presented a Petition in favour of the grant to the Kildare Street Society, from the town of Glenarns. He took that opportunity to assure the House, that a very strong feeling of dissatisfac- tion pervaded that part of Ireland with which he was connected, at the course which the Government had determined to pursue with regard to this Society. This feeling was general in the province of Ulster. The Protestants ought not to suffer because they were the smaller number; it was most unwise to legislate for one part of a people. He feared that the measures of Government would alienate the industry, wealth, and intelligence of Ireland from this country, to which they had hitherto looked up for countenance and support.

said, that the objects of the Society had failed, and many of its principal Members had seceded, after finding that its system did not work well.

said, that Irish Members would give their support to the Reform Bill, whether the Government made grants to the Kildare Street Society or to the College of Maynooth.

said, that Government had done but tardy justice to the Catholics of Ireland; but, though tardy, he was not surprised that the violent partisans on the other side felt more and more irritated as this justice was evinced.

thought, that what fell from the Catholics in that House looked very like the beginning of a new Catholic ascendancy.

deprecated all allusion to religious opinions in that House, and the continuance of such discussion as that.

presented a Petition from the Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh, being trustees of landed property, purchased by a legacy which had been devised for charitable purposes, complaining that the Reform Bill, by destroying superiorities, which they had hitherto sold, would take away their property. He contended, that superiorities were private property, and ought not to be taken away without compensation. The petitioners also prayed that they might be heard by counsel at the bar, and receive compensation.

supported the prayer of the petition, and deprecated the language which had formerly been used by the Lord Advocate.

blushed for his na- country. To the honour of England, it ought to be stated, that not one demand for compensation had been made by any one of the proprietors of rotten boroughs which had been annihilated by this Bill. He was therefore sorry to find, that it was left for Scotland to ask compensation for the loss of that which she ought never to have had. No property would be taken away by this Bill from these Trustees, for the superiority would still remain unimpaired. The property would remain; but the right of voting attached to it would be taken away.

said, that the hon. and learned member for Stafford was misleading English Members, when he instituted a comparison between the rotten boroughs of England and the superiorities of Scotland. Did he mean to say, that the right of voting attached to a superiority was illegal? Superiorities might be legally sold—would the hon. and learned Gentleman say the same of a rotten borough?

was surprised at the extraordinary language held by the hon. member for Glasgow. In his opinion, the holders of superiorities had no more claim to compensation than the holders of rotten boroughs. He had heard with pleasure the declaration of the Lord Advocate, that he intended by his bill to destroy every rag and tatter of the abominable system of Scotch elections.

said, that the burgage tenures of England were quite as much legal property as the superiorities of Scotland, and yet the holders of burgage tenures had never put forth any claim to compensation, because much as they disapproved of the English Reform Bill, they felt that private advantage ought to give way to the public good. He was much surprised to hear so stanch a Reformer as the hon. member for Glasgow plead for compensation for the holders of Scotch superiorities. He (Sir E. Sugden) would never consent to give to the holders of Scotch superiorities that which had not even been asked for by the English holders of burgage tenures.

contended, that the petitioners would lose no property by this Bill. They could not vote themselves on this superiority, but they could sell the right of voting on it to others; and it was only right that they should be deprived of that pecuniary advantage which others obtained from political jobbing.

in moving that this petition be referred to the Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill, took occasion to observe, that the petitioners, in bringing forward this petition, were influenced by public and not by private and selfish considerations.

begged to remind the hon. and learned member for Stafford, that though the borough of Old Sarum might be legally sold, the right of voting for members for Old Sarum could not be legally sold. Now, superiorities were sold, and sold daily by auction, in pursuance of processes issuing out of the Courts of Law in Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, knew nothing about the right of voting in Scotland, however well he might be acquainted with the right of voting in Stafford.

The right of voting for Old Sarum is in the burgage tenures of Old Sarum; and a burgage tenure may be sold by auction quite as legally as a Scotch superiority.

