rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:— I rise, Sir, to introduce certain bills for consolidating and amending the laws in England, relative to Larceny and other offences. The bill I have now brought up—one of those bills at least—is for the consolidation of some of the branches of the statute and criminal law concerning theft. Probably the House will allow me to make a few observations, at this opportunity, in answer to some questions which were put to me, by a noble lord on a former night, on matters connected with these bills; which questions I was not then prepared entirely to answer. I beg to state, therefore, that the bills which I have to bring in this evening, are four in number. First of all, here is a bill consolidating the whole of the statute law of England, relating to the crime of larceny and other offences connected therewith; the second is a bill for the consolidation of all the laws relating to malicious injuries committed on property; the third is a bill relating to the very important question of damages arising from accident, and the cases in which the law will enable parties, who sustain such damages, to recover from the hundred; the fourth is a bill, Sir, which I have purposely kept distinct from the other three, and which will recite and repeal all the now existing statutes, that, should these bills pass into a law, will become unnecessary. The effect of these enactments, supposing they should meet the sanction of the legislature, will be to remove, altogether, from the Statute-book no less than one hundred and thirty statutes. And I have the satisfaction of stating, that, notwithstanding the repeal of so many acts of parliament, now forming part of the criminal law of England, the whole of the statute laws in this consolidated form—those, I mean, respecting the crime of theft—will be comprised within twenty-nine pages [hear]. In effecting this reduction in the bulk and number of the statutes, I have made no rash experiments as to the language of the enactments I propose to substitute in their stead. I have adhered, very closely, to the phraseology of those acts of par- liament; I have retained all those terms and legal designations which are allowed to be of importance; but, in rejecting some redundancies and repetitions, I have endeavoured to steer a middle course between the general verbosity of our English statutes, and the extreme brevity of the French criminal code. This House has always shown itself extremely jealous of laws so very summary in their enactments, as those of the French code; because they necessarily devolve upon the judge who administers them, a much greater discretionary power than our own system professes to do. In point of fact, Sir, nothing is gained by the adoption of extreme brevity in the framing of acts of parliament. I will venture to say, that the French have experienced this truth, from the extreme brevity of their laws, and the circumstance of their enactments being couched in terms much too summary. The consequence has been, that the gloss or commentary of the learned lawyers of that country, defining the meaning and scope of these summary terms, has already attained an extent, which, in point of ver-boseness and complexity, bids fair to rival our own Statute-book. In the bills I have the honour of submitting to the House, a middle course has been steered between the redundancy of our own legal enactments, and the conciseness of the French code. I do confidently hope, that when a little further advance has been made in the work of repealing many of our old statutes, which should no longer be retained, and in the substitution of new ones in their place, the House will determine to take into its consideration the general state of the whole Statute-book; when, I am convinced, it will find a vast number of old or defective statutes, which it might determine to expunge, while it could retain those only which it may be absolutely necessary to preserve. The effect of such a proceeding would be evinced in many valuable and beneficial results. I think there ought to be a commission to ascertain what statutes at present remain in force, and what from their obsoleteness, or the fact of their being no longer applicable to the circumstances of the age, might be entirely dispensed with, or preserved only for the future inspection of the curious. Some statutes, like those of Magna Charta, for example, will always be retained, and treated, of course, with the respect and gratitude that are due to them. But others, though of great antiquity, are of such a character, that it would be exceedingly expedient to get rid of them altogether. I am confident, that the fact, of my being able to repeal by these bills, one hundred and thirty statutes, and to compress all that it is necessary to retain of them, or to substitute for them, into twenty-nine pages, will ultimately tend to an immense reduction in the bulk of our Statute-book.—I omitted to state, on a former occasion, some alterations, or, if the House will permit me to designate them by such a name, some improvements, which I have introduced into one of these bills—that which regards the offence of Larceny. The amendments I propose will have the effect, as the House will see, of reducing the number of capital punishments by law. Under the law of burglary, as it stands at present, if the burglary be committed in any out-house, which forms part of the frontage, that is part of that which, in law, is entitled an outer-fence, the burglary is a capital offence. If it be committed in the stable or the dairy, or within that which, in the old language of the law is called "curtilage," the burglar is placed in the same situation. I venture to believe, however, that no person who maturely considers this subject would advise that a burglary, consisting of the breaking into a cow-house, or stable, or dairy, should be visited with a severity equal to that which this species of offence, under more aggravated circumstances—as in the case of breaking into a dwelling-house—is subject to. I propose, therefore, that burglary, by breaking into a stable, or even into an out-house, shall not be included in the class of burglaries, for which capital punishment shall be assigned by the law; unless in cases where there shall be some communication between the actual dwelling and that part of the premises which shall have been broken into, by a covered passage, or a window, common to both of them.—Another important alteration I have suggested, for the purpose of remedying a great defect which exists in the law of England, as it at present stands, in respect to offences against property, committed under false pretences. Nothing can be imagined more ineffectual than the law of England at present is, with respect to crimes of this nature; and nothing more hopeless, I may add, than the attempt to obtain a conviction, where pro- perty has been so obtained under false pretences, which shall visit the offender with an adequate punishment. For example, you shall charge a person who has procured some valuable goods under false pretences with a misdemeanour; and his offence will immediately be, that he has committed a felony: so that he will plead the greater offence, because, in this case, the punishment is less, or the conviction more difficult. Such was the state of our statute law, at present, that this anomaly absolutely existed in it. If a purchaser, under a false and fraudulent pretence of purchase, get possession of property, he is indicted for a misdemeanour; if he be indicted for getting possession of such property, under pretence of hiring, that is larceny. If he be indicted for this offence, upon a case, where it appears that he got possession of the property before the negotiation for the purchase was completed, his offence is larceny. But if the purchaser under false pretences be not tried until after he has got absolute possession of the property, then the English law charges his offence as a misdemeanour; so that if he gets possession absolutely, his offence is misdemeanour; or if he hath obtained either a temporary or partial possession only, it is felony; and, as you cannot indict him both for the felony and misdemeanour at once, you are subject to be defeated, even in the clearest case, in your attempt to obtain a conviction against him, on an indictment cither for the one offence or the other. This is especially true, if you charge him with the misdemeanor. If you cannot prove against him the "animus furandi," at certain periods of the transaction, you cannot convict him at all; he pleads to the felony, and your aim is defeated. Now, the object of the man in either case being the same—namely, to cheat; common sense prescribes the object of the law, which should be, in either case, to restrain and punish him. It can hardly be contended, that that is a sound state of law in which, if you hold a man guilty of a misdemeanour, he shall be liable to punishment; if guilty of felony, you shall be unable, in effect, to punish him. The noble lord, the member for Northamptonshire, asked me a question the other night, in relation to the Malicious Trespass act. That, of course, like many other laws relating to offences against property, I have made such an alteration in, as I take to be improvements; for, while I have thought it incumbent upon me, and of great, consequence, to retain all that was valuable in that law, I have ventured, at the same time, to make some amendments in it. The Malicious Trespass act was brought in, as the House is aware, four or five years ago, and enables the magistrates to convict the offender summarily, in the penalty of 5l., if the injury done amount to that sum; and upon non-payment of the penalty, the magistrate is empowered to commit to prison, for a period not exceeding three months. I propose to retain the sum which gives the jurisdiction, namely, to limit the operation of the penalty to cases where the injury done amounts to no more than 5l. This law, as I said before, in its present state, enacts, that, in default of payment of the penalty imposed, the offender shall be held liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. Now this, I think, is a very inexpedient enactment. I propose to carry the same principle into my amendment of this law, as I have carried into the other improvements I have mentioned; providing that the amount of the term of imprisonment shall bear some proportion to the amount of the fine. With reference to the objects of this act, I consider, for example, imprisonment for the space of ten days, equal to a fine of 1l. Suppose the damage, therefore, proved in any case, under this act, to amount to 1l., I propose, instead of an imprisonment for three months, to imprison for ten days; if the damage done amount to 2l. then imprisonment for twenty days. The re-result of this alteration will be, that instead of the magistrates having a power to sentence for three months, the maximum of the term of imprisonment, that maximum will be fifty days. I beg particularly to observe, that I propose to exclude from the scope and operation of this act, all offences of every kind which may be considered as offences under the game laws. At present, in the case of damage done in the pursuit of game, the magistrate has the power to commit summarily under the game laws. I propose to leave out of the Malicious Trespass act every such case. At present, the party injured has the power of apprehending summarily, without a warrant, the offender who has maliciously injured his property; that is, I should rather say, in, the case of wanton or malicious injury committed this day—two days hence the existing act gives the power to arrest without warrant. Now, I propose to take away the power of this arrest without warrant, under this act generally, and to limit it to those instances wherein the offender is caught in the fact. These, Sir, are the alterations I have made in the Malicious Trespass act. Then there are the laws relating to summary jurisdiction. Some of these impose a maximum, and others a minimum of penalty, at the discretion of the magistrate; under others, the magistrate has no discretion as to imposing any minimum of fine, according to the extenuating circumstances of the case, but must assign precisely that which is mentioned in the act. Now, I propose, in all cases, under these laws, to fix the maximum, but never to do so as to the minimum, of penalty; so that, if it shall satisfactorily appear in any case, that the party had no malicious intention in the damage which he may have committed, the magistrate may be at liberty to dismiss him instantly. At present, the power of imprisonment, in the event of inability to pay the enacted fine, was too extensive. I have attempted to regulate the proportion of imprisonment, according to the nature and amount of the damage done. And as cases of malicious injury to property, and other injuries of the same kind, admit of compensation, the party damnified, as the law stands, is to receive an amount equivalent to the loss sustained by reason of the actual injury committed upon his property, as satisfaction to him; and the magistrate has the power to inflict an additional penalty on the offender, as a satisfaction to public justice.—Having already, on a former evening, stated to the House the general principles on which the other measure I now introduce, are founded, I do not feel it necessary on the present occasion, to enter upon any further statement of them. As I believe that there exists no intention to oppose the second reading of these bills at present, I shall be much obliged if the House will permit them to pass, pro formâ, to that stage, and to the committee, merely to allow me in the mean while, time to fill up the blanks that occur. My sole object, I can assure the House is, that they may come before it, when in committee, in such a shape, as to give hon. members the best means of forming a cor- rect view of their enactments: and, most assuredly, if it be desired to offer any objections to them, I shall be most happy to afford every opportunity for their discussion, and to offer every explanation in my power.

