clock, not being aware that the House would sit at an earlier hour. This being the case, he confessed he was somewhat surprised at the hon. Gentleman's disinclination to re-state what he had said in the morning. However, as the hon. Member now stated that he did not complain, and as the mere personal opinion of the hon. Member as to any part of his conduct was a matter of complete indifference, he would not trouble the House with any further remarks upon the subject. He, thought, however, he might be allowed to observe, that when the hon. Member sent a notice to him of his intention to direct the attention of the House to some part of his conduct when acting in a public capacity, when the hon. Gentleman received an answer to that communication as soon as circumstances could possibly admit, and when he came to town to meet any observations the hon. Member might feel it his duty to make; he thought it was not too great an indulgence from one gentleman to another, not to say from one Member of the House to another, to restate the substance of any observations—[The hon. Member was interrupted by cries of "Order !" and Chair !"]

thought it would not be wise to press the matter further. The hon. and learned Member had called on the hon. Member for Lambeth to state the substance of any observations he had made; and it was certainly competent for the hon. Member to do so, but the hon. Member having declined, it was irregular to create any further debate. He had understood the hon. Member, when he rose, to make some explanation of what had occurred, which he (the Speaker) conceived was perfectly in order, but beyond that he thought any dicussion would be irregular.

hoped he might be permit-to state, with reference to the communications on which the hon. and learned Gentleman laid great stress, that he had addressed a note to the hon. and learned Gentleman on Friday; that he had taken great pains that the note should be delivered, and on the door of the hon. and learned Gentleman's chambers there was a notice that the person in charge would attend again directly. He had heard nothing further upon the subject until he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman today, when the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the only reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered his letter was, that he had not received it in time. He had thought that all he could do was to intimate to the hon. and learned Member that he intended to notice the address he had made.

wished again to draw the attention of the Under Secretary for the Colonies to the case of Mr. Viger, who had been confined in the gaol of Montreal, Lowe Canada, for two years, without having been brought to trial. It would be in the recollection of the House, that some time since he had asked a question on this subject—but he had this day seen an individual who had just arrived in this country from Montreal, and who stated that Mr. Viger was still detained in the gaol of that city, and that his family were denied all access to him. Such treatment as this he considered exceedingly cruel towards a gentleman seventy-five years of age, and who had for a long period occupied the high situation of a Member of the Assembly of the colony. It was cruel that he should be compelled to linger out another winter in prison, suffering such severe privations. He had asked to be brought to trial, either before the ordinary tribunals, or before a court-martial, he did not care which: but it was a cruel case that he should be detained in prison at his time of life, and made to undergo these privations.

said, he had answered the question of the hon. Gentleman some time ago, and he could only now reply in the same terms that he had on that occasion; but he thought that the House would be of opinion, that under the circumstances of the case, Sir John Colborne could not have acted otherwise than he had acted. He could not state exactly the manner in which Mr. Viger had been treated; but he thought it was unlikely that he was subjected to any hardships which were not necessary for his safe custody.

wished to know why any British subject should be confined for two years without being brought to trial? It was most cruel and most unjust.

