presented a Petition from the persons who had petitioned against the return for the borough of Winchilsea, and entered into the necessary recognizances, praying, as they contemplate that the measure about to be proposed by Government would effect all that they desired with respect to that borough, that they might be allowed to withdraw their recognizances. The hon. Member then moved, that the recognizances in question be discharged.

having expressed his doubts as to whether the House, according to the Act of Parliament, had power to allow the recognizances to be withdrawn, Mr. Benett withdrew the Motion.

presented a Petition from Wiltshire, signed by 14,000 persons, in favour of Reform. The prayer of the petition was generally for Reform, without specifying any particular measure. The hon. Member expressed a hope, that whenever the Reform measure of Government should be brought forward, he should be able to support it, and that it would prove a plan of full and efficient Reform. He was sure that, in the present state of the country, they who opposed all Reform would attach to themselves a serious responsibility. The petition was signed by thirty Magistrates, and a great number of clergymen, yeomanry, and shopkeepers. The hon. Member hoped that county meetings for Reform would be held all over the country.

presented Petitions from Wigan, Oldham, Butterworth, a district in Manchester, and a parish in Ireland, praying for Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and the Vote by Ballot; also from some inhabitants of London, praying that the forest of Epping might be given to the poor, to be cultivated by them; likewise, four Petitions from owners and occupiers of land in Hampshire, stating, that the labourers had been driven by necessity to congregate together, and demand a rise of wages. They attributed this circumstance to the pressure of taxation, and prayed for Reform. The hon. Member read copious extracts from these petitions.

said, as the hon. Member gave notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House at twelve o'clock every night, he should not occupy so much time in presenting petitions.

said, that if it were made a rule that no petition should be read or observed upon, but put at once into the Clerk's bag, it would save him a vast deal of trouble, as he had hundreds of petitions at home, and thousands more were coming to him from the country. If the Vote by Ballot should be conceded by the House, he believed that the House would be troubled with very few petitions more; but if it should not, every town and village in the kingdom would meet to petition for it. He thought that the people could not do better than meet on the day appointed for the general fast, for there could not be a more acceptable act, in the eyes of God and man, than an attempt to re-establish the just rights of the people.

presented a Petition from the City of York, praying for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes. The hon. Gentleman stated, that it had received a very large number of signatures, including that of the Lord Mayor, and that he concurred in the prayer of the petition.

supported the prayer of the petition in the following speech: — "Sir,—Concurring as I do in the prayer of the petition which has just been presented from the inhabitants of the city which I have the honour to represent, although it is not my intention to detain the House at any length, yet I cannot omit this opportunity of making one or two observations. I, Sir, feel most anxious for the repeal of those taxes which operate so heavily upon the middle classes of society, and indirectly on the lower, and which produce little advantage to the revenue, compared with the discomfiture and misery heaped upon these particular classes. Constructive taxation may be made the instrument of great tyranny and oppression; and I appeal to as many of this hon. House who are Magistrates, if the assessed taxes, particularly the house and window-tax, are not productive of more litigation and appeal to them, and of more personal restraint upon the liberty, happiness, and prosperity of the people, than all the other taxes of the realm. The legitimate object, Sir, of all taxation is revenue, and personal liberty is necessary to enable you more effectually to bear it, by leaving you in possession of everything necessary to furnish the means, in procuring of which nothing affects you like the assessed taxes. They are derived, Sir, from our incomes and our profits, the uncertainty of which makes them sometimes prospective and exceedingly vexatious, and are quite different in their operation to taxes levied upon merchandise, which are paid out of our capital, are reimbursed by the consumer of his own will and ability, and are frequently a source of profit and a stimulus to trade. I should not, Sir, have ventured to address the House, had I not. felt confident that by a repeal, say, even partial, of the window-tax,—that tax upon the air we breathe, and the blessings of health,—areat benefit would arise, and that it would tend to alleviate at any rate, if not partially to remove, much of that distress which hon. Members have lately, in this House, most unfortunately borne testimony to. Sir, in advocating a repeal of these taxes, so galling and so vexatious, I would venture to recommend to his Majesty's Government, coinciding most fully in the observations which were just now offered to the House by the hon. member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett), who stated, that in presenting a petition from that county, with which I, Sir, am also connected, which petition had received the signatures of nearly 14,000, many of whom were Magistrates, praying for a repeal of these imposts, if any other tax was requisite, it should be a graduating property-tax; whilst by the payment of taxes property is made safe and secure, it is but fair for that security that the owners should mostly contribute. Even, Sir, although a tax upon luxuries appears to be the most proper, yet great disadvantage arises very considerably on account of these imposts, by the non-employment of mechanics, who at this day are, to a great number, out of work. It is not my wish, Sir, to say any thing that would be calculated to embarrass his Majesty's present Ministers, who seem to be disposed to do every thing in their power, standing as they do so high in the hearts and expectations of the people, by mentioning, in the room of the house and window-tax (if necessary), a graduated property-tax. Sir, I have perceived this day, by some of the daily journals, that it is the intention of his Majesty's Government to take off the house and window-tax. I trust that it may be realized. I have only stated what I felt myself bound to do for the benefit of my constituents,—very imperfectly, I fear,—what would be, in my opinion, for the benefit of my countrymen; tending to alleviate their burthens and distresses, and to ameliorate the condition, and increase the happiness, of those in the more humble spheres of life—I mean the people."

