presented a petition from the Speaker, and several of the members of the House of Keys, in the Isle of Man, which, he observed, was deserving of the serious attention of the House, both from the nature of the subject, and the respectability of the individuals by whom it was signed. The Speaker was colonel Wilkes, a gentleman well known for his conduct in India, and the able works he had published respecting that quarter of the world; the second name was that of the hon. member for Cumberland; the third was a general officer; and so on. By the constitution of the island the members of the House of Keys were virtually the representatives of the people of the island, as much as the hon. gentlemen who surrounded him were the representatives of the people of this country. These were the parties, who, in the petition which he held in his hand, preferred their complaints to the House. They complained, first, of several institutions which had been improperly introduced into the island; and secondly, of the conduct of the governor under those institutions. Their first complaint was, that the members of the House of Keys were not allowed to form a part of the criminal court of Tynwald; a privilege to which they contended that they were fully entitled; and from the opportunities which he had had of investigating the subject, it appeared to him that their claim was well founded. Since the petition had been signed, however, an occurrence had taken place, which would, perhaps, give an opportunity of settling the question. Three persons had been tried in the island for felony; one of whom had been sentenced to death, and the two others to transportation. From these sentences, in consequence of what they conceived to be the defective consttution of the court, the prisoners had appealed to the king in council. But, even if it should be decided against them, high as that authority was, it would not preclude the House of Keys from still asserting what they conceived their right. The other ground of complaint urged by the petitioners was the general conduct of the governor of the island. That governor was the duke of Athol; and certainly, in consequence of a variety, of considerations, his grace was as unfit a person as could be selected for the situation of governor of the Isle of Man. The circumstances under which the duke of Athol had resigned his paramount rights in the Isle of Man to the Crown in 1765 were well known. Since that period, however, the duke had been constantly prosecuting claims of every description in the island. Previously to the year 1805, he had made no less than five applications to parliament, with reference to what he conceived to be his rights in the Isle of Man; all of which had proved unsuccessful. In 1805, however, parliament consented to re-open the bargain which the duke had made with the Crown. In addition to the 70,000l. and the 2,000l. a year which had been originally contracted for, an addition of three or four thousand pounds a year was made. As if to shew the impolicy of disturbing bargains of such a nature, the duke had been ever since bringing forward greater claims, and making new encroachments. By his demands of territorial rights, of seigniorial rights, or of paramount rights, he had been constantly disturbing the quiet of the island. Such were the circumstances which rendered the duke a very unfit person for the situation of governor. As such, he was the chief judge in the court of Chancery, the sole judge in the court of the Exchequer, and had the patronage of the two courts of common law; namely, the appointment of the two deempsters and the attorney-general. The tithes of the island were divided into three parts; of which the duke had one, the bishop (appointed by the duke) another, and the clergy generally the remainder. The way in which the tithes were divided was in successive years—to the duke, to the bishop, and to the clergy. Of course the duke did not settle the modus for the tithes of his own year; but as he determined it for the two other years, the probability was, that the modus of his own year would be fixed at the same rate. Another complaint made by the petitioners referred to the appointment to judicial offices. They stated that, by law, the deempsters were irremovable; but that the duke had been known to call before him one of those judges, and to institute a private inquiry into a complaint made against him. The complaint was of the conduct of the judge on a trial in which the defendant was a servant of the duke's. The duke reprimanded the deempster, reminded him that the defendant was in his employ, upbraided him for issuing a process of the court, which the deempster was bound to issue; and asked him how he could pursue such conduct to his (the duke's) servant, when he, the deempster, had received so many benefits from him, the duke? His grace called upon the deempster to justify himself, which he did most satisfactorily; but, nevertheless, he was removed from his office. The acting attorney-general on the occasion was also rebuked, and removed. The individual who defended the accused party in the cause (who, by the by, was acquitted), soon after obtained a high ecclesiastical situation, and the foreman of the jury, an Irishman, was made clerk of the court. The last complaint of the petitioners was so serious, that he should really hesitate to believe it, if he were not certain that the petitioners would not state what was not true. In 1821, there was a serious riot in the island. At the subsequent trial of one of the rioters, he, the rioter, knocked down a witness, attacked the high-bailiff, and afterwards the deempster himself. For this offence he was tried, and sentenced to be fined 50l., and imprisoned for two months. When this sentence was transmitted to the governor, his grace endorsed it with the words, "I hereby suspend the execution of this sentence;" and afterwards said to the culprit," I pardon you; go about your business? This dictum of his grace was uttered in the court of Chancery, to which he had summoned the prisoner; although that court had no jurisdiction whatever in a criminal case. The Keys prayed the House to investigate the facts, to settle the rights of the contending parties, and to inquire, at the same time, to what extent the report of the commissioners of 1791 had been carried into effect.