expressed his surprise that the bills introduced by the right hon. Secretary, which were found so beneficial for England, had not been extended to Ireland. He thought the whole United Kingdom ought to have the benefit of the improvements made in the law; but unfortunately, whenever any good measure was devised for England, it was not for years after extended to Ireland.

said, that there were circumstances of difference in the law of the two countries, which rendered it impracticable for him at present to include Ireland in the bills introduced by him. He understood, however, that bills, embracing the principle of his bills, were in preparation by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland. He was here desirous of supplying an omission. It was to make a public acknowledgment of the great services he had received from Mr. Hobhouse the under-secretary, who had afforded him most important and valuable assistance. He had a similar acknowledgment to make for the valuable assistance afforded him by Mr. Gregson, a gentleman universally esteemed by the profession of which he was an ornament. Indeed, he had found a disposition to assist him, in clearing the law of its obscurities and perplexities, from the judges down to the humblest practitioner, which reflected great credit on all classes of the legal profession.

approved highly of the bills of the right hon. Secretary. They reflected great honour on him. His services might be compared with those which were rendered under the reign of Justitian, in the formation of a criminal code by the eminent lawyers, and statesmen of his time. The gentlemen who assisted the right hon. Secretary were also entitled to great praise; but he could not forbear thinking, that the right hon. gentleman might easily find three or four Irish gentlemen equally competent and equally ready to afford their gratuitous services in introducing these bills into Ireland, or in preparing similar bills for that country. He was at a loss to know what reason there was to prevent the extension of them to Ireland. The machinery of the law was the same in both countries. There were judges and juries, and courts of assize in one country as well as in the other; and he was anxious to learn from the right hon. Secretary what were the reasons that rendered these bills applicable and useful in England and inapplicable in Ireland.

assured the hon. member that there was no disposition on his part to withhold these bills from Ireland; but he thought it would be well to try the effect of them in England, and if they worked well, then to extend them to Ireland. As far as the jury bill had been tried, it had produced the most satisfactory effects. The bills were drawn up with particular reference to the law in this country; and, if he was required now to include Ireland, he must forego the intention of passing these bills this session. He understood that a bill for consolidating the law relating to Larceny in Ireland was in a forward state of preparation.

said, he was glad to see the reform of the criminal law in the hands of the right hon. Secretary, who had the disposition as well as the power to carry his intentions into effect. The reform in which he was engaged, was one approved of and recommended by himself and by gentlemen on his side of the House, but they had not the means, as the right hon. Secretary had, to act upon their recommendation. He wished to see English principles and English law introduced into Ireland, and did not think there should be one set of rules for the Irish and another for the English magistracy. He would recommend his right hon. friend (sir J. Newport), who first called the attention of government to this subject, to move for the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the state of criminal law in Ireland, to ascertain what statutes were unrepealed, which contained enactments not to be found in any of the three or four bills introduced by the right hon. Secretary; and to simplify the criminal law in Ireland, by making it as conformable to the provisions of these bills as was possible.