said, if any jobbing had taken place it was on the part of his Majesty's Ministers and the Lord Advocate in the Reform Bill. Ministers had demolished the English Constitution, they had plundered the English people, and now they were going to do the same thing with the people of Scotland. By the Scotch Bill, the freeholders of that country would be deprived of more than 2,000,000l. sterling, on account of losing the superiorities attached to the freeholds. The subject was one of vast importance, and he wished it to meet with the serious attention of the House. He was surprised to hear the assertion of the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes (Sir E. B. Sugden) as to the Scotch superiorities, considering the manner in which he had been returned for Weymouth. He trusted that the Legislature would not inflict upon Scotland the Reform Bill now promulgated. The people of that country, he could assure the House, did not desire it—they did not wish for Reform. It would be a great curse to that country, which had flourished with the present system, and was now proceeding prosperously, to have the tenantry made politicians. Instead of attending to their rural occupations, cheerfully and contented, as was the case at present, they would lose their valuable time in going to elections, and engaging in political matters. He would, however, endeavour to prevent the evils of that description from being introduced among his tenantry, for he would not have one voter under the Bill if possible. He would let leases—supposing seven years was the qualification—for six years and eleven months; and his tenants who had a house rented at a certain sum, should have them a few shillings lower—an arrangement, he apprehended, to which they could have no objection. He begged to tell the learned Lord, that he would set this Bill at defiance. The excitement about Reform had subsided, and he begged to recommend the learned Lord to adopt some measures before another election to prevent a repetition of the scenes which had so disgraced the country at the last.

assured the last speaker that he had not made any attack upon the Scotch superiorities: he had only compared them to the burgage tenures of England. As to the burgage tenures of Weymouth, he knew not what they had to do with the matter now under debate. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that there were a great many freeholders in Weymouth, holders of large property, who were unconnected with burgage tenures.

was of opinion, that those who had purchased superiorities for the purpose of exercising the elective franchise were entitled to compensation. An action would lie for the recovery of the purchase money of a superiority; and from that it was obvious they were as much property as any thing else. He also was of opinion that the English boroughs which were to be disfranchised were entitled to compensation; there was a precedent for it in the 1,200,000l. given to the proprietors of Irish boroughs abolished at the Union. That the borough proprietors of England had not demanded that compensation to which they were of right entitled, was owing to the system of terrorism which had prevailed ever since this Bill was introduced. The petitioners in this case, instead of asking too much, had asked for much less than they had a right to claim.

rose to move that his Motion, for the Call of the House, be postponed till Monday. He should have contented himself with simply making that Motion, but he understood his Motion was to be opposed. In- dividuals complained; but was he not right to take measures to ensure a full House, when the Irish Reform Bill was to be postponed till October 8th? It was not to be read a second time till after the Scotch Bill was completed. Gentlemen complained of being kept in town by his motion—but for what were they kept in town? To do their duty. The subject was of vital importance to Ireland. The subject was the amendment of the Representation; all other matters were mere details which might be attended to or neglected without any very serious consequences; but correcting the Representation was a vital matter. Even those Gentlemen who were opposed to Reform must desire that the question should now be settled, and that the plan should not again require altering. He, therefore, felt it his duty to use all the constitutional means in his power to secure a full and complete attendance of the House. He did not mean to keep the Order inconveniently suspended over the heads of the Members of the House, and he therefore now gave notice of his intention to postpone the Call until Monday, the 10th of October. At that time he should either enforce the Order, or move that it be discharged, as he might see fit from the nature of the attendance. The uniform neglect with which all business respecting Ireland was treated in that House required such a step on his part on the present occasion; and the more so, as the Irish Members had attended so regularly to secure the success of the English Reform Bill. He moved therefore, that the present Order be now discharged, and that a fresh Order for a Call of the House be issued for next Monday week, the 10th of October.

said, if he wanted a reason for opposing this, it was to be found in the speech of the member for Kerry. Whenever the name of Ireland was mentioned, that Member took an opportunity of speaking to his countrymen, through that House, and complaining that their interests were neglected. He appealed to the House if this was fair and just. No part of the empire received so much of the attention of that House as Ireland. No man in the House spoke so often as the hon. member for Kerry; but he seemed to think that every vestry squabble in that country was a fit subject for the interference of the Imperial Legislature. If the hon. Member's wishes were to be consulted, 365 days of sitting would not be sufficient for the affairs of Ireland itself. He believed that Ireland had more than a fair proportion of the attention of the House; and feeling that there was great inconvenience in this unnecessary suspension of a Call over the heads of the Members, he moved, as an Amendment, that the Order be discharged absolutely. The hon. Member might renew it at some other time if he thought proper.

said, that the cause of the great pressure of Irish business was the long mismanagement which had unhappily been allowed to prevail there, which rendered many legislative changes indispensably necessary to its present quiet and future welfare. Yet, at the moment when a question of paramount importance with respect to that country was coming on, the member for Oakhampton (Sir R. Vyvyan) wished the hon. Member to discharge the Order for a Call, that the Members of the House might be at liberty to go and amuse themselves, and take their pleasure in the country. He hoped the member for Kerry (Mr. O'Connell) would persevere, and not abandon the Order.