said, undoubtedly, the events which had occurred during the last month, in respect to the Bank of Ireland Bill, would impose upon him a task of no ordinary difficulty, and he feared he must add, also, of no ordinary responsibility. The difficulty in which the House was placed—he abstracted for the moment any difficulty which affected himself or her Majesty's Government—was of no common character. He should wish, before he adverted more distinctly to the resolutions of her Majesty's Government, and to the determination they had come to, to explain, at no great length, but to explain, nevertheless, the object the Government had, in the introduction of this bill. This bill affected the Bank of Ireland, the joint-stock banks in Ireland, and affected the British funds. So far as it affected the Bank of Ireland, it contained provisions to continue for a time certain of four years, and, in the event of Parliament not interfering to the contrary, for fourteen years, the present exclusive issue of notes of the Bank of Ireland, within Dublin and the metropolitan district, as at present confined by law to a circuit of fifty miles. During the progress of the discussion, and more especially in the debate which occurred on moving the resolutions, it was stated by many, that they thought that the interval of time between the present period and the possible remission of the arrangement with the Bank of England, might be advantageously and properly employed in an inquiry into the general principles of banking, and to determine, not only with respect to Ireland, but with respect to England, what were the principles on which it behoved that House to proceed. He had stated, undoubtedly, that he was far from affirming, and should be reluctant to affirm, that the arrangements proposed in this bill were those which ought to be permanently adopted by that House; but that he thought it most consonant with the sound principles of legislation, to make the termination of the exclusive privileges of the Bank of Ireland contemporaneous with those of the Bank of England, in order that the whole subject might be discussed at once, not as a matter affecting Ireland, but as a matter affecting the whole empire, and that whatever system of legislation it was desirable to adopt, should be applied to both parts of the United Kingdom. He was opposed, upon the introduction of this bill, by hon. Gentlemen: the first, who gave a notice, was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, who objected not only to his proceeding, but who suggested a contrary course. His bill continued to the Bank of Ireland, subject to certain conditions, the exclusive issue of promissory notes, payable on demand, in Dublin and the neighbourhood. The hon. Member for Kilkenny laid down, on the other hand, as a position, that the banking trade, in this branch of issue, as well as in the other branches of banking, ought to be free; that free competition contained within itself a sufficient check against any abuse, and the hon. Member held out the case of Scotland as the example which ought to be pursued in respect to Ireland. He certainly should be making an unwarrantable trespass on the time of the House, if he were to enter again into the arguments on the bill, or in answer to those of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The arguments on both sides were now before the public, and he was ready to abide by their decision. But it was evident that the antagonist principles contended for were irreconcilable. He had thought, that one of them was sufficiently disposed of early in the discussion, but soon after the question assumed a new aspect, and the House was called upon to view it as it bore upon Irish interests, and were urged to abandon it altogether, or to discuss it on principles peculiarly Irish. He had endeavoured as well as he could, and, he hoped, without any incivility, to argue against that view of the question, and to contend for the abstract principle; but it appeared, that he was to be met, not by reasoning or argument, but by a pertinacious course, the object of which was the delay and defeat of the bill. It had been met, not on its merits, but by a sort of mechanical opposition—a mode of operation, by which the best and most useful bill in the world might be defeated by a small majority. For instance, the Portuguese Slave Suppression Bill, which had passed the other day, might, if subjected to this mechanical opposition, have been defeated, and the just expectations of this country and of Europe have thus been frustrated. He knew it might be said, that such an opposition was all fair, because it was permitted by the forms of the House, but, except on one occasion this Session, he had never before known the forms of the House so applied. Before he proceeded to other observations connected with this question, he would state one fact which was much misapprehended. It was said, that this course of opposition was rendered necessary, because the Government had such a majority of official Members in attendance as would prevent a fair expression of the opinion of the House. Now, an analysis of the several divisions on the bill showed clearly, that on all those divisions, the majorities in favour of the bill did not consist of official men; so that if no official men had been in attendance, the same results would have taken place. Now, with respect to the bill, it was proposed to continue the Bank of Ireland Charter for four years, which might afterwards be extended to a larger period. The term of four years having been objected to by an hon. Member, he stated that he was ready to attend to any reasonable suggestion as to the limitation of the period; but afterwards that objection seemed to be given up, so that no blame lay with him as to the term of four years. It had been objected, that the bill would deprive joint-stock banks of many advantages which they ought to enjoy, and of the usual means of carrying on their business—that they could not sue and be sued. These and other advantages he was disposed to extend to them, and to give to those in Dublin, and also to the banks in Drogheda, Carlow, and other places, all the advantages enjoyed by the Bank of Ireland, save and except the power of issuing promissory notes payable on demand. As to the joint-stock banks of issue, he was prepared to give them such power as would enable them to carry on their business—to draw at not less than ten days, and for sums not less than 10l. These would have been considerable advantages to Ireland. To England the bill would have been also of much advantage. It would have procured the remission of a debt of 23,000l. a-year, and a funding of 900,000l. of Exchequer-bills now held by the Bank of Ireland, and on terms highly advantageous to the public. But, notwithstanding these advantages, it was fairly admitted, that the opposition made to the bill would be continued so as to render it impossible to carry it in the present Session. Under such circumstances, it became the duty of Government to consider what course should be taken. The Government had made a proposition to the Bank of Ireland, subject to the approval of Parliament; but, in the wish to carry out that proposition, it was to be considered whether they should yield to a mechanical opposition, and thus make a precedent which would be productive of most serious consequences at some