said, that the course taken by the right hon. gentleman was pursuant to the practice which had been heretofore adopted; and was the only proper course. A law might be perfect for England, but, at the same time, owing to various circumstances, wholly inoperative for Ireland. So far from a remedy for the defects of the law in Ireland having been neglected, it was a subject to which the most diligent attention had been paid.

presented a Petition from Blandford Forum, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. The hon. gentleman observed, that it could not be necessary for him to say that he differed from the petitioners. It was to him a matter of concern that he could not agree on this important subject with a large body of his constituents, for whom he entertained the greatest respect. Without pretending to go again into the general question, he would merely say, that he quite concurred with the great writer who had said, that "when gentleness and harshness gambled for a kingdom, gentleness was sure to be the winner." He was desirous to put a question to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department on a subject of no common importance. It might appear presumptuous in him; but, as an English country gentleman, as a representative of the people, called upon to raise taxes for the purpose of supporting a system which the hon. member for Londonderry had characterised to be such, that in his opinion Ireland was in a state which could not possibly last, he felt it to be his duty to ask the right hon. gentleman, if he had any measure in contemplation to propose to that House, calculated to ameliorate the condition of Ireland; which condition had been described by every hon. member acquainted with that unhappy country, as the most miserable that it was possible to conceive? He addressed the right hon. gentleman, because he believed that he was the organ of that part of his majesty's government which corresponded more especially with the executive government of Ireland. He hoped it would not be supposed that, because he differed from the right hon. gentleman on one great question, he could entertain towards him any hostile feeling, which would induce him to make any inquiry of an embarrassing nature: but it was in the discharge of an imperative duty that he now asked him whether he had in con- templation any measure for the purpose of removing the evils by which Ireland was afflicted?

, in answer to the hon. gentleman, begged leave first to state, that although his hon. friend, who represented a populous and prosperous county in Ireland, was connected with him in his official duties, as well as allied to him in private life, yet that these did not make him responsible for what his hon. friend had said in that House; nor must it be supposed that he took all his hon. friend's statements for granted. He begged that his own opinions might be judged of by his own speeches. When the hon. gentleman asked him, whether he had any specific measure in contemplation for ameliorating the state of Ireland, and removing the evils under which that country laboured, he thought the hon. gentleman's own good sense must have induced him to anticipate the answer which he would receive to his question. He certainly had not in contemplation, at the present moment, any specific plan by which he hoped to be able to remove the evils in Ireland. Respecting the nature and extent of those evils he had recently taken an opportunity of stating his sentiments; and he did not think it necessary to repeat them. He trusted it would not be supposed that, in the opinion which he had given on the occasion alluded to, he was not actuated by the warmest feeling for the welfare and prosperity of that country. His opinion might be erroneous; but it was dictated by the most sincere anxiety for the happiness of the country to which it related. In the last and in the preceding session of parliament, the state and condition of Ireland had undergone the fullest investigation before a committee of that House, he had attended throughout the whole of those inquiries, and had listened with the greatest interest to all that had taken place. Some of the evils pointed out by those committees had been remedied; to others he should be most willing, if possible, to apply a cure. If he had any measure to propose, such as that which the hon. gentleman described, the hon. gentleman would have no right to call upon him to disclose its nature. He would of course, in that case give full notice of his intention, in order that the subject might be deliberately considered. If he had any such plan, no better mode could be devised of defeating it, than by making a pre- mature disclosure of its character. But the fact was, that he had no such plan; although he looked upon Ireland with the same anxiety to remedy evils existing in that country as he felt to remedy evils existing in this.

, in presenting a petition from certain parishes in the county of Waterford, in favour of Catholic emancipation, took that opportunity of stating, that, although the greater part of the individuals signing the petition were in the lower walks of life, they were nevertheless perfectly sensible of the importance of their claims. From his own personal knowledge, he was quite certain that the question was viewed in Ireland with the deepest anxiety. He could not forbear expressing a hope, that those who had taken upon themselves the responsibility of the rejection of that great measure, would come forward with some proposition for the purpose of allaying those irritated feelings which existed before the measure was thrown out, and which he feared now existed in a still stronger degree, and which could not fail of being exceedingly injurious. With every degree of deference to the opinions of those who differed from him on the question, he could not help believing, that, unless something were done, and speedily done, for Ireland, much evil would follow. It had been admitted, even by those who were averse to the claims of the Catholics, that things could not long continue in the state they were.

presented a Petition from certain inhabitants of the town of Athlone; setting forth,

"That the petitioners have learned with surprise, that a Petition has been got up, and presented to the House, in November last, by a person of the name of Flanagan, to which the petitioners' names were affixed, the purport of which Petition was to disturb Richard Handcock, esq. in his return as member to serve in parliament for the borough of Athlone; the petitioners beg leave to state to the House, they never signed said Petition, nor did they authorize any person so to do: they also beg leave to inform the House, that their names, so affixed to said Petition, are forgeries, as may appear by the annexed affidavits, and that petitioners are not freemen of the borough of Athlone, nor do they claim a right to vote at an election; and petitioners further state, that said Thomas Flanagan is in the habit of getting up petitions to parliament, in several vexatious and frivolous ways, setting the people astray, and instigating them to overt acts against the magistracy of the country: petitioners, therefore, humbly hope the House will take their case into consideration, and devise some means, as in their wisdom they shall think fit, to prevent petitions with forged signatures being presented to the House in future."