said, he had to present a petition from the hon. W. Ogilvie, against the late return of the Lord Advocate (the hon. Francis Jeffrey), as Representative of the burghs of Forfar, Cupar, &c. The hon. Baronet explained the reason why this petition had not been presented within the regular time appointed by the Standing Orders of the House, which require that the presentation of election petitions should take place either on the first day of the Session, or within fourteen days after the return. In this case it appeared that compliance with the usual regulations was impossible, as the return had been made on the 2nd of January, and the House, consequently, was not sitting at the expiration of the fourteen days so prescribed, or during any part of them. Under such circumstances, the natural course would have been, to present the petition on the 3rd of February. The petition was accordingly despatched from Edinburgh on the 1st for that purpose, but owing to a snow-storm in the neighbourhood of Berwick-upon-Tweed, both the mail and the messenger were prevented from arriving before the 5th inst. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, that the petition might be permitted to be laid on the Table, in consideration of the peculiar nature of this particular case, notwithstanding the ordinary forms of the House, which would otherwise have rejected it.

said, he had no objection, under all circumstances, to receive the present petition; but the expediency of a strict general adherence to the Standing Orders of the House ought at the same time not to be forgotten. He thought it would be right for the hon. Member to establish his case by evidence at the bar. [Evidence was then given at the bar by two witnesses, of the names of Barnaby and Webster, as to the truth of the allegations of the petition. The former witness deposed, that he himself was on his way to London with the petition, but was unable to proceed even so far as Berwick, owing to the drifting of the snow, and had to forward it by the guard to the next post town.]

contended, that it would be contrary to all precedent to receive the petition. There was a case in point, with respect to the impediment of a snow-fall being a sufficient pretext to justify the House's departing from its rule, which forbade the reception of a petition not forwarded within fourteen days from the date of the return. The case he alluded to occurred in 1781; it was the Seaford case, and the House decided against the petition being received. The House could not be too strict in enforcing its Standing Orders rigidly, otherwise the door would be thrown open to most anomalous precedents. Let them, if they so thought it expedient, enlarge the period within which petitions might be received, but not depart hastily from their fixed regulations.

said, that he agreed with his right hon. friend, that the House could not be too slow in admitting exceptions to their general rules; but still the present petition was one which it might, without inconvenience, he thought, receive, though the letter of the Standing Order of the House had not been strictly complied with. It appeared to him so highly improbable that their then receiving that petition could, under all the circumstances of the case, operate as an inconvenient precedent, that he would not enforce too strictly the Standing Order against it.

said, that there was a difference between this case and the one quoted by the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, inasmuch as in that (the Seaford) case all due diligence was not used.

presented a Petition from Messrs. Childs, Printers, at Bungay, in Suffolk, praying that the Patent which giants to certain bodies the privilege of Printing Statutes, Acts of Parliament, Bibles, Testaments, Books of Common Prayer, and all other Books authorized to be used in Churches, and which is now on the point of expiring, may not be created anew, and extended for a further period of time. The hon. Member then moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature and extent of the duties of the King's Printers, in England, Scotland, and Ireland; by what authority their Patents are held; how far they have been beneficial to the country; and how far the public interests are likely to be promoted by them, should it be thought expedient to continue them." He likewise moved, that the evidence taken before the Committee should be reported from time to time to the House.

said, that he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Motion. He merely rose to state, that a Commission had already been appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the expense occasioned by printing papers for both Houses of Parliament. His noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had intended to have referred this very subject to the consideration of that Commission. He was happy to state, that the subject of Stationery supplied to that House had also come under the consideration of the Treasury, and a plan had been suggested by which one-fifth of the present expense incurred on that head would, he believed, be spared. He assured his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that he should be most happy to co-operate with him on this subject.

hoped, that measures for the abolition of the office of King's Printer would not be taken without due examination. It should be recollected, that he was responsible for the verbal accuracy of all Bills and Acts of Parliament.

said, the patent of the King's printer was, in fact, the abridgement of a monopoly; for if it were abolished the sole right of printing Acts of Parliament and Bibles; would vest in the two Universities. He was sorry that the indisposition of the hon. Member [Mr. Hume was hoarse, and could not speak] had prevented him from going into the subject, as he, Mr. Goulburn, was prepared to defend the conduct of his Majesty's late Ministers.