future time. One suggestion was, that under such circumstances, there should be a call of the House; but passing by the inconve- nience of calling Gentlemen—many of whom had returned to their homes, and many gone to the Continent—he was satisfied that such a course would not bring any reasonable proportion of the Members who attended an ordinary call; but, as he said last night, even if 300 attended, he should, with the continuance of the same mechanical opposition, have to contend with the same difficulties as before, and that in the end he should not be in a better situation than before. Under these circumstances, he communicated with the Bank of Ireland. In justice to that body, of whom they had heard so much, and on whom so much abuse had been poured, he must say, from what he had seen and known of them, that a more honourable, a more disinterested, a more public spirited set of men it had never been his good fortune to meet in the course of his life. The Bank of Ireland was as well aware as he was, that under such an opposition as had been resorted to, it would be impossible to carry the bill this Session. To have altered the rules and forms of the House for the purpose of obviating the Opposition was a course which he could not think of recommending. Indeed, he was himself an advocate for retaining those forms, and particularly the power of moving adjournments; but as that was a most useful and constitutional privilege, the greater care should be taken that it should not be abused and prostituted to bad purposes. If he had proposed an alteration of the forms of the House for the purpose of obviating the opposition, he should have been open to still stronger objections than had been urged against him, and then the objection as to the late period of the Session, such as it was, would apply with still greater force. Then, he again asked, what was the alternative? Suppose the bill should not (as would now be the case) pass into a law, did those who complained of the monopoly of the Bank, believe that that monopoly would be lessened by the loss of this bill? Did those who complained of the injury done to the joint-stock banks believe that they would be benefited by it? Would the public gain by the loss of the bill? No; on the contrary, it would lose by it—it would lose 23,000l. a-year which the Bank of Ireland agreed to give up. Thus, then, upon the showing of the opponents of the bill, there was no ground, logically speaking, for giving it up. The only ground was the determination to oppose it. He would not now offer any further opinion upon that opposition, but would leave it to be judged of by the cool consideration of the commercial world, by whose decision he would be ready to abide. He would leave to the public to judge whether it would not be better for the commercial community, that the bill should not be withdrawn. But there was one difficulty which was insuperable as to any compromise. There were the 900,000l. of Exchequer bills which the Bank of Ireland held, and which the present bill proposed to fund. It would have created some difficulty to have that amount thrown upon the market, which the Bank had it in its power to do, and if it insisted on their being paid, it might have been necessary to raise a loan to that amount to pay them. The Bank of Ireland, then, had it in its power to throw many difficulties in the way of the Government. It might have said, "As you have not been able to carry out your own proposition to us, we now call on you to make good those engagements under which you already stand to us." That, however, would at the present time, be attended with great inconvenience to the public. What was to be done? The Bank of Ireland, with great generosity and public spirit, said, "We do not urge any claims of our own that would embarrass the public, and we shall be perfectly satisfied, that the Exchequer bills should be funded by you, not on the terms you have offered to the public, but on the less favourable terms of the Bank of England itself. Under these circumstances, reluctantly and against his own wish and inclination, if he had had the power of fighting single-handed with any number of opponents, he would not have given way, but would have endeavoured to continue the contest till the last moment; but he was bound to look to the convenience of the House and of the public, and though his wish was to go through with the bill in spite of divisions, he could not do so without calling for a great sacrifice on the part of the House. He, therefore, proposed to bring in a bill to continue the existing arrangement with the Bank of Ireland for the period of one year. He proposed this with the entire assent of the Bank of Ireland itself. If the Bank of Ireland, or those interested in its behalf, had taken another view of its duty, he should not have adopted this course; but he was justified in saying that the Bank of Ireland assented to the course, and the more gladly, because they were confident they were in the right; and if he had bad the power of carrying the bill, and had not been met and foiled by an opposition without example in this House of Parliament, and if, by sitting for a fortnight or three weeks longer, the bill could have been carried into effect as a law, it might have been suggested, that it had been forced through a reluctant House of Commons without adequate inquiry and discussion. The Bank of Ireland wished that the measure should be discussed at the earliest period of the next Session, and in the fullest House; and they would on such an occasion see how the "Ayes" and "Noes" stood. If he was asked why he took this course at the present moment, and why he did not endeavour to persevere, however ineffectual the attempt might be for some days to come, he would say, that if he thought he could thus attain the object, it would be something certainly but if he unnecessarily protracted the Session for a fortnight longer, the public might become more indifferent to the injustice of the opposition than if he were to leave the case as it stood. He, therefore, proposed, to let the bill pass through the committee pro formâ, so as to include in it all the amendments he proposed, that the people of Ireland might have the means of considering the bill in its most perfect state. He should, therefore, on Thursday next, re-print the bill and propose that the further consideration of it be postponed for three months. He should, in the course of this evening, ask leave to bring in a bill for continuing the Act of the last Session till the 1st of January, and for giving effect to the proposed funding of the 900,000l. Exchequer bills. These two objects could have been carried into effect only by the liberal conduct of the Bank of Ireland. He had been conquered, not by means of numbers, nor by argument, but by the force of a principle which, though legitimate, might be dangerously employed, and he forewarned the House and the public, that this precedent, to which he had been reluctantly compelled to submit, but which he, nevertheless, reprobated and condemned was one, which, if repeated, would call upon the House as a matter of necessity, to consider its own modes of proceeding, if it wished not to surrender its independence and the constitution of England to the dictation of any knot of five or six Gentlemen who chose to abuse the forms of the House for that purpose.