said, he felt that many of the charges were, in fact, against himself, and not against the duke of Athol, and he rose with a confident expectation that he should be able to satisfy the House of his innocence. One accusation was, that the House of Keys had been deprived of their right of forming part of the criminal jurisprudence of the Isle of Man, and it was insinuated that he (Mr. Peel) had so excluded them, because they had displeased the governor. The question of their right to sit in the criminal court, and thus to control the jury, was disputed in 1823; and he had required to be furnished with all the papers on the subject: the duke of Athol sent them, accompanied by the opinion of Mr. Clark, the attorney-general of the island, that the House of Keys had no claim so to sit without summons. The point was referred to the attorney and solicitor-general, and they had twice confirmed the opinion of Mr. Clark. On the 30th April last, he had therefore written to the lieutenant-governor, stating, that if the Keys were not summoned, the secretary of state was only anxious that the question should be brought, in consequence, before a competent tribunal—the privy council. No appeal had been yet made, but a petition, on the contrary, had been presented to the House of Commons. Three prisoners had been convicted in the Isle of Man, one of them capitally, and notice was given him that he might appeal. The prisoner replied, that he could not afford the expense; to which he (Mr. Peel) had answered, that as a great public question was involved, the government ought to bear the charge. The right hon. gentleman contended further, that the duke of Athol had expended far more than the revenue he derived from it, upon the internal improvement of the Isle of Man, and he had never heard of any accusation against his grace, of having abused the powers of his office for the sake of doing injustice. He could not deny that there had been unfortunate bickerings and disputes between the duke of Athol and the House of Keys, and his (Mr. P.'s) great object throughout had been, to accommodate differences, and to induce the parties to bury in oblivion past animosities. So lately as the 5th July last, the House of Keys had felt much exasperated against the duke of Athol, for certain language used by the latter; but after a meeting between them, a resolution for reconciliation had been agreed upon. Since that date there had been no real ground for complaint; but the House of Keys had taken up a most mistaken notion, that his grace had been instrumental in depriving them of their supposed right to sit in the criminal court. He was sorry to be under the necessity of stating his reasons for advising the Crown to suspend Mr. Vaughan from his office of judge. A Mr. Fell had written to him, mentioning that a female servant, whom he had brought from Liverpool, had formed a criminal connexion with the judge, which induced the latter to give her counsel and advice in a suit she had commenced against her master Mr. Fell also accused the judge of other mal-practices, in reference to an action brought for defamation against Mr. Fell arising out of these transactions. After various inquiries into the character, of Mr. Fell, he (Mr. Peel) had referred the matter to the attorney-general of the island, and the fullest investigation having taken place, it was found that the proofs of misconduct against the judge were so strong, that he could not avoid dismissing him from his office. It was true that the council for inquiry was held at the house of the governor, but that was not out of the usual course. Upon his honour as a gentleman, he (Mr. Peel) declared, that in removing the judge, he had never for a moment considered whether that individual was or was not offensive to the duke of Athol. He justified the duke's conduct in other particulars, with the exception of some little excess in the language which he had used in one or two of the instances which had been given.

thought, that much of the grievance stated in the petition might be referred to the bickering and heat which prevailed in the island. But certainly the Keys should have been informed, not only of the reasons for the dismissal of their judge, but also on what grounds their right of forming a part of the criminal jurisprudence had been suspended. That it had been their right, was declared in the report of the commission of 1791; and the book of law, which was then for the first lime reduced from oral and uncertain precepts, issuing chiefly from the deempsters and the officers of the council, to a written and ascertained form, stated, that this right was of the very highest antiquity in the tradition of that law. He could not help feeling that government had proceeded too hastily in withdrawing that right, before the question had been solemnly argued in the presence of the privy council.

suggested the propriety of an inquiry being instituted into the fact, whether the interests of the duke of Athol were not, in some instances, incompatible with his duty as a governor. From the sentiments expressed by the right hon. gentleman, he was sure he would not advocate the continuance of such a state of things, if it were once found that this was actually the case.

said, the privy-council was the proper tribunal to which petitions ought to be addressed on such subjects. He also alluded to the three points of law mentioned in the joint opinion given by himself and the late attorney-general, which, he said, remained unchanged, and upon which the secretary of state had acted.

in reply, contended, that the court of Keys had a right to sit on criminal cases without being summoned. He had heard that night, for the first time, of Mr. Vaughan's conduct, and could therefore say nothing to it. He felt it, however, to be his duty to bear testimony to the character of Mr. Robert Cunningham, than whom a more honourable young man was not to be found in the Isle of Man. It was true that this young man had, in a moment of intoxication, committed an act of imprudence; but it was no less true that, since that period, he had been elected one of the Keys, with the approbation of the duke of Athol. He was received into the houses of the most respectable persons in the island, and was universally treated in such a manner as showed that his offence was forgotten, and that his reputation was unimpaired. The only method of allaying the dissentions which existed in the Isle of Man would be by altering the form of the government, and by taking out of the hands of one individual the power which he held, and which his interests must occasionally prevent him from exercising for the purpose of its institution.