was understood to say, that two notices of his stood for discussion that evening. One of them related to a Motion for referring to a Select Committee the papers and accounts relating to Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. As those papers were not yet ready to be laid on the Table, he should postpone his Motion regarding them till the 15th instant. His other Motion was connected with the papers and accounts relating to the water communications in Canada, along the Rideau and Granville canals. The noble Lord stated, that the original estimate for the latter was 116,000l., and for the former 169,000l., which were to include the whole expense. In 1828, it was found out that the Rideau canal could not be completed for less than 558,000l., nor the Granville canal for less than 176,580l., making the estimates for the two, in 1828, 734,000l. That sum astonished the House of Com- mons, and the vote was opposed; but since then a fresh estimate had been received from Canada, making the expense of the Rideau canal 693,000l., and of the Granville canal 250,000l., and making a total of 943,000l. instead of 734,000l., at which the etimate had been calculated in 1828. He believed that these water communications were valuable, not only for the internal trade, but also for the military defence of the country. We had already expended on these works 572,000l. It was hard to give up so large an expense as we had already incurred; yet, when it was recollected that this was little more than one-half the expense which was to be incurred, and that there was still more than 400,000l. to be provided for, and he could not pledge himself that even the present enormous estimate would not be exceeded, it was matter for consideration, whether we should not rather abandon these works than embark in fresh expense. He should, therefore, move to refer these papers to a Select Committee.

said, that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex and himself had objected to the votes for the Rideau canal when they were first submitted to Parliament, on the ground that they were works commenced without the sanction or authority of Parliament. He thought that Ministers had taken the only proper course that was open to them, by determining to refer the papers relative to this canal to a Select Committee. If there were any trade ever carried on along this canal, it would be a forced trade; and if so, it would be a loss to the mother-country. He did not mean to assert that the colony would not receive benefit from the formation of this canal; but the benefit which it would receive would be a loss to the parent State. He was quite certain, that if 250,000l. were expended every year on the roads in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, a greater national benefit would be conferred on the country than any which could ever accrue from the formation of this expensive canal in Canada.

said, that seven years ago the propriety of forming this canal had been considered in a Committee above-stairs, and at that time he had opposed the formation of it with all the arguments in his power. He thought at that time, that the estimates of the expense were fallacious, and he had since been confirmed in that opinion by the experience of facts. When this matter came under the consideration of the Finance Committee, he expressed an opinion, which he repeated now, that it would be better to sacrifice all the money which had been already expended, than to proceed in involving the country in still greater expenses at a time of general distress like the present.

said, that he had voted for the original grant to make these canals, and that he was not prepared to shrink from the responsibility attached to it. The principle on which that grant was made, was a wise and statesman-like principle. He was glad that these papers were to be submitted to the consideration of a Select Committee, for he was sure that nothing but good could proceed from such a course. It was quite consistent in the hon. member for Bridport to object to the grant, because he wished to get rid of colonies altogether; but that not being his wish, he had as consistently, he hoped, supported it. He agreed with his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the colony should assist the mother-country in the completion of these works. The mother-country had, undoubtedly, a great claim upon Canada, and he believed that the colony would endeavour to take its share of the burthen. Indeed he, for one, should be greatly disappointed if such were not the case.

supported the Motion, but felt called upon to condemn the practice of lavishing the public money on works without the consent and approbation of Parliament. He hoped that the hon. Member, who on a former night had so strenuously defended the privileges of that House, would on the present occasion come forward to assert the impropriety of any public works being erected without its previous consent. He believed that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had behaved with the most perfect candour when he laid his statement on this subject before the Finance Committee; and he was quite certain that at that time the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that 400,000l. more than his estimate would be wanted for the completion of these works.

said, that the hon. Gentleman opposite had only done him justice in saying, that when he (Mr. Goulburn) had made his statement before the Finance Committee, he had no notion that so large a sum would be required. It would be unnecessary for him to enter into any de- tails on this subject now, because the Committee would be better able to investigate the grounds of the enormous excess over the sum originally proposed. The motives which had induced the hon. member for Taunton to express a wish that the work would not be abandoned, were precisely the motives which had produced the original grant. He believed there would be no backwardness on the part of the Canadian legislature to assist the work, and certainly the colonists themselves had already displayed that disposition.

said, that as he had understood the noble Lord, the Committee were to report their opinion as to whether the advantage of the works, if completed, would compensate for the expense of completing them. He wished, however, to observe, that the opinions of military men must be constituent elements of a calculation respecting the advantages of the works; and, although the Committee would have to report facts as well as its opinion, yet that its opinion must obviously be formed principally upon grounds which it might be dangerous to publish.

said, he was desirous to give the Committee every possible information.