would support the motion of the hon. member for Kerry, who was not in fault as to the postponement of this Call, because he could not know that the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill would be postponed, and it was necessary to give full notice, in order to have a full attendance. The hon. Member was, however, most unjust in saying that Irish affairs were not attended to, for every proper attention was given to them. As to the objection that the Scotch Bill came before the Irish Bill, he, as a Scotchman, would have no objection to give the precedence to the Irish Bill.

said, half the time of the House was occupied with Irish affairs. What was the object of the member for Kerry making such imputations as he did, or why not have a Call for Scotland as well as Ireland? He repelled with indignation the attack of the member for Kerry on the Members of that House. That hon. Member seemed to think that no voices should have any weight in that House unless they sat for counties. As to the attack on the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Vyvyan) it came badly from the hon. member for Kerry, who was never yet returned twice for any place—neither was he present at the division on the Scotch Reform Bill the other night. He hoped and trusted the House would not be dragooned by the hon. Member, and concluded by asking, was the British House of Commons to bow to the hon. Member, once for Clare, once for Waterford, and now for Kerry?

rose to support the Motion, and had also a personal reason for it. Having hitherto failed in his endeavours to be heard upon the question of Reform, he was still anxious to do it whilst the attendance of Members justified the attempt, and encouraged him to make it; inasmuch as the view he had taken of the question was different from all who had risen in the Debate. He confidently hoped (notwithstanding the speeches of the right hon. Baronet upon the Bill which had passed the House) to show the necessity for it, in a light to satisfy the minds of all who were open to conviction on the subject. And as, in what he had to say, if allowed the opportunity, he should spare the House the repetition of any argument already urged in the debate, he hoped it would be considered a claim to its indulgence, and an earnest that he would trespass as shortly on its time as the deep importance of the question would allow him.

said, he hoped his hon. friend (Sir R. Vyvyan) would persevere, as the hon. member for Kerry had followed his usual course of throwing imputations upon other hon. Gentlemen. He felt, however, that he did not come under his lash, as he had been constant in his attendance, and intended to continue so, and would be as ready to oppose the Irish, as he had been the English Reform Bill. He did not think there was any occasion for the Call, for he was sure Members would be constant in their attendance, without any other obligation than their duty to their country.

thought, that the hon. member for Kerry, in anticipating opposition to his Motion, had gone rather too far. The experience of many years enabled him to give a decided contradiction to the assertion, that the affairs of Ireland were not attended to in that House. The Catholic Question had been brought forward by Mr. Fox and Sir Francis Burdett, and, on all other occasions, English Members were ever ready to advocate the cause of Ireland. The hon. and learned member for Kerry had not pursued the course most likely to ensure a large attendance by his speech to-night. As to the question before the House, the postponement of the Call was no more than what constantly occurred in the case of election ballots, which hung over from day to day, and the hon. member for Kerry was not to be blamed for the course he had adopted. It was most essential that there should be a full attendance of Members on the question of the Irish Reform Bill, and he should feel most reluctant to oppose any motion with such an object. It was the duty of Members to attend on all occasions; but that did not always occur, and the season of the year might, perhaps, render a Call more necessary. If, however, there was a full attendance, probably the hon. Member might not persevere in his Call.

said, that the most painful thing in any discussion that arose was, that whenever Ireland was mentioned, it led to angry altercation. He wished that the time had arrived when all subjects of the State would feel they had but one country. If there were any part of the empire in which injuries were especially felt by England, Ireland was that part. As to postponing the Irish to the Scotch Bill, where was the offence to Ireland? None, no more than it was an offence to Scotland not to have a Call on the Bill for that country. The hon. Member was not to blame for the postponement of the Call, but five or six postponements made it highly inconvenient. He should vote for the Amendment if it were pressed to a division; at the same time, if it were to be considered an offence to the feelings of the people of Ireland, he should regret such an occurrence.

contended, that the postponements of the Order for the Call of the House were not at all attributable to the hon. and learned member for Kerry, but to the measures of Government. The Irish Members had hitherto given a persevering and undivided attention, and they had a right to expect the same from others when the affairs of that country were under consideration.