admitted the perfect respectability of Mr. Cunningham, and that the offence which had been alleged against him was an exception to his general conduct.

said, that if this bill had come to them as an ordinary measure of government, he should have spoken with greater confidence; but seeing that it came from a committee, composed of nearly as large a proportion of independent as of ministerial members, he certainly felt some difficulties in standing up against it, But, even in the fact of such a committee being resorted to, he thought there was something to be objected to. For when so much as four millions a year was paid out of the pockets of the people of England, on account of the mal-government of Ireland, he thought the ministers themselves should take the responsibility of proposing the measures they thought necessary, leaving to parliament its proper office, not of originating, but of examining and investigating. The experience of the fact was strong against the Insurrection act. It had been tried, and had been found worse than useless. It had left the people of Ireland more irritated and discontented than it found them; yet, after the parade of appointing a committee, this was the gift that had been presented by it. The committee, in their report, stated, that the short time they had been appointed had not allowed them to investigate the causes of the disturbances that prevailed in a great part of Ireland. It was true, the time they had for investigating so fruitful a subject was short; but the evils in question were not new, the disturbances were not recent; and if they had not been long ago fully inquired into, the ministers and parliament were chargeable with neglect. It was ridiculous to suppose that the committee could act as a stop-gap of the evils of Ireland. He never would be a party to any compromise, though he knew the government would be too happy to make a cat's paw of the members, as they had before done, He could not conceive what could be the opinions of those gentlemen who had supported the continuance of the Insurrection act. The hon. member for Limerick had said the other night, that the result would soon be, that the act would not be required at all. Now, he (Mr. H.) thought that time had arrived; for it was clear that it produced no good whatever, but created evil to a great extent. Ministers wanted the committee, because they wanted the Insurrection act. From statements which had been made, the Irish people, instead of being the most generous, must be the most ferocious people on the earth; for they were represented as attached to nothing but turbulence and bloodshed. Now, if that were true, it must have arisen from some cause; and, from what more probable cause, than from the mis-government under which they had so long lived, and of which the Insurrection act formed so dreadful a part? There could be no doubt that, if behind every citizen (If Ireland there was placed a sol- dier with a sword, or an executioner with a rope, the country would be tranquil; but that would not be government. Something of this kind had been actually recommended in a Dublin newspaper, which received the patronage of certain clerical persons. In that paper he had seen it recommended, in no very equivocal terms, that the people in the South of Ireland should be extirpated. It was necessary for the House to know the manner in which the Insurrection act had operated. From returns it appeared, that under the act, 1707 persons had been apprehended; of these 271 were convicted, and 78 were punished; so that no fewer than 1,437 innocent men had been placed in confinement, in order to bring home conviction to 271. The hon. member then censured the extraordinary powers conferred upon the Irish magistrates by the act. An instance had occurred of a man being sent to prison for two months, for having been found out after sunset, although it was proved that he had been doing nothing but playing at cards. The hon. member then proceeded to point out the absurdity of complaints against the Catholic association, by men who favoured such associations as those of the Orangemen. If there was any danger, it must be from the Orange societies, which were held in secret, and not from the Catholic association, whose proceedings were carried on in the face of the public. It had been said, that Orange societies had been checked. He could see no proof of it. He found that they still continued to hold their meetings—that warrants were issued from the grand officers, authorising individuals to hold lodges; and the only difference he saw between the new warrants and those heretofore issued was, that the one was on parchment, and the other on common paper. He held two warrants of the new and old system in his hand. The new one had, like the old, the picture of king William on horseback, and it purported to be the appointment of a particular individual to hold a lodge. It was signed "O'Neil grand master" "A. B. King, grand treasurer" and "James Vernon, grand secretary." The hon. member, after stating his opinion, that, while there was a divided cabinet on the subject of Irish affairs, nothing would be done, and nothing was intended to be done, for that country, concluded by moving, that the bill be read a third time that day six months.

concurred with his hon. friend in thinking this bill odious and unconstitutional, and that it would be a blot and disgrace to our Statute-book, if it remained on it a moment longer than the situation of Ireland required it; but still he would support the measure, because in his conscience he believed, that, from the present temper of the people of Ireland, it would not be safe to let it remain without such an act. He would ask any man, whether he thought that Ireland could at present be left to the ordinary administration of the law; and if not, what measure could be more effectually applied to it than the one then before the House? This was a fair issue to rest the question upon; and he thought it would be most unwise to leave the country, in its present state, without some such protection; and this was the short history of his support of the measure.