disapproved so much of the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had closed his remarks, that he would imitate it as little as possible. He could not be angry at the right hon. Gentleman's blaming him for abusing the privileges of one of the Members of the House to prevent the establishment of one of the worst of purposes, that of a Minister of the Crown from presuming to dictate to the House at a late period of the Session without any reason. The right hon. Gentleman stood alone. He was in this singular predicament; he was the first Gentleman of any cabinet who for six or eight nights had not had one word of support for one of his measures from any Member of the same Cabinet. The whole of his succour had come from the other side of the House, and with that little eleemosynary aid, and as one Member of the Cabinet it was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed a high tone and ventured to speak of the opposition as mechanical. He would tie the right hon. Gentleman down by his own acts. He said that the country would lose 23,000l. in the next year. Why did he not serve notice on the Bank in 1838? If he had given notice he would have saved three times 23,000l. He had neglected to serve notice for 1838, 1839, and 1840. Notice ought to have been served. What predicament was the Chancellor of the Exchequer now in? He had placed himself in the power of the Bank of Ireland instead of having that Bank in his power. That was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who assumed such a high tone, whilst he persevered in a neglect of duty. From the first, he had offered to give up his opposition, if any one would get up and say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought in the measure at a proper time. He had repeated the offer if such an assertion were made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said that himself, and why should any one else say it for him. The right hon. Gentleman complained of a mechanical opposition unusual in that House; but no one had had the hardihood to assert that the period at which the bill had been brought in was not an unusal one. See how he illustrated his own course. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had brought in the bill at a time when a call of the House would not bring 300 Members together. Why a mechanics' institution of the worst kind would not invent such an anomaly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood alone, and then he talked of prostituting the regulations of the House; prostituting the resources of the Government he should have said; and prostituting the situation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Three years had clapsed since committees had been investigating the subject; the last report was made a year ago, in July 1838. There was full information in that, and yet, without the least pretext, he lay by till the 2nd of August. And to talk to him (Mr. O'Connell) about precedents. Why, when some future Chancellor of the Exchequer would quote this precedent, he would say, "My measure is not half so bad as that proposed in former times, and yet you bring to bear against me a course of proceeding which was not taken against Thomas Spring Rice, the delinquent Chancellor of the Exchequer" as he would say then. The Chancellor of the Exchequer glories in his principles. Did he not admit the proceeding to be against principle. Did he not say that a monopoly could not be defended? Was not this a monopoly? And would he now come forward and say that it would be defended? This was a question of monopoly—the Bank of Ireland was a monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman had shown no cause for the measure. He said that the people of Ireland ought to be consulted. He agreed that they should. He knew that he was satisfying his constituents; he knew the opinion of Scotland pretty well; and he knew that the course he had taken had delighted the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman would soon be sheltered in a safe haven, from which he might look down upon their struggles, and he trusted that he would never have to repeat his name except for some ancient recollection or another. As the right hon. Gentlemen had analysed the divisions on this bill, he would ask how many of those wished to destroy the ministry had voted in the minority against him? With a single exception there was no one in those minorities but those who supported her Majesty's Government. But then, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "The Bank of Ireland is a splendid thing—it is all generosity, and goodness, and brilliancy." He had not said a word against the Bank directors personally; he believed that there were not more amiable men in private life, but, with one or two exceptions, they were awfully bad politicans. They had the sanction of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and he (Mr. O'Connell) gave them credit when he believed that they would not have given their support to the directors of the Bank of Ireland if they had been Liberal. If Mr. Roe was not a Bank director why was it? would he not have been a Bank director if he had not proposed him (Mr. O'Connell)? There was not in the whole community a more respectable individual—he had accumulated a large fortune, and he bore a most honourable character in all his dealings. When Mr. Guinness was made a Governor of the Bank, it was after he had deserted his old politics; he was a reputable gentleman of business, he was most respectable in private life, but he was a political renegade. And what reason did he give for big changed vote? A religious one? What bad the Bank of Ireland done for the public? Had the Chancellor of the Exchequr said anything as to their advantage to the public? They had accumulated property for their constituents; they were a perfectly solvent company. Why, the complaint against the company was, that they bad an unused store beyond any demands that could be made upon them. They made money for themselves, but they made it by a monopoly as against the public. Every shilling that they made was taken out of fair trade. Then it was said that the bill would do a good deal of good. Had they understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be six years before the Bank charter could elapse? He thought that the least the House could bate bees informed of was this. It would not end till twelve months after the first of August, 1844—six years, instead of the four years of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the bill in its amended shape ought to be printed. That was fair, and he (Mr. O'Connell) would give the right hon. Gentleman every facility for making his amendments. He would even now call the attention of the House to one of the clauses that was to do so much towards promoting the freedom of the banking trade. The marginal notes said, that banks issuing notes within fifty miles of Dublin might have houses of business there for all purposes, except the issuing and re-issuing of notes. See what that did. It did nothing at all for the joint-stock banks. It affected to give them the power of having houses of business, but they were entitled to them under a previous Act. This pompous security for the joint-stocks was worth nothing. There had never been a more unfounded complaint than against the opposition to this bill. It had prevented the passing of one of the worst of measures which it had not been attempted to vindicate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accused him of repeating his arguments; he could not accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that, for anything in the shape or argument had never escaped his lips in support of this monopoly. It was said that the Bank of Ireland resembled the Bank of England; it resembled it in name, but he believed that such a company as the Bank of England would not allow its name to be tarnished by the connection any longer, when they saw that the example of Scotland was to be overlooked, and that Ireland was to be trampled on as it had hitherto been. What had caused the wealth of Scotland? Scotland was not rich when banks were first established there; why did they not follow in Ireland the example which had succeeded in Scotland? They had the means of guarding against fraud or insolvency. In the next Session, in a fuller and more dispassionate House, he would call upon them to give to Ireland the same form of banking as Scotland, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no more attempt to take away from that country than he would to remove one of the pillars of the Constitution. He would conclude by bringing forward his reasons for the course he had taken. No man had stated any substantial reason for it; for three years the Chancellor of the Exchequer had neglected his duty; committee after committee had sat to obtain information; information had been obtained; for twelve months the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not brought forward the bill; and when he did bring it forward, it was at a time when he had admitted that he would not have succeeded, even with the aid of a call of the House, in procuring an attendance of half the Members of that House. He had mighty divisions of thirty-five, thirty-six, and thirty-eight, and he talked of fighting single-handed. The troops on either side would not number twenty-three, and yet this hero of a hundred fights would exhaust his strength in a House numbering twenty-three at one time, twenty-five at another, and actually amounting to twenty-seven at another ! He (Mr. O'Connell) trusted, that when the question should be again brought forward, some Member of more talent, but of equal determination, would resist the attempt as he had done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself broken down one branch of the monopoly which was now limited to fifty miles, and had once extended all over Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had broken that down, he had himself joined the joint-stock banks, by which, as he said, notes were coined and then he turned round and talked with ease about establishing the monopoly itself. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not given up the bill with something of a better temper, with somewhat of a less disposition to cast obloquy on others, when, if there were any crime, he was himself the criminal, without any excuse, and without any attempt at palliation. The spirit which existed in Ireland would prevent her oppressors from holding the ministerial bench. Long might that spirit animate her; and, as to this bill, he was content to appeal to the opinion of the people of Ireland.