said, that he had been misunderstood, and had never expressed a wish to get rid of all our colonies. What he had objected to was, taxing the people of this country for the purpose of extending a territorial empire which could not be maintained.

was glad to find that he had mistaken the sense of the hon. Member's observations, in which light he had deprecated them. He thought, that the subject of the colonial policy of Canada ought to be made one of formal discussion.

protested against the practice of debating a subject of so much importance as the principle of our colonial policy on an occasion like the present. If any Gentleman thought that policy bad,— and much more, if any Gentleman thought that we ought to abandon our colonies,— let specific motions to that effect be brought forward. In his opinion, the abandonment of the Canadas was quite out of the question. They had ever been useful to the mother-country, and had amply repaid the protection and support received, by diverting, in return, the approach of war from England, and serving as a field whereon to fight our battles.

said, that be had always understood the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), and the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume), to express a wish, that all our colonies which cost us any thing might be got rid of; and, like the hon. member for Taunton, he was glad to be undeceived by the explanation just given by the former hon. Member.

had always been of opinion, that some of our colonies ought to be got rid of. Such were the Ionian Islands, which he should be glad to see given to Greece. The colonies now in question were not of this character. He thought them very valuable, and though he cordially approved of the present Motion, yet he could not help recollecting that the money had not been altogether thrown away, since it had given employment to so many emigrant labourers from this country. It must not, however, be supposed that the Committee was appointed to save us the 400,000l. or 500,000l.; for that money he was afraid, and a considerable sum besides, had already been expended.

said that, concurring entirely as he did in the motion of the noble Lord, he would not detain the House with many observations now, though he thought it would not become him to preserve silence altogether upon the subject. He took it for granted that it was not intended to abandon the colonies, and that the object in appointing the Committee was principally an economical one. He agreed that a Committee would be the best place for investigating that subject. Allow him, however, to observe, that if it were not intended to abandon the colonies, the completion of the canal was highly important in a military point of view; for he was of opinion, that without it we could not, in time of war, keep up a communication between Lake Ontario and Montreal.

thought, that the noble Lord had now taken the only proper course that had been taken throughout the affair. The whole subject ought to have been brought before the House in the first instance; but they had been lured into the first vote, and then, on every subsequent vote, the answer to those who opposed the grants was—"You have begun the works, and you must go on with them." The House, however, had been more to blame in this than the Government.

said, that estimates on a subject like this were a farce, as must be evident from the extra money that had already been expended. The enormous sums that had been laid out on this and on similar works, would, he was sure, have been much more advantageously employed at home. He understood that no less than 1,000,000l. had been expended on fortifications, and he trusted that the noble Lord would have this part of the subject thoroughly investigated.

did not know how much had been expended upon fortifications, but he had no hesitation in saying, that he thought it highly desirable the whole subject should be looked into by a Committee.

said, that he had been, on a late occasion taunted with having said things out of doors which he had not repeated in that House. Now he had always, out of doors, expressed it to be his opinion, that no colony ought to be retained by this country which could not keep itself. Perhaps he had spoken upon this subject without that degree of information which was necessary to form a correct opinion upon it; and if the opinion was incorrect, he should be glad to be better instructed. However, while the people of this country were suffering so dreadfully, he must protest against their being taxed to support the colonies. The hon. member for Callington had talked about the number of emigrant labourers which had been supported by these works; but did not the hon. Member think it would have been more humane, and more advantageous to the country, to have employed those labourers at home in draining the Irish bogs? The only reason for keeping the Canadas, and a great many other colonies, was patronage —patronage—patronage. He was glad, however, to hear from the noble Lord, that he was of opinion that the system ought to be put an end to.