said, that he rose to bring before the House a subject intimately connected with the character and welfare of one of our principal West-India colonies. He would call the attention of parliament and the country to an act of lawless violence and indecent outrage, perpetrated in violation of every respectable feeling, and instigated by a clergyman of the Church of England, against an individual as helpless as he was unoffending. The act to which he alluded, bad as it was, had been accompanied by circumstances of brutal violence, which required no comment, and defied exaggeration. The subject he had undertaken to bring forward was, in his opinion, of no small importance to those who had been accustomed to the discussion of such subjects in this House; and it would excite no small surprise, when it was considered, that it had occurred after the recorded wish of parliament, that it would take every measure in their power to maintain religious freedom, and an observance of the laws in the West Indies. Throughout the island of Jamaica, it had been a long-established custom, that the slave population should be indulged with an annual relaxation from their toils at Christmas; upon which occasion the militia regiments of the island were called out upon service. This latter practice had, for many years, fallen into disuse; but recently it had been renewed; and, for the last two years, the regiments of militia had been stationed on guard, during the period of Christmas. On last Christmas day, in the parish of St. Ann's, Jamaica, the militia were called out to keep watch and guard over the slave population, and protect the property of their masters. They had previously assembled to hear divine worship in the parish church of St. Ann's. On that occasion, a sermon had been preached by a Mr. Brydges, the chaplain of the bishop of Jamaica. The House would hear with astonishment the sentiments and exhortations of the preacher. He had thought fit to deliver to this regiment of militia, a discourse couched in the most inflammatory language; censuring the establishment of missionaries in that island; and exciting a body of men, with arms in their hands, to acts of outrage and blood-shed. Immediately after that sermon, a company of the regiment was left on guard. During that time, about midnight, they made an attack upon the house of the rev. Mr. Ratcliffe, a Wesleyan Missionary, which was inhabited by that person himself, with his wife, children, and servants. The attack was made with muskets and horse-pistols, and no less than fourteen musket balls were fired into the house; not hurriedly or without consideration, but at intervals, and by word of command. The guard, of which he had already spoken, was all this time on duty, in the close vicinity of Mr. Ratcliffe's house, but no attempt at interference took place on their part; and it was owing, not to the humanity of this white company, or to the Christian exhortations of the rev. Mr. Biydges, but to the accident of the balls not having taken effect, that murder was not added to outrage and violence. He had not gone to the length of the accounts which he had received from Jamaica; nor had he slated the case as strongly as he would have been justified in stating it, from the accounts which had been published in two Jamaica newspapers. He trusted that the House would lose no time in lending its weight and authority to punish guilt, as they had in vain attempted to prevent its commission, by passing its former Resolutions. He brought forward the present measure not at the desire of any body of men; but he would state, that the person outraged was one of the body of Wesleyan Missionaries. He had no connexion with that body whatever; and he brought forward the subject, because it was an infringement of the principles of toleration—an attempt to suppress religious freedom. But, if he had no connexion with the Wesleyan Missionaries, he was but doing them justice to say, that it was owing to their exertions that the lower classes in the West-India islands had acquired any sentiments of religion, and that they were no longer sunk into the lowest state of idolatry and Paganism. The right hon. member for the borough of Christ-church (sir George Rose), who was so intimately connected with the West Indies, had stated, that out of the slave population of all the West-India colonies, only one hundred thousand possessed the slightest knowledge of Christianity, and of these, seventy thousand were indebted for what knowledge they possessed to the Wesleyan Missionaries. It would appear, that the Wesleyan Missionaries had no competitors in the clergy of the Church of England. At the same time, he was far from blaming the Church of England for not effecting what it had, perhaps, no means of accomplishing; neither did he intend to blame the ministers of the Church of England, because they had been equally destitute of assistance, to enable them to enlighten our slave population. Government had most wisely determined to remove that defect; but he should grieve, if the Church Establishment, in the colonies, were to bring along with it all the evils of religious persecution. The Missionaries had overcome every obstacle and difficulty; and they had achieved so much, that every man who had a regard for the moral improvement of the human species, and who had at heart the propagation of religious sentiments, must yield to them applause for what they had effected. He for one would not desert them, if he saw in any quarter a disposition to expose them to calumny and oppression. He would be the first to come forward to enable them to obtain that protection to which, by the laws of God and of the land, they were entitled. If a regiment, three-fourths of which consisted of coloured people, saw their white fellow-soldiers allowed to perpetrate an outrage, such as that which he had described, what would be the natural effect of it? What example was this to set them? Would they not thereby be encouraged to treat with less respect, the laws which they saw their comrades violating with impunity? What would be the effect of the example upon the slave population, when they saw the whites, in violation of the laws, committing all but murder? But the matter did not stop here. On the Sunday following, only two days having elapsed, this very identical clergyman, Mr. Brydges, had the confident assurance to mount, his pulpit, to allude with triumph and satisfaction to the preceding outrage, and to repreach the same sermon? Some hon. members might wish to know who this rev. Mr. Brydges was. He was an individual who first attracted public notoriety by the promulgation of a libel upon the memory of a man entitled to the respectful recollections of all those endued with the feelings of humanity. The first public proceeding of Mr. Brydges was a libel on Mr. Wilber-force, to whom he applied these words—"Mel in ore, verba lactis—Fel in corde, fraus in factis."—As a reward for this composition the House of Assembly in Jamaica voted him a sum of money; and, as a further encouragement, the bishop of Jamaica appointed him his chaplain. He trusted that, if the facts which he had stated could be brought home, some means would be devised of punishing, not only those who had been guilty of a violation of the law in firing into the House of Mr. Ratcliffe, but also the fountain and author of that outrage; for, undoubtedly, those who suffered themselves to be made the instruments of such an act of violence, however culpable, were less guilty than the man at whose instigation it was perpetrated. But, could the House be surprised at this occurrence. He confessed that he was not, when he recollected the shameful transaction which had taken place at Barbadoes; and when he reflected that no punishment of any sort had lighted on the heads of the offenders—when he knew that the magistrates had not only been regardles of the offence which was committed, but actually in connivance with the guilty parties—and when, so far from the participators having been visited with the penalties due to their crimes, they had all been suffered to retain their situations. When he saw how incapable the parliament had hitherto been to repress or to redress grievances of this description, he could not fool surprised at their recurrence. Jamaica was at least as fully entitled to the protection of government as Barbadoes. He did not scruple to say, that he entertained a higher opinion of the former colony than of the latter; and, although the people of Jamaica had, in sonic instances, done him injustice, he would not retort that injustice upon them. The necessity of the interposition of parliament was not removed or diminished by the cir- cumstance of colonel Cox having endeavoured to investigate the transaction shortly after its occurrence. He trusted that that investigation would be attended with more beneficial results than had flowed from the proclamations of general Ward on a similar occasion in Barbadoes. The efforts of general Ward had been fruitless; but he hoped that the proceedings of colonel Cox would tend to rescue the island of Jamaica from the reproach and obloquy which would attach to it, if such an atrocity as this were passed over in silence. The occurrence, he was able to say, was not viewed with apathy or indifference in Jamaica. Two of the public papers there had reprobated it in much stronger terms than he had ventured to use. He hailed the return of good feeling in Jamaica; and he would exhort the colonists to recall as far as possible their past conduct, and to adopt a more becoming course in future. When he saw the galaxy of talent and ability which shone in the House of Assembly in Jamaica—and no one could read the deliberations of that body without being struck with admiration of the wisdom and talent it embodied—he felt it impossible that the darkness of superstition, and the degradation of sentiment, which had given rise to this outrage, could long withstand their influence upon the society of the island. He would say to the legislators of that island, "Do not wait for the orders of government—anticipate the measures of parliament—do all you can to save the character of your island from the disgrace of having permitted a body of armed men to commit, an outrage upon an unoffending missionary—take into your own hands the prerogative with which the mother-country has invested you, and show yourselves worthy of the charter which, in her kindness she Cave you." His reason for bringing forward the subject at the present moment was to show his determination, after what had occurred at Barbadoes, not to allow a single instance of religious intolerance in the West Indies to transpire, without bringing it under the notice of the House. He knew that this spirit of illiberality was spreading; that endeavours were made to depreciate the efforts and the characters of the Missionaries, and to set the Church of England against them. If it should so happen, that, in process of time, through the instrumentality of her ministers, the Church of England should attain a superiority over the Missionaries in the West-Indies, and extinguish Methodism, he would most cordially hail such a consummation; but, in Heaven's name, let it not be effected by means of oppression and persecution. Let the Missionaries have fair opportunities, by their own exertions, to maintain their ground; and, which, ever body should eventually possess the superiority, the results must be the diminution of immorality and vice, the spread of religion, and the advancement of those feelings which it ought to be the object of every just, wise, virtuous, and beneficent government to foster and promote. He hoped he had not let fall one word that night which could be likely to increase the animosity that prevailed in the West Indies. Far from wishing to irritate such feelings he was most anxious to soothe and allay them, and to unite all classes in that course which would forward the cause of justice and humanity. He would conclude with moving for "Copies of all despatches which his majesty's government have received from Jamaica relative to an attack made on the Wesleyan Missionary Meeting House, and the dwelling of Mr. Ratcliffe the Missionary, at Christmas last.