said, that as far as he was concerned, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used hard words, he was aware that such an opposition could not be carried on without great inconvenience and much difficulty. During the nine years, however, that he had been in the House, neither the Government, nor any individual, had ever experienced any unfair opposition from him. The only inducements he had had for the course he had now taken were the interests of his constituents, and because he considered that the Members for Ireland were taken by surprise, and could not have a fair chance of resisting the bill. In his opinion, the minority were justified in taking that course, for no other full and fair course of opposition was open to them: and, however much he might regret being driven to adopt such a course, he did not feel that he was justly subject to the reprobation which the right hon. Gentleman had cast upon him.

could not refer to the statement that his right hon. Friend had been left unsupported by his colleagues, without distinctly denying the assertion. On the first night of the discussion the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Manchester, the nature of whose avocations, and whose business in the Government led him to attend to matters of this description, stated his reasons for supporting his right hon. Friend. He (Viscount Howick), for one, felt that after such a statement, it would have been impertinent in him to have added any reasons of his own for concurring in the same view; but he was in his place to divide when a division was found necessary. He felt also, that he would only have been playing the game of those Gentleman who wished for delay, if he had not left the argument in the hands of his right hon. Friend, and if he had attempted to join in the debate. The measure was brought forward by his right hon. Friend not in his individual capacity, but as representing the Government, and it was but just to his right hon. Friend, as well as to the Government, who would have been base if they had deserted his right hon. Friend in the manner complained of, if he did not make that statement. He entirely concurred in the opinion, that they had established a precedent of the most dangerous character. In his opinion the power of causing delay by moving repeated adjournments was a power which it was most valuable that the minority should possess, but which, if abused, must by some means be eventually lost. It would be lost if instances of its abuse became frequent, and he did believe that in the present case it had been greatly abused.