said, there was a very simple measure by which Ireland might be restored to tranquillity. It was merely, to surround the towns and large villages of that country with walls. He did not mean such walls as those of a regularly fortified place; but walls not much higher than our common park walls in this country. Let them be flanked with a few towers, with two or three guns on each, and by this means such protection would be afforded to the wives and children of the loyal and well-disposed inhabitants of the country, that they would have no hesitation in opposing themselves to the disaffected. Then government would know the strength of those who were disposed to support it, which was much greater than was imagined; but at present they were afraid to act, not having a sufficient protection for their families.

said, he did not put so much trust in stone walls for the pacification of Ireland as the gallant general. He thought there was a much better remedy. He would advise—and he put the matter seriously to the liberal part of his majesty's ministers—that they should make the relief of the people of Ireland the sine qua non of their keeping office. If they did this, Ireland would soon be relieved, and her grievances redressed. He would advise them to press the question of Catholic emancipation session after session, and parliament after parliament, until they carried it by a triumphant majority; and as he could judge from the general tenour of his majesty's conduct, that he did not possess any scruples of conscience [a laugh], he was sure his majesty would not oppose himself to a measure so fraught with benefits to a large portion of his people, on the grounds on which it had been opposed by his predecessor. On the subject of Catholic emancipation, he looked upon the accession to the ministry of the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs as a great advantage. Nobody doubted his liberality, and nobody could doubt the good tendency of such liberal feeling on this question to the general pacification of Ireland: but nobody, also, doubted the sincerity of the opposition to that measure by the right hon. secretary for the home department. He was sincere, but still he was a dangerous opponent: because he so tempered his opposition, that men were often disposed to think him favourable to that cause which he seemed reluctantly to oppose. He was sometimes so moderate and temperate, that he was disposed to apply to him the words of the poet—"Cum talis sis utinam noster esses."

proposed the following clause as a rider to the bill:—That all offences under the Insurrection act should be tried by a jury." Mr Goulburn opposed, and Mr. S. Rice supported it. It was negatived without a division; as was also another clause by way of rider, proposed by Mr. S. Rice, giving to the prisoners the liberty of postponing their trials.

called the attention of the house to the clause whereby any subject of his majesty, not being a traveller or a resident, found in a licensed public-house between the hours of 9 o'clock in the evening and 6 in the morning, was rendered liable to transportation for seven years. The sting of this clause was, that the words "without lawful excuse" which were inserted in other parts of the bill, were omitted in this. If a man were found absent from his habitation at night, he was absolved from the penalties of this bill, supposing he could show lawful excuse. If he were found drunk in the streets during the prohibited hours, his intoxication was held to be a lawful excuse; but in case he was found sober in a licensed public-house between 9 and 10 o'clock, no matter what cause called him there, he was liable to be separated from his family for seven years. As it appeared from the evidence taken before the committee, that this clause had never been acted on by any magistrate, he begged leave to bring up a clause to repeal such part of this act, as rendered a man liable to transportation, who was found in a licensed public-house after the hours he had mentioned.

referred to the 25th clause of the act, whereby it was enacted, that in case any person brought an action against a magistrate or constable for the malicious abuse of the powers of this act, and a jury awarded him damages proportioned to their sense of the injury inflicted, it should be lawful, on the Judge certifying on the record, that the party against whom the action was brought had probable cause for what he had done, to reduce the damages to 6d. and to give no costs of suit. Now, he wished to repeal this clause, and to compel the party to pay the damages awarded by the jury. It was not right that a judge should have the power of thus altering the verdict of a jury.

contended, that the learned member had given the House an incorrect view of this part of the act, by reading only one half of the clause. He ought to have read the other half, by which it was enacted, that, in case the judge did not certify on the record, that the magistrate had probable cause, the plaintiff obtained not only the damages awarded him by the jury, but also treble costs.

brought in a bill for the better Empanelling of Juries. The right hon. gentleman observed, that at that late period of the session it was not his intention to press the measure forward, as it was undoubtedly one of very great importance. Its object was, to consolidate and amend the various laws which related to the empanelling of juries. And here he wished to state, injustice to the parties concerned, that those highly respectable persons Mr. Le Blanc and Mr, Lushington, had shown the most praiseworthy anxiety to co-operate with him in an efficient alteration of the law. By the bill which he now introduced, it was provided, that the name of each and every person qualified to act as a special juror should be written on a piece of card, and placed in a box, from which 48 names should be drawn, in the same indifferent manner as was observed in that House when an election committee was ballotted for. The whole forty-eight having been drawn by lots, it would remain to reduce them to the proper number in the ordinary manner. This, as it appeared to him, would remove every objection that at present existed against the mode of empanelling special juries.

felt great obligations to the right hon. gentleman for having introduced this very useful bill. But, whatever complaint might have been made with respect to the mode of striking special juries, he would say, that a man of greater integrity or ability than the master of the Crown office did not exist.