begged shortly to offer a few observations upon the motion; and, in doing so, he assured the House, that no despatches had been received in his department, in which mention was made of the outrages alluded to; and he would further state, that, had he received notice of the commission of any such outrage, he would have felt it his duty to have brought it under the consideration of the House. As matters at present stood, he thought it would be most advisable for the hon. and learned member to wait until such information had been received as would enable his majesty's government to interfere with, and direct the local authorities. With respect to the rev. Mr. Brydges, he should, if the statements were true, strongly condemn his conduct; but it was too much to suppose that the whole colony were actuated by such sentiments. It might or it might not be true that, sermons, such as those alluded to, had been preached by that gentleman; but they were bound to wait until they had ascertained the fact. In the mean time, it was not too much to say, it was highly improbable that such sermons had been preached from the pulpit, for such purposes. The hon. gentleman here read an extract from a Wesleyan Missionary Report, dated 1824, for the purpose of showing that the government of Jamaica was not at all hostile to the Dissenting Missionaries established in that island. He again assured the House, that no complaint of the nature alluded to had reached his office; and he trusted, the proposed inquiry would show, that there did not exist any such feeling towards the Dissenters in that island. While he said this, he trusted, that any outrage so base and unwarranted as that described, would, when fully established, meet with condign punishment. Upon this point, however, they must wait for further evidence; and that evidence being once laid before them, there could be little doubt that they would come to a satisfactory decision upon it.

said, that, without entering into the general question before the House, he thought he could show, that it was not only possible, but probable, that the rev. Mr. Brydges had been guilty of the conduct imputed to him. That rev. gentleman had been made rector of St. Ann's, and chaplain to the bishop, after the period to which he was about to allude. The honourable member was proceeding to show that the rev. Mr. Brydges had been guilty of gross mis-statements, in an answer to a pamphlet published by Mr. Wilberforce, in which he stated, that he had baptised such find such numbers of negroes, in different districts, when—

rose to order. He would put it to the House whether they ought to go at once into the inquiry proposed by the hon. member? The motion before the House was for papers relative to a certain outrage which had been committed in Jamaica; that outrage, it was said, had been fomented by the rev. Mr. Brydges, and, when his hon. friend made no objection to the motion, up rose the hon. member for Weymouth, and stated, that he could show that the rev. Mr. Brydges might have been guilty of the alleged outrage, because he could prove that that rev. gentleman had been guilty of falsehood in other instances. He was not there to say whether the answer to Mr. Wilberforce was founded in truth or falsehood, but he felt that that was not an inquiry into which they ought to enter at present.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman had allowed him to go a little further, he would have found it un- necessary to interrupt him; but, as he had felt it proper to do so, he would go no further at present.

in bringing forward his motion on this subject, referred to the statement which he had made on a former night; namely, that the fees which the lord Chancellor received on account of his jurisdiction in bankruptcy amounted to 20,000l. a-year. That statement had been met by a strong contradiction from the hon. member for Corfe Castle, who was presumed to speak with all the accuracy of family information, and who had said, that the lord Chancellor received only 3,000l. a-year from bankruptcy. Now, he considered that it was right for the House to know whether the lord Chancellor did or did not receive 20,000l. a-year from the exercise of one branch of his jurisdiction; especially as the hon. member for Durham had given notice, that he would move to separate all matters in bankruptcy from his lordship's jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the contradiction which he had received, he still believed that he was not in error in the assertion which he had made. He had shown to several professional gentlemen the paper which he then held in his hand, and which contained an account of the number of bankruptcies which had occurred for some years past. Judging from the grounds which it afforded them for calculation, they were of opinion that he was right, and that the hon. member for Corfe Castle was mistaken in his statement. The return of the amount of fees for one year would serve his purpose as well as the return of it for many. He had, therefore, selected the last year; not because there had been a large number of bankrupts in it, but because it would give them the most recent information as to the amount of the lord Chancellor's fees in bankruptcy cases. Without troubling the House with the details, he believed it would be found, that, from the 1st of October, 1825, to the 1st of October, 1826, the lord Chancellor had received, in bankruptcy matters alone, fees to the amount, not of 3,000l. but of 30,000l. [hear, hear]. He was aware that, out of that sum, the learned lord paid his secretary of bankrupts, and certain subordinate officers, for the fact appeared on the returns of 1816; but he wished to know the nett amount of what his lordship received, in order that the country might judge whether any feeling of self-interest was likely to influence him in opposing the separation of the matters in bankruptcy from his equitable jurisdiction. With this intention he should move, "That there be laid on the table of the House, a return of the total amount of fees received for 3,549 dockets, struck between the 1st of October, 1825, and the 1st of October, 1826; also, a similar return of the amount of fees received on 3,272 commissions of bankrupts, issued within the same period; also, similar returns with regard to 276 super-sedeases, 1,281 certificates, 832 petitions in bankruptcy, and 832 orders upon petitions made within the same period; also, a return of the total amount of fees received for private seals upon commissions and supersedeases, and for office copies of affidavits in support of or against petitions; also, a return of the total amount of fees in bankruptcy, received at the Bankrupts'-office, not particularly specified in the above returns; together with an account of the specific appropriation of all the foregoing fees and payments during the same period."