rose to move, pursuant to notice, for "a Return of a Copy of the Regulations in his Majesty's Gaol of Fisherton, in the County of Wilts, stating whether the practice has been for Criminal Prisoners to see their Attornies in private or not, and whether a paper of the case of a person named Lush, drawn up by the Prisoner, was, or was not, in the hands of the Gaoler." It would be remembered, he said, that on a former evening, when he moved for an Address to the Crown, he mentioned, that it. was the practice in the county gaol of Wilts not to permit prisoners to communicate with their attornies, except in the presence of the gaoler or turnkey, and he particularly mentioned the case of a person named Lush, a prisoner in this gaol, who had drawn up a statement to submit to his attorney, which statement was taken from him by the gaoler's clerk, and placed in the hands of the gaoler, it having been stated that every written document, coming from a prisoner, should be read, in the first instance, by the gaoler. When he stated these facts on a former evening, he had assumed, as a possible case, that a prisoner might be entrapped into writing a statement of his defence, which should be afterwards submitted to the prosecutor for the Crown, and used for the conviction of the prisoner. The Under Secretary of State (Mr. G. Lamb) did not contradict the facts as stated by him (Mr. Hunt), but he seemed to throw a doubt on the statement; and the hon. and learned Attorney General came forward in that manly and conscientious way in which he always acted, and said, that as he knew nothing of the facts, he could not contradict the statement; but he could not suppose that any thing of the kind had occurred, for that if such a practice prevailed, he had no doubt any attorney who was interfered with in such a way would resist the interference, and make his complaint in the proper quarter. Now, as he (Mr. Hunt) would never come forward with any statement which he should not be able to prove, he would move for certain returns, not only to prove that the practice of which be had complained did really exist as he had stated, but also for the purpose of setting himself right with that House, and more particularly with the hon. and learned Attorney-General. Under the right hon. member for Tamworth's (Sir Robert Peel) Bill, prisons were subject to certain regulations, and visiting Magistrates were authorized to establish others, which were very often extremely numerous. The precise object of his motion was, not only to ascertain the rules which existed at the period referred to in the county gaol of Wilts, but also the practice as it appeared in the individual case of the prisoner Lush. As was his duty, he waited on the under Secretary that morning, for the purpose of explaining the nature of the return he intended to move for; and was somewhat surprised to learn that, though there was no objection to producing the printed rules and regulations, there was some objection to the latter part of the motion. If no such practice as he complain-ed of existed, nothing could be easier than to make a return to that effect; and, if such a practice did prevail, his Majesty's Government ought to be anxious to rescue the administration of justice from such a reproach. There was no lawyer in that House who could stand up and say that this was consistent with any legal or equitable principle, that the conferences of a prisoner with his counsel should be known to others. If the motion was not granted, he should consider it his duty to obtain the evidence of the attornies practising in Salisbury, to prove that what had occurred in the case of Lush had always been the practice in that gaol. His statement was founded on the facts furnished to him by the attorney concerned in the particular case alluded to. If the return was granted, after what had taken place, he should not found any motion on it, as he was satisfied the practice would be put an end to, as his Majesty's Government must concur with him that it was illegal and unjust. He could not sit down without thanking the hon. and learned Attorney General for defending him the other night against the charge made against him of exhibiting a kind of spurious humanity. He must also briefly refer to what had taken place in the House in the early part of the evening. He was sorry to say, that it was the prevalent opinion out of doors, that the sufferings of the people were treated in that House with coolness and indifference. Now, only that he was bound to believe the contrary, he should have been inclined to come to the same conclusion, in consequence of what had passed that evening. When the hon. member for Middlesex told the House that he was in much pain and suffering from a cold, the statement was met by a laugh. If this had happened in any other assembly, he should have thought they were laughing at the sufferings of the people; but he supposed (because he was bound to do so) that in that House it was a matter of course, and meant no such thing. As he was on this subject, he must say, that the way in which petitions were received was calculated to make a person believe that they were disregarded—[cries of "No, no".] He contended that such must be the impression of every one who saw the manner in which petitions were received. He had that day presented petitions, in which the parties petitioning eloquently described their sufferings; and those sufferings, he might be permitted to say, in any other assembly would have caused tears to flow. In that House, however, the recital of those sufferings appeared to be received with indifference, if not neglect. He wished the people of England to know how their affairs were managed in that House; and he wished their petitions could receive more attention; because, that they were not listened to was the only way in which he could account for the indifference with which they were treated. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the return.

said, that after he had stated the information which was in his possession, he was sure that the hon. member for Preston would see the propriety of not persevering in this Motion. In consequence of a petition which that hon. Member had presented to the Home Office, stating that a confession of the prisoner Lush had been inspected by the gaoler at Salisbury, and that there was a suspicion that it had been used against him on his trial, an investigation into the matter had been instituted on the part of the Magistrates, and he (Mr. Lamb) had now in his possession a most satisfactory letter as to the result of that investigation, from one of the Magistrates, a noble Lord, who was no enemy to liberty, or to the rights of the people,—he alluded to the Earl of Radnor. There was certainly a regulation in Fisherton gaol that no written document should go forth from any of the prisoners without being first inspected by the gaoler; there was no exception made for the confession of a prisoner, as it was supposed that if there were, the regulation could be easily evaded. It was true that an attorney came to the gaol to take instructions from the prisoner Lush, and that he was accompanied by one of the turnkeys, but the statement in question was not drawn up in the presence of the turnkey, for it had been previously drawn up by one of Lush's fellow-prisoners. It was delivered to an attorney, of the name of Seymour, he believed, in the presence of the turnkey, and the attorney, knowing the practice of the gaol, said it must be delivered in the first instance to the gaoler. The turnkey brought it to the gaoler, who, under such circumstances, merely cast his eye over it to satisfy himself that it was a bona fide confession, and then gave it to the turnkey, who returned it in a few minutes to the attorney. As to any use having been made of it, it was, in fact, never in any way used at the prosecution of this man. The gentleman who was employed by the Crown to get up the cases, stated, that he had never seen or heard of such a paper. There was no use, therefore, made of it, and he believed that the gaoler knew nothing whatever of its contents. There was no rule amongst the regulations of Fisherton gaol to prevent the prisoners from communicating with their professional advisers, but he should certainly infer from the circumstances which had taken place in this instance, that the practice was, that one of the turnkeys should be present on such occasions; and he would undoubtedly admit that it was a wrong practice. In many well-regulated gaols—and he would instance that of Lincoln as one—the rule was, that the prisoners should be allowed to communicate with their confidential professional advisers, without having the turnkeys present. He hoped that it would now go forth as an acknowledged truth that the prisoners, in all the gaols throughout the country, had a right to such private access on the part of their counsel. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press his Motion.