remarked, that the noble Lord had attributed to him what he did not say; he did not say, that the support of the Cabinet was not given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he was aware that the measure was supported by the Cabinet; but what he did say was, that not one Member of the Cabinet had spoken on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf. The noble Lord's interest in Ireland was known full well; it had been felt severely; and he at least ought not to have been the person to come forward upon the present occasion.

could assure the House, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted throughout not only with the full cognizance, but with the entire approbation of the Government, and he must say, that every part of the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings had been above board and sincere. In his support of this bill he had not expressed any opinion as to the permanent footing on which the Bank of Ireland ought to be placed, he had only promoted this bill, reserving his opinion on the general, till they should have an opportunity of considering the Bank of England charter and the whole monetary system of the two countries. The argument of the non-support of the right hon. Gentleman by his colleagues did not square very well with the argument, that the House was overborne by official votes.

considered that the argument of the hon. Member for Dublin, founded on the fact, that no other Cabinet Minister had spoken in support of this bill, and the statement of the noble Lord, that this was a Cabinet measure, were perfectly consistent. He considered the course which he had taken upon this question perfectly proper, and that the course which had been pursued by the Government was totally unjustifiable.

wished to correct a statement which he had made in the former part of the debate. He alluded to what he had said in reference to Mr. Guinness—namely, that he had voted against him on religious grounds. That Gentleman had seen a friend of his since that allegation had been made, and had declared that he had been guided by no such feeling. He, therefore, was quite willing to retract any observation which had fallen from him having such a tendency, and to express his belief that Mr. Guinness was incapable of proceeding as he had suggested.

opposed the motion, and said, that if the bill proposed were printed and circulated throughout the various counties, it would create great alarm. He thought, that it would be better to withhold the measure until the next Session.

opposed the principle of the bill. He was satisfied, that the majority of votes would be given for persons of comparatively very small property. The existence of boards of guardians, also, rendered the formation of such bodies as these councils unnecessary.

said, the bill introduced two Sessions ago by the lion. Gentleman was so generally objected to, that the present measure, which was almost the same, had not any prospect of passing. Its effect would be to increase the burthens of the yeomanry, which were already too great.

hoped the House would allow the bill to be brought in, having recognized the principle by allowing the introduction of the former bill of the hon. Gentleman.

said, the principle of the bill was the same as the former, but the details had been altered in accordance with the expressed feeling of the House On that occasion; he hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would be allowed to introduce it.

thought the circumstances of the principle of this bill being the same as that of the former bill, which was on consideration rejected, was the best reason that could be afforded for not allowing the hon. Member to introduce it.

said, in supporting the motion of his hon. Friend, he begged distinctly to be understood as not pledging the Government to support either the principle or the details of the bill. At the same time he thought, that there was not then a sufficient number of Members present to debate such a question: he moved that the debate be adjourned.