said, that the hon. member had not merely repeated his former assertion, that the lord Chancellor received 20,000l. a-year from fees in bankruptcy, but had even gone beyond it; for he now, unappalled by former contra-dictions, ventured to assert, that his lord-ship received 30,000l. a-year from them. There could be no doubt as to the amount of the lord Chancellor's emoluments, as they had been made a subject of inquiry by three different commissions; of which the first had sat whilst lord Rosslyn was Chancellor, and the last in 1811, when lord Eldon was Chancellor. From those reports it was apparent, that the lord Chancellor had never received, upon an average, 4,000l. a-year from his fees in bankruptcy, and that his whole emoluments did not, in the long run, exceed 15,000l, a-year. He did not rise, either on his own account, or on account of the lord Chancellor, to object to the present motion. The noble lord was as desirous as man could be, that no information on this subject, which it was in his power to communicate, should be withheld from the public. Neither had the noble lord, as far as he knew, declared himself to be averse to the separation of the business in bankruptcy from the other business of his court. The hon. member, therefore, laboured under sonic delusion when he said that his motion would enable the country to decide whether the noble lord opposed that separation from motives of self-interest or not. If the hon. member had no other object in view than to elicit correct information as to the amount of the lord Chancellor's emoluments, he should be glad to do every thing in his power to assist the hon. member. With that intention, he would suggest to the hon. member, that, instead of moving for a return of the amount of fees taken during a year, when the number of bankrupts was unusually large, he should move for a return of the amount of fees taken since 1811, when the last returns were made, distinguishing the amount in each year. If the hon. gentleman should not incorporate that suggestion in his proposition, he would himself submit it as a distinct motion to the House.

culogized the great talents and unimpeachable integrity of the present lord Chancellor. He likewise defended the Commissioners of Bankrupts from the attacks which had been recently made upon them, and contended, that, so far from their being either incompetent from youth, or stultified by age, they were some of the most able and distinguished members of the profession.

wished to know, whether the motion referred to the amount of fees received by the Chancellor alone, or to the amount of fees received both by him and the subordinate officers of the court?

said, that if the hon. member would refer to the last of his motions, he would find in it an answer to the question which he had just asked. His belief was, that five-sixths of the fees included in his motion were received, not by the subordinate officers, but by the head of the Court, of Chancery. The returns, however, for which he moved would, if granted, settle that question beyond all future power of discussion. He again contended, that the fees of the lord Chancellor, in bankruptcies, were not 3,000l., but 30,000l. a-year. It was a notorious fact, that on every docket a fee of 2l. 1s. was paid. Now, by common arithmetic, the amount of those fees, on 3,549, were 7,275l. 9s. On every com- mission of bankruptcy a fee of 4l. 10s. was paid. The fees, therefore, on 3,272 commissions of bankruptcy were 14,724l. These fees, added to those which were received on petitions, orders, &c. amounted, in the last year, to 32,212l. 11s.5d. He saw no reason why he should be diverted from the course which he had originally intended to pursue, and he should, therefore, press his motion, regardless whether the hon. and learned gentleman should or should not meet it with a negative.

said, that if the object of the hon. member had been to elicit truth, he would have consented with readiness to the suggestion which he had made to him. If the returns had been ordered in the manner in which he proposed, it would have completed the returns made in 1811, on the emoluments of the lord Chancellor, up to the present time. Out of the 2l. 1s. mentioned by the hon. member, only 1l. was paid to the Chancellor; the remaining sum was paid to a grantee, appointed during the chancellorship of lord Thurlow. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, for an account of all Fees in the different branches of bankruptcy business, received by the lord Chancellor, from 1811 to the present time; and he said, that he had no doubt but that it would appear, from this account, that the average of the Chancellor's receipts in bankruptcy did not exceed between 3,000l. and 4,000l. a-year.

took the same view of the matter as the Attorney-general, and could not but express his surprise at the mis-statements which were abroad respecting the lord Chancellor's income. He knew it was the opinion of commercial men, that some alteration should be made in the administration of bankrupt cases; but for himself he was quite satisfied that things ought to remain in their present state.

concurred with the original motion, and trusted, that by the returns thus called for, the House would be able to know exactly the amount of fees received by the lord Chancellor, and to ascertain who were the grantees spoken of by the Attorney-general, as having been appointed under lord chancellor Thurlow, and who, from his statement, appeared to be deriving large emoluments from a system which he could not but designate as most disgraceful. When he recollected what had taken place in the discussions upon the subject of granting increased salaries to the judges, he could not but remember, that one of the arguments principally relied on in support of that measure was, the necessity of taking away the fees that were then paid to the judges, and that were supposed to create an idea that those learned persons might feel an inclination to encourage litigation for their own advantage. Now surely, if such an argument could with the least propriety be applied to the common-law judges, with how much more force did it apply to the lord Chancellor, who was a judge sitting to administer equity, without the intervention of a jury—whose power was in no instance equalled among the other judges—whose fiat was conclusive; since, from his decisions, there was no appeal but from himself in his own court, to himself in the House of Lords? Some idea of the jurisdiction intrusted to that noble lord might be formed from the fact, that property to the amount, of forty millions was now the subject of litigation in the court of Chancery. Surely, when the House were deliberating upon the fees received by such a person, they could not but agree, that it was of the utmost importance that his judgments, and the whole administration of his most important office, should be free from the most remote suspicion of interest; for let men talk as they pleased about the high characters of individuals, there would be suspicions entertained by the people, whenever public and private interests seemed to clash together. For that reason, he was of opinion, that the lord Chancellor's salary should be put on the same footing as those paid to the judges of the common law; that was to say, that it should be fixed at a certain sum, and rendered totally independent of fees. By putting it upon that footing, the House would be conferring a benefit upon the Chancellor; since they would prevent him from becoming, night after night, the subject of such discussions as the present. He was not prepared to say that the Chancellor was over-paid, even if it should be proved that he did actually receive 20,000l. per annum; though the inclination of his mind was, that 12,000l. per annum would be an ample compensation for the labour of the office. However, he thought at all events the emoluments of the office, be they what they might, ought not to be re- ceived in fees, but in some less objectionable manner.