was surprised to learn that such regulations could exist in any gaol in the kingdom. It was in violation of a great legal principle. If an attorney was summoned on a trial, he might refuse, and the Court would refuse to receive in evidence what the prisoner had communicated to him professionally. What protection, however, had the prisoner in this privilege of his attorney, if a third person, not so privileged, was present when he made his confidential communications? Such an abuse called loudly for reform; and every lawyer in that House was bound to stand up and protest against it.

entirely coincided with the last speaker. He had no doubt that the practice in this instance had arisen from accident; that it was not intended by the Magistrates, but was owing to a mistake of the rule of the gaol, and he hoped, after what had now taken place, that it would be corrected.

acknowledged that the adoption of such a practice was a great abuse. At the same time, after the unanimous expression of opinion which had taken place, he was sure the abuse would not be of long continuance, either in Wiltshire or elsewhere. As to the case of Lush, he was satisfied that no information obtained from him in the manner described had been used against him. Every Gentleman concerned for the Crown, on the late prosecutions, would have known the impropriety of such a proceeding. If a conviction had taken place under such circumstances, he did not hesitate to say, that it ought to be got rid of; but though he was not present at the trial, from his knowledge of those concerned in conducting those cases, he was convinced that no advantage was taken of any confession made by the prisoner.

believed, that the practice complained of prevailed nearly in every gaol in the country. In the great metropolitan prisons, a room was allotted for the prisoners to confer, in private, with their professional advisers, or with any persons who could aid them in their defence. The greatest facilities were afforded for this purpose in the great metropolitan gaols, but it was otherwise in the country wherever he had been.

could not allow the metropolitan gaols to stand as a splendid exception. In a gaol with which he was particularly well acquainted, from being a visiting Magistrate, and in several other gaols throughout the country, the most unrestricted private communication was allowed between prisoners and their attorneys.

said, he could name several county gaols which he had visited in the country, and where the practice spoken of existed.

begged to differ from the worthy Alderman. As far as his experience went, he could contradict the worthy Alderman's statement; and though the worthy Alderman had perambulated the country, and though he might be one—

"Qui mores hominum multorum vidit et urbes,"

still against such an authority, he (Sir C. Wetherell) would contend that the general practice in the gaols in England was to allow private and confidential access to the counsel employed by the prisoners. The worthy Alderman, therefore, must permit him (Sir C. Wetherell) to say, that he had not picked up very accurate information in the course of his travels when he asserted the contrary.

thought, that all written, as well as oral communications of prisoners with their counsel, should be private; and when such communications passed between attornies and criminals, they ought to be held sacred.

quite concurred in the opinion, that when an attorney was admitted to a prisoner, the papers or documents confided to him should be as sacred as any private communications could be. Perhaps, however, the rule as to written communications was considered as a necessary precaution, to prevent other writings from making their way out of the gaol.

said, that no such practice as that which had been so justly condemned by the House existed in Somersetshire.

rose to reply. The hon. Member said, that no men knew less of what passed in gaols than visiting Magistrates, and for very obvious reasons. He did not mean to accuse the Magistrates in the present case of acting improperly, for Lord Radnor, for instance, was an amiable and excellent man, and would not sanction such a practice as that alluded to; but what he complained of was, that the rules and regulations of the gaol gave the gaolers a license to do such things as these. The late Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he (Mr. Hunt) was confined in a gaol, had brought in a bill, by which, no regulations could become the law of a gaol, unless they were approved of by a full Bench of Magistrates, and afterwards confirmed by the Judge of Assize. The member for Somerset knew nothing of the gaol, alluded to, for not a man rode into the town without a try being raised of, "Here comes a visiting Magistrate," and immediately the interior of the gaol was made to put on a different appearance. When he (Mr. Hunt) was in gaol, he was precluded from seeing his attorney upon professional business; he was prevented from seeing his family and children when he was ill, and from having his doctor to perform an operation upon his eye, in a case of ophthalmia, under which he was labouring. In consequence, however, of the bill brought in by the late Secretary of State, such things could not be done now, unless there was a great neglect of duty on the part of the local authorities. The hon. member for Wiltshire had said, that he was a vigilant Magistrate, and if such things had passed in a gaol within his district, surely they might pass in other gaols. The information which the Secretary of State got was the very worst in the world. Lord Radnor knew nothing of the facts, and the paper alluded to had been three days in the hands of the gaoler before it was transmitted. The Secretary of State had been grossly imposed upon, and he hoped that visiting Magistrates would take a lesson from this. He had had the honour of being confined for two years in gaols, and he knew what Magistrates were very little aware of. Under the circumstances of the case, however, he should not press the matter further, and would withdraw his Motion.