said, the Irish Members had been instructed by their constituents to press upon the Imperial Parliament the condition of their country, and the necessity for an additional number of Representatives for that part of the empire. He therefore hoped, whether there was to be a Call of the House or not, the English Members would make a point of attending when the Irish Reform Bill was before the House, that they might fulfil their obligations, and that they would all consider themselves as Members for one common country.

said, he should support the motion of the hon. member for Kerry, for he at all times desired to see a full attendance of Members; but, with regard to the precedence of the Scotch Reform Bill, he should insist upon the right of Scotland to stand next to England, and would not allow any thing that the hon. and learned Member could say, to convince him that Ireland ought to be thrust in between two countries that stood in such direct juxta-position. The Irish, therefore, had no reason to be dissatisfied.

in answer to the member for Preston, stated, that he had choice of three counties at the last election, and decided for his native county of Kerry. This was entirely owing to the opinion which his countrymen entertained of him, for they knew his honesty, they were sensible of his candour, and they were aware that double-dealing was not amongst his habits. He had never, like the member for Preston, spoken on one side and voted on another; for the Ultra-Tories had got the benefit of his speeches, though they lost his votes, and he wished them joy of their bargain. He did not mean to contend, that the postponement of the Irish Bill was a slight to Ireland, but there could be no doubt that it was an injury to her interests, which he considered a still more serious ground of complaint. But when he was told that Englishmen had brought forward the Catholic Question—it was easy to say that Mr. Fox had brought that question forward, but it was convenient to forget other circumstances of Mr. Fox's conduct with respect to it. It was convenient to forget, that two years after his having brought it forward, Mr. Fox entered into office under an agreement with George 3rd, that he was not to bring forward that question while in office. Talk to him of English justice, when he had the fact now before him, that a Motion for a Call of the House, which was never resisted on any former occasion, was now opposed by the hon. Member (Sir R. Vyvyan), when he saw those crowded benches ready to support that opposition, because the question was only an Irish question. Was that justice or fairness? Whatever might be the fate of his Motion, he should feel that he had performed his duty. The country should know how that duty had been performed, and how it was met in that House.

said, that the hon. Member should not have the satisfaction, which he seemed to desire, of making a complaint that his Call was put off. He should have the Call on the day which he had named for it, for he (Sir Richard Vyvyan) would withdraw his opposition to it. The hon. and learned Member, who wished to bear down that House, would find that Englishmen, and Scotchmen, and Irishmen, would not allow themselves to be borne down by him, or be driven from their purpose by any course which that hon. and learned Member might please to take. The hon. and learned Member stated that in which he was not borne out by the fact, when he asserted that Englishmen were negligent of matters which related to Ireland. On all matters of importance, affecting the interest of that country, Englishmen attended with as much desire to benefit that country as the hon. and learned Member, or any others who joined in opinion with him. These kind of charges, therefore, about want of justice on the part of Englishmen, were without foundation.

said, that the charge of the hon. Baronet, the member for Oakhampton, that his hon. friend, the member for Kerry, wished to bear down the House, was most unjust and unfounded [cries of "No, no."] He repeated that it was. The course taken by his hon. and learned friend was perfectly justifiable. He postponed his Call, because the second reading of the Bill to which it applied, was also postponed. What other course could he have adopted? The conduct of the hon. Baronet, and those who supported him on this occasion, was such as he had seldom witnessed—and such as, in his opinion, was unbecoming English gentlemen ["No, no," and "Order."] He would assert that it was—it was at least unbecoming English legislators. He had seen such opposition to his hon. and learned friend as he thought wholly unbecoming hon. Members, sitting as a legislative body. Was it not natural that his hon. friend should resent such con- duct, and speak of it in the manner it deserved? If hon. Members wished to be treated as English gentlemen, let them behave as English gentlemen ["Order."]

It must be obvious to the hon. Member himself, that such an imputation as his language conveyed was quite out of order.

repeated, that the conduct of several hon. Members to his hon. and learned friend (the member for Kerry) was altogether indecent and unbecoming them as legislators. Such opposition was most unfair, and his hon. friend was justified in complaining of it as he had done.

wished to ask the hon. member for Middlesex, whether he accused him of acting in a manner unbecoming an English gentleman.