in bringing forward his motion upon this subject, disclaimed any wish to impute improper motives to any person. His sole object had been, since he possessed a seat in that House, to discover and point out abuses of every description; and among those which required the notice and animadversion of parliament, none appeared to him greater than those which were connected with Excise prosecutions, which were so great in their extent, and so oppressive in their nature, that we might well wonder at their existence in a free country. He should first take the prosecutions that had been commenced upon the Customs'-law, as they were fewer and less oppressive than the others; and yet so great, that they called loudly for parliamentary interference. He did not mean to impeach the honesty of lawyers; but he did mean to say, that even they would not be free from suspicion, when prosecutions were carried on apparently with no advantage to the public; certainly, with great injury to the persons against whom they were directed; and when, on each of these, the prosecuting law officer received a fee. From a paper which he held in his hand, if appeared that seven hundred and nineteen prosecutions had been commenced from the year 1820 to 1826 inclusive, to recover penalties to the amount of 580,136l., and out of all these, the sums recovered only amounted to 23,789l.—a pretty strong proof of the small advantage derived by the public from them. In certain prosecutions which would be brought under the view of the House, if his motion should be agreed to, it would appear, that the Crown had lost, in expenses, more than 1,000l. beyond the sums awarded by the verdicts in its favour. In a prosecution where the verdict was for 11l., the costs were 151l.; and in another case, where the costs were 600l., there was a compromise for 30s. Some speedy means ought to be taken to expose the mode of conducting business of this nature, that the proper remedy might be applied. He did not mean to blame the higher law officers of the Crown for the abuses of which they were probably igno-. rant, and for which, perhaps, they might not consider themselves responsible. But the fact was, that worthless persons were sent, or at least went about the country harassing great numbers of honest, creditable, and industrious tradesmen, offering them for sale, and even thrusting upon them, certain articles, with a view to lay the ground for informations against them. This was done, not from any view to protect the revenue, but for the purpose of aggrandizing those who employed such persons for such an object. In the county of Sussex, for instance, persons had been induced to go about persuading tradesmen to purchase certain articles, for the purpose of laying a foundation for informations; and then, when such informations were lodged, the same persons used all their influence with those whom they had entrapped, to induce them to petition to be allowed to compromise, on payment of costs. As he could not anticipate the possibility of any objection being made to his motion, he did not think it necessary to go more at length into the subject at this time. But in order to bring-the subject fairly before the House and the public, he was not aware of any better mode than to move for the number of the Solicitors' bills sent to the Treasury, for the costs of the prosecution of certain specified cases of late occurrence. He doubted whether any such bills were now in existence; but if they were, and could be produced, they ought to be laid on the table of the House. He concluded, therefore, by moving for "the Bills of Costs paid by the Crown in the various Informations filed in the Court of Exchequer, for penalties for breaches of the Customs Laws, against the following defendants:" [here followed the names of twenty persons lately prosecuted as above-mentioned.]

expressed himself not at all unwilling to afford the hon. member every information which he could reasonably desire on this subject. But it was really too much to expect, that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to bring before the House, as a specimen of the whole matter, some twenty cases, such as he chose to select out of two or three hundred. He had no objection to such a motion generally; but this mode of selection would not bring the matter fairly before the House. He would therefore recommend to the hon. gentleman to adopt some fair principle—such as taking the first twelve or twenty, or the last twelve or twenty cases out of a certain number; and then he would not oppose his motion. But if the hon. member refused to alter his motion in the manner he had stated, he should be compelled to object to it. He could not help, however, remarking on the attempt of the hon. member to vilify the Board of Customs, and the Custom-house officers. He certainly understood that the hon. member had excepted from his censure the higher law officers of the Crown and the commissioners of Customs; but he appeared at the same time to insinuate some censure against the solicitor for the Customs, as well as others, for instigating persons to lodge informations, not with a view to the protection of the revenue, but for the purpose of aggrandizing himself. Now, did not the hon. member know that, for the last three years, the solicitor had derived his emoluments, not from fees on account of prosecutions, but from a fixed salary of 2,000l. a-year; and that the utmost extent to which his income could be increased beyond that, whatever might be the number of prosecutions, did not exceed 500l. a-year? The greatest sum which he could possibly receive, therefore, in all, was only 2,500l. per annum; and it could not be reasonably supposed, that for the mere sake of the500l. beyond the 2,000l., he could be influenced, by dirty and scandalous motives, to increase the number of prosecutions.

said, that there were frequently great hardships in these prosecutions in the Exchequer. The supposed smuggler, for instance, committed the crime on the coast. The Attorney-general filed an information, and it was understood that it was to be tried in the county of Sussex. It turned out, however, that the trial was to be in London. The defendant all this while did not know what witnesses were to be produced against him; nor could he be prepared with them so well as he might be if the trial had taken place in the county where the offence had been committed. Whatever the man might be, this was a harsh proceeding; whether smuggler or not, he ought to have fair play. He did not mean to speak invidiously, but he was informed, that, on the preventive service, there were persons of no very good character, and that on the information of such persons, smugglers had been imprisoned for eighteen months, and then ordered to find security for their good behaviour, and being generally unable to provide such security, they were liable to be imprisoned for life.

denied that any injustice had been done in the cases of those persons who had been alluded to by the hon. member. In fact, it was the opinion of the best-informed persons in Sussex, that smuggling offences ought not to be tried by juries of that county; and he had heard the same observation made with respect to Kent. The strength of local prejudice, it was assorted, strongly militated in those places against the course of justice. Those who wished to have the law ameliorated had made every inquiry on the subject; and they were universally met by this answer—"Do not try cases of this nature in the places where the transactions were alleged to have taken place, but let the inquiry go on elsewhere." It was made a matter of strong complaint, that cases which occurred in other counties were tried in Middlesex: but let those who so complained examine the matter, and point out where any real hardship lay? The most ordinary seaman knew perfectly well, that if he offended against the law he would be tried at Westminster. The phrase, that the man so erring would be "Exchequered," was perfectly known and understood. He, therefore, contended, that no harm was done, when the parties who erred were well acquainted with the fact, that their trial would take place in the court of Exchequer. He never knew any individual to come forward and say, when put upon his trial, that he had reason to complain, because he expected to have been tried elsewhere. The hon. mover expressed a great anxiety to convince the House, that, in introducing this motion, he had nothing but the interests of justice in view. It was extraordinary that he should, while thus declaring his own purity of intention, have been so unsparing of his calumnies on others. It had been asserted, that no improvement had been effected with respect to the administration of those laws. Now, it would not be difficult to prove, that a very material improvement, with respect to the administration of the revenue laws, had taken place. Formerly, every case relating to the revenue laws was tried in the court of Exchequer. This was undoubtedly attended with great expense. Many of these cases were now decided before a magistrate; and there was, in consequence, a great abatement of these cases in the court of Exchequer. He must observe, that the labours of the law officers of the Crown, in this department were extremely heavy; such as he believed would scarcely be undertaken by any other gentlemen. He knew not whether the hon. mover had, in his observations, an eye to Essex; but this he knew, that, in the very last case he was connected with, which related to Essex, a large and thumping verdict for the Crown, of between 2,000l. and 3000l. was given. That verdict was obtained against persons who were notorious violators of the law. The information never was carried before the court of Exchequer, unless the penalties were high indeed. When the hon. gentleman talked of prosecutions, or persecutions, as he was pleased to call them, he should like to know how many verdicts the Crown had received within a given time, and how many causes they had lost?