begged to remind the hon. member for Preston, that he had never said that Lord Radnor was a visiting Magistrate; all he had said was, that upon this occasion his Lordship had undertaken to visit the gaol, and to investigate the case.

seconded the Motion, and pronounced a warm eulogium upon the talent and good feeling manifested by the hon. and learned Recorder, observing, that he would, if removed from either, be a loss to the Bench or the House. He assured the hon. Member, that, in the observations which he made respecting the petition in which the hon. and learned Gentleman was complained of, he was not influenced by any feeling of hostility. He did not mean to throw any imputation upon the hon. Gentleman. But, under the circumstances, no other course was left him but to comply with the request of those who had called on him to present their petition. He was confident that the hon. the Recorder and the House would acquit him of all unkindly feeling. The petition was, as the hon. Gentleman had said, that of John Andrew Macdonnell; but it bore the signature of fifty other persons. Of Macdonnell himself he knew nothing. But he knew that person to belong to one of the first families in Ire-land. Having received from him a letter, stating that he was in a gaol in Dublin, suffering confinement for a crime of which he knew himself to be innocent, demanding a trial, and unable to obtain one—and stating, that others were similarly circumstanced—he felt himself bound to lay the case before the House. The Recorder, indeed, had now informed him of one fact, of which, until then, he had not heard, that the petition had fourteen fictitious signatures. He was sure that it was unnecessary for him to inform the House that he was unaware of such a deception having been practised. He disclaimed an intention to cast imputations upon the Recorder, or to act towards him with any want of courtesy. On the contrary, when the petitioner complained that he could not obtain a trial in consequence of the hon. Member being absent from his duties in Dublin, to attend to his duties in that House, he had communicated to the Recorder his having that petition to present. On his way to the Mouse, however, he had met with a gentleman, one of the hon. member for Dublin's constituents, who told him, that he had requested the hon. Member to remain in London, as business was to come before the House in which he (the constituent) was interested. But the Recorder was called away from his duties in Parliament to his duties in Dublin, and could not remain here to attend to the parliamentary interests of those whom he represented. On hearing that circumstance, he had felt it his duty to present the petition. He was glad that he had so done his duty. If he had not done so, the House would not have been gratified with the display of talent which the hon. member for Dublin had that night exhibited. That hon. Gentleman had said, that if before presenting the petition he had looked into it, he would never have presented it; but he did not think that the phraseology of the petitions sent to the House was to influence Parliament in forming a judgment upon their merits. He was sure that if petitions wore to be rejected on account of the inelegance or inaccuracy of the language, they who stood in need of protection could never lay their complaints before the House—if their petitions were even written by some Members of Parliament themselves. But the same carefulness of style was not to be expected from men incarcerated in a gaol, as from a gentleman reclining at his case upon a sofa. The petition, however, came from a person not only in prison, but. innocently imprisoned—knowing that his release would be the result of his trial, and not only unable to put himself upon his trial, but even to ascertain when he was to be tried. The gaoler could give him no information. No one could tell him, because the Recorder was absent. Now, what was to be done with unhappy prisoners, conscious of their innocence, and kept back from trial (maniacs though they might be) he did not know, though the hon. Member, the Recorder, might. What, he would ask, was the fate of this man, Macdonnell, whom the hon. and learned Gentleman called a maniac? How was he disposed of? Was he guilty or innocent? The hon. and learned Gentleman had given no information to the House upon those points. He, however, would tell the House, that the prisoner was arraigned; he was put upon his defence, and triumphantly acquitted; and yet the Recorder would ask him why he presented the petition of a maniac? If he was a maniac, he was, at all events, an innocent one. Was it because he was badly dressed, or because he was not dressed precisely according to the hon. Member's own notions of fashion, that the hon. Member called him a maniac—or was it because he had no waistcoat? If he had not, that was the greater reason why he should not be kept unjustly in prison. It might be true that he had neither waistcoat nor cravat; but it did not follow that he was a maniac. All he knew of him was, that he was descended from an illustrious family, and that it was the fashion to call every Irishman who had anything to complain of, a maniac. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked of the imaginary sufferings of the petitioners; but he would ask, if it was an imaginary suffering to be in a cold prison without a waistcoat or cravat? The hon. and learned Gentleman might think him mad because he complained of this, and might have said to the jury, "Look at him, look at the madman; he is as mad as a March hare; he is charged with an assault. He had the impudence to send over a petition to the House of Commons about my not being here to try the prisoners, which is alone a proof that he is guilty."—The jury, however, said, "No. It is true he is not clad so well as you are, Mr. Recorder, nor has a three-tailed wig, nor 500la-year in one place and l,600l a-year in another; but still we do think him not guilty;" and they accordingly acquitted him. He did not think the hon. Member was justified in using such language; nor did he think that the privilege of Parliament extended so far as to entitle a Member to abuse a person who was not in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had entered into a vindication of the chaplain and the surgeon of the gaol, but it was not against them that he had complained, but against the Recorder. He did not know that Macdonnell was a Catholic, nor did he think that he ought to have inquired, for a man's religion should be left between himself and his God. He thought that Macdonnell was a Protestant, in which idea he was confirmed by the fact of his wishing to receive the sacrament. If he demanded such comfort, the rev. Clergyman should have attended to him; and if he were a Catholic, he should have attended the more readily, in order to rescue him from the delusion under which he laboured. He had heard, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he canvassed for the office of Recorder, had declared, that he would give three days in the week to the performance of the duties of the office; which attention was the more necessary, owing to the arrears of business which had been left by his predecessor, and which, he had himself stated, would take two years to clear off. According to the constitution of the country, he understood that every Member of that House was supposed to be always in his place. How, then, could the hon. Member attend to his duties there and in Dublin also? How many persons were there at that moment walking into the gaol of Newgate, and no one there to try them? The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be there to try them as rapidly as possible, in order that men might not be punished when they were innocent. How many persons were there situated like. Macdonnell, and how were they to get out when the Recorder was in London? The Corporation, whom the Recorder represented, for he must deny that the hon. and learned Gentleman was the Representative of the people of Dublin—that Corporation paid the hon. Gentleman 400l. a year for attending in that House to watch over their interests and the House yearly voted him 1,600l. more for discharging duties in Dublin inconsistent with his duties in Parliament. He had heard much of Reform in England, and of Reform in Scotland, but instead of anything being done for Reform in Ireland, where one of the grossest abuses that existed in the Representation was complained of, the member for Dublin stood up, and called the grievances of Ireland imaginary, and described the aggrieved as maniacs. The hon. member for Dublin said, that he supported the Government; if that was any merit, he would not deny the hon. Gentleman's claim to it. He was sure the hon. the Recorder would support every Administration as well as he supported the last and the present. No doubt, if there were twenty Governments in the next twenty months to come, as opposed in principle as the last and the present, the hon. the Recorder would keep his place on that side of the House. He (O' Gorman Mahon), however, trusted, that if the hon. Gentleman was so determined a friend to Governments, he would give up his office of Recorder, and not yield to Ministers a support which cost the guiltless prisoners so much of unmerited suffering. The Recorder's assertion of his independence was scarcely reconcileable with the fact, that he received 1,600l. a year dependent upon the vote of the House. Of the inconvenience of the Recorder's being a Member of Parliament, he had himself experienced an instance. Having purchased a freehold in Dublin, he was unable to have it registered, because the Recorder was in London. He was, therefore, deprived of the power (to which his freehold entitled him) of voting for an efficient Representative, should the hon. Member be sent back to his constituents.