observed, that the measures which had been taken to support the revenue laws had greatly encouraged the race of informers. The Attorney-general must be well acquainted with the fact, that many instances of hardship and oppression had occurred under the system. A fair question arose; namely, what benefit had been derived from a multitude of prosecutions under these laws? Now, it appeared, that in 1825–6, the sum lost by the Crown, or rather by the country, in consequence of these prosecutions, was upwards of 490l., and in 1825, the sum of 897l.was lost in the same manner. There was in those cases no lack of counsel, of agents, and of witnesses; and yet such was the result in spite of all their efforts. If they looked to the account to which he had referred, from January to October, they would perceive the entry with respect to the profits of the Crown to be "nil, nil, nil." In February, 1826, an information was laid against a man for a penalty of 447l. What was the result? Why, he found the entry, as to the Crown, according to custom, "nil;" but the costs were not "nil;" they amounted to 114l., which the public had to pay. This was merely one sample out of a great many. Did the Crown pay the costs or did it not? By the smile on the countenance of the Attorney-general, he supposed the costs were paid by the party prosecuted. Now, nothing could be more unjust than this. Indeed, the whole system was so conducted as to afford facilities to subaltern officers to lay informations against individuals whose pockets, whichever way the case was decided, were sure to suffer.

expressed his surprise at the line of argument adopted by the hon. gentleman. Were actions of the kind to which he had referred to be supported, or decried, only in proportion as they brought money into the public coffers? Were they, because, from various circumstances, they might sometimes fail, to be therefore considered unwise and improper? Because money was not likely to accrue from these prosecutions, was that a reason why individuals who transgressed the law should not be punished, and made examples of? Supposing 490l. to have been expended in costs, was not that sum well laid out, if it deterred others from entering into conspiracies to defraud the revenue.

said, he considered the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the imputations against the solicitor of the Customs, complete and triumphant. He trusted, that the right hon. gentleman, seeing how the new and very commendable arrangement respecting the allowance of the solicitor to the Customs had been received by the House, would be induced to place the Excise upon the same footing.

was of opinion, that the officers employed by government were sometimes very remiss in the performance of their duties, with a view, as it appeared to him, of benefitting by the irregularities which their own negligence permitted. He recollected being in the town of Hastings some time since, when, at mid-day, the town was absolutely blockaded, and a cargo of smuggled goods introduced.

said, it was very unjust to make charges against the persons alluded to, as if they were the instigators of the very offences to which they were employed to put an end. He thought that there was not the slightest ground for the accusation that had been made against them. Instead of bringing up cases for trial here, they were anxious to have them settled before the magistrates of the county where they occurred. Much had been said about the profits made by the solicitor of the Customs; but, in the course of two years, he had given up 11,000l, in consequence of his having allowed cases to be decided before magistrates, which otherwise would have been brought in to the Exchequer.

said, that nothing could be worse than the administration of the Excise laws in Ireland. Year after year, some alteration of the existing system had been promised: but the hope was still deferred.

said, that the government were very anxious to carry into effect the recommendations of the revenue committee. Some of them had been attended to; but others could not be effected without a specific act of parliament.

bore testimony to the great leniency with which Excise prosecutions had, in many cases within his knowledge, been conducted.

contended, that it was impossible to put an end to smuggling, while the system of prohibitory duties held out such premiums to the smuggler.

advised, that the discretion lodged in the solicitor of Excise should be controlled; for he believed, that so long as it remained in his power to bring actions at his pleasure, oppressive proceedings would take place.

complained, that he had been attacked in an unbecoming manner by the chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not, however, be deterred from doing his duty, by any chastisement which the right hon. gentleman, in his official dignity, might think proper to inflict upon him.

observed, that the hon. gentleman appeared to be sore under the chastisement of which he complained. The hon. gentleman had, on his part, made a severe attack upon officers whose conduct had not deserved it. In repelling that attack, he was not aware that he had offended against any of the hon. gentleman's notions of what he was pleased to term his official dignity.

suggested to the hon. member for Galway, the propriety of postponing the motion of which he had given notice for Thursday, until after the decision of the committee on the merits of the Galway Election Petition.

said, his motion had nothing to do with the Election petition. If he had made good his charges against the marquis of Clanricarde at the bar of that House, Mr. Lambert would still have the right of turning him (Mr. R. Martin) out of that House, if he could. His motion had no more to do with the Election petition than with the history of the Trojan war. No man who wished well to the noble peer whom he meant to charge with unconstitutional conduct would endeavour to get rid of the charge by a dilatory plea. On the contrary, he would rather dare the man who imputed foul misconduct to that noble peer to substantiate his accusations. Now, he would consent to be stigmatized as the vilest of accusers, if he did not make good his charges against his majesty's Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the marquis of Clanricarde.

begged to observe, that in recommending the hon. member to postpone his motion, he had acted entirely on his own discretion; and was not at all sure that his noble friend would approve of the course he had taken. He was perfectly satisfied that his noble friend would be fully able to meet any charge the hon. member might prefer against him.

strongly recommended the hon. member for Galway to withdraw his notice. The terms of the notice of motion were, "that it be referred to a committee, to inquire into the unconstitutional conduct of the marquis of Clanricarde, at the late election for Galway, he being then Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs." Now, how would it be possible to enter into such a discussion, without entering into the merits of the Election petition? Such a discussion could not but have the effect of biassing the minds of the members of the committee. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. member would postpone his motion, until after the decision of the committee. There was no precedent of a discussion involving the merits of an Election petition, pending the investigations of a committee.

recommended the right hon. President of the Board of Control to look over the precedents, and he was sure he would find that there was no reason whatever for resisting the discussion on Thursday. He maintained that the discussion would not have the effect of prejudicing the minds of the committee. He pledged himself to prove, that the marquis of Clanricarde went into the county of Galway [order, order!].

recommended the hon. member to withdraw his notice, for the motion must of necessity lead to a discussion of the merits of the Election petition. If, indeed, the hon. member could shew that the object of his motion would be defeated by delay, that might be a ground for bringing it forward on Thursday.

concurred in the recommendation. The ballot for the Galway Election committee would take place on Tuesday, and the bringing forward of such a motion as that of which the hon. member had given notice for Thursday, would be a most unconstitutional and improper proceeding, which the House ought to discourage.

said, it was of course competent to any member to fix the day on which he would bring forward any motion; but if the subject-matter of the hon. member's motion comprised anything which could be inquired into by the Election, committee, the motion could not be entertained by the House, still less could the House enter into any discussion of it. The hon. member knew best what the precise nature of his motion was; but it would be necessary for him to satisfy the House, that it did not involve any subject which could be inquired into by the Election committee.

declared himself willing, at all times, to bow with deference to the Chair; but, as the subject of his motion could not, by any possibility, be inquired into by the committee, he must decline complying with the hon. member's request.