said, that the simple fact was, that the confinement of which the prisoners complained, was occasioned, not by his absence from Dublin to attend his duties in Parliament, but by the usual adjournment of the Court in which he had the honour to preside. He regretted that the hon. member for Clare had not an opportunity of registering his freehold, but that was not his fault. Had he been then in Dublin, it would not have been in his power to prevent that inconvenience. He could not regulate the discharge of his duties by the wanderings of the hon. member for Clare. With respect to his independence, he had not said that he was independent of his salary, but the salary did not render him dependent on the House, or on the Corporation of Dublin.

said, that if the hon. member for Clare would bring in a bill to prevent persons holding judicial offices in Dublin from taking seats in that House, on the principle of the bill which excluded Irish Masters in Chancery from Parliament, he would support it.

said, that before the Recess he had promised to give every assistance in his power to the amendment of the Game Laws; and he was now ready to redeem that pledge. A noble Marquis (Chandos) had already undertaken to effect some amelioration of those laws; but the views of that noble Lord differed so very much from his views on the subject, that he felt it necessary to propose bringing in a new bill himself. The noble Lord then gave notice, that he should, on Tuesday next, move for leave to bring in a bill for the Amendment of the Game Laws.

thought it better that there should be a declaratory law than a new enactment.

suggested that, as the Bill was likely to give occasion to several questions being put, it would be better that it should be re-committed.