spoke of the hon. Baronet's conduct as a legislator ["No, no."] He believed he had used the words "English gentleman," but he did not mean it as personally offensive, for he had no wish to hurt the feelings of any man, but he had good reason to complain of the conduct of several hon. Members to his hon. and learned friend, who was perfectly right in the course he had adopted. He had a right to defer his motion for a Call of the House, as the business to which it referred was also postponed. He was perfectly right to take the opportunity of speaking out the wishes of his countrymen. It was what they expected of him. He (Mr. Hume) should be extremely sorry to find that Irishmen should have reason to complain, that a different measure of justice was dealt out to them from that which had been dealt out to other parts of the United Kingdom. If any such impression existed in the mind of his hon. and learned friend, he was right to seek the opportunity of stating what were his opinions, and those of his countrymen, as to parts of the Bill, in as large an assembly of the Members of the House as possible; and, therefore, he did right to move the Call of the House, in which he hoped he would persevere.

wished to correct a mistake into which the hon. and learned member for Kerry had fallen with respect to Mr. Fox. The hon. and learned Member stated, that Mr. Fox had taken office under a pledge or agreement with George 3rd that he would not bring on the Catholic Question during his Administration. Now this was not the fact. On the con- trary, it was well known that Mr. Fox and his friends went out of office in 1807, because they found they could not carry the Catholic Question.

rose to call the attention of the noble Viscount (Palmerston) to a subject connected with the present state of Belgium, and to ask a question concerning it. The House was aware that the affairs of Belgium had now arrived at that state at which they might congratulate his Majesty's Government on having obtained that which he had no doubt they would obtain by a firm perseverance—on having obtained from those at the head of the government of France a promise that the whole of the French troops should be withdrawn from Belgium. This was, in his opinion, a most important point gained, and he congratulated Ministers upon it. But he had been given to understand, that an arrangement had lately been entered into between the governments of France and Belgium, by which officers of high rank and great reputation in the French armies were to be allowed to enter the Belgian service, and to take the chief command of her armies under the King, and to be placed at the head of the several divisions of the army in different parts of the kingdom. Now it was well known, that the troops of one country, officered by the subjects of another, were, generally speaking, under the control of that country to which the officers belonged. This was the case with the native troops in India, which were all officered by British officers.

rose to order. He would beg to remind the hon. Baronet, that there was no question before the House, and that it certainly was, to say the least of it, an inconvenient course to enter into discussions, as the hon. Baronet was now doing, on putting a question to a member of his Majesty's Government. As there was no question before the House, he would venture to suggest to the hon. Baronet, that any questions he had to put, he ought to put with convenient brevity.

claimed the indulgence of the House, while he put the questions he was about to ask, in that way which appeared to him the best to have his object understood. He repeated, that it must be obvious, that an army so officered as that he had mentioned, must be under the control of that country to which the officers belonged. The question which he wished to put to the noble Lord was, whether it was correct that such an arrangement as he had mentioned had been made between France and Belgium, and whether that arrangement had become the subject of any communications between the governments of France and of this country? Another question which he wished to ask related to the present condition of Greece. He understood that disturbances had recently broken out in several parts of that country, which made its internal condition as unsettled as when the war was carried on there between the Turks and the Greeks. What he wished to know was, whether the three Powers who had taken an active part in settling the affairs of that country, had made any arrangement as to the future government of Greece, or as to who should be placed at the head of its government?

would not then enter into any discussion on a subject which the hon. Baronet had himself voluntarily postponed yesterday. As to the first question which the hon. Baronet had put, he must again throw himself on the indulgence of the House, when he stated, that he ought not to be called upon to answer questions as to the arrangements which an independent sovereign, whom we had acknowledged, might think proper to adopt with respect to his own army, or to the defence of his country. He must, therefore, decline answering the hon. Baronet's first question. As to the second question, respecting the state of Greece, he would admit that accounts had reached this country of the occurrence of some unfortunate events in Greece; but he trusted that they were only temporary derangements, and that by this time they were at an end. The conference of the three Powers was still continued, for the purpose of making arrangements by which the tranquillity of that country might be restored and placed on a permanent basis.

rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice, for the production of any correspondence which took place between Baron Pennefather and the Irish Government on the subject of the conviction and sentence of John Leary, at the late Special Commission at Cork. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that Leary, who was a small farmer, was accused, with three or four others of a conspiracy to murder. He was tried separately, and found guilty and sentenced to death, without any hope being held out of any mitigation of his sentence. On the next day one of the conspirators was tried on the same evidence, but the Jury could not come to an agreement as to the verdict, and were at length discharged without giving any. The two others were afterwards tried, and though the Jury were, he might say, selected by Government, there having been no less than forty-seven Jurors challenged by the Crown before the twelve were sworn, they acquitted them without leaving the box. The prisoner about whom the Jury could not agree was tried at the following assizes and also acquitted. On this Leary was respited, and at length his sentence was commuted to transportation for life, though the Judge before whom he was tried had made two or three communications to Government on his behalf. Now it appeared to him that this prisoner's case was extremely hard. His alleged fellow conspirators were all acquitted by the breaking down of the chief witness against them. Had that event taken place on the trial of Leary, he also would have been acquitted. Or had he had the good luck to be tried second or third, he would now be at home with his family instead of being under sentence of transportation for life and sent to New South Wales. What he contended was, that if the Government believed the evidence against the man sufficient, they ought not to have mitigated his sentence; but if they did not believe it, he was entitled to a full acquittal from all punishment. In order to let the House see what was the opinion of the Judge who tried him as to his case, he now moved for the production of the correspondence between that learned Judge and the Irish Government on the subject.

seconded the Motion.

said, that this was not the first time this subject had been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member, though now for a very different object from the former occasion. On that occasion he had moved for the production of the Judge's notes of the trial, which the House refused, on the same ground on which he (Mr. Stanley) now objected to this Motion—that the House was not the proper place for the introduction of such a question, as a sort of Court of Appeal from the decision of a Court of Justice. The breaking down of the chief witness against Leary and the others was not from any contradiction in his testimony, but from the mention of a fact—an important one, he admitted—which he had omitted to state in his original depositions, and which did not come out till after the trial of Leary; but a most respectable Jury afterwards convicted two men on the testimony of the same witness.

said, the men who were thus convicted were not for the same offence of which Leary was accused. They were accused of firing at a Magistrate in his carriage, with intent to kill him, and the fact was put beyond doubt. The charge against Leary was quite a different thing.

objected to the Motion. He thought it would be a dangerous precedent that the communications of Judges respecting the case of prisoners should be submitted to Parliament.

also objected to the Motion, on the same grounds as the noble Lord. The communications of Judges as to any case before them must be founded on their notes, and the same objections would lie to the production of those communications as to the production of the notes themselves.

would have felt satisfied if the Government had undertaken to investigate this affair; but, as the case stood, he must support the Motion.

objected to the disclosure of confidential communications, and contended, that even if the House were to agree to the production of the papers called for, the object of the Mover would not be obtained.

supported the Motion. The objections made to it were altogether of a technical nature.

maintained that the papers moved for were of a public and not a private nature.

concurred in the observations which had been made respecting the general inconvenience of making that House a place of appeal from a Court of Justice; but he thought that a case like the present, in which so many attestations of innocence had been made, formed an exception to the general rule.

supported the Motion.

said, that those hon. Members who spoke in favour of the Motion, proceeded on two assumptions,—that John Leary was innocent, and that no investigation had been made into his case. Now the fact was, that the late Government went into a full investigation of his case, and came to the conclusion that that person was guilty. Whether his own opinion on this matter coincided in every particular with that of the late Government he would not say, but he thought the present mode of proceeding improper. After what had occurred he should certainly again investigate the papers, and if he could come at any additional facts, he should feel it his duty to take the opinions of the law officers of the Crown upon them.

thought, that after the promise made by the Secretary for Ireland to investigate the case, there was no use in pressing the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew his Motion.

said, he had a Petition to present upon this subject, signed by a number of the most respectable persons in Winchester and its neighbourhood. The petitioners were not bound to Mr. Bingham Baring by any political ties, nor were they at all under his influence, many of them having been opposed to him at the last election. The petitioners prayed for an investigation into the circumstances of this case, and they declared their belief that Mr. Bingham Baring was guiltless of the things that had been laid to his charge. The petition had been signed, in the course of forty-eight hours (Sunday intervening) by no less than 360 persons, who expressed their gratitude to the Magistrates, whose decision of conduct had last winter relieved them from the continuance of those dreadful disorders that were at that time committed. They expressed their earnest wish that one of these Magistrates should be cleared from those unfounded calumnies that had been directed against him. People were now ready enough to forget the feelings with which they had once been agitated, and he knew that it was not very flattering to their pride to remind them of those feelings, and of the fears that then perplexed and disturbed them; but he felt it his duty to remind them of these things. He called on them to remember the taunts that were then directed against the magistracy for supineness—to remember that his Majesty had called on them to display energy, decision, and resolution—and that his Majesty's Ministers had appealed to them to perform their duty, and threatened them, that if they did not, they must expect to incur his Majesty's displeasure. The Magistrates had done their duty; they had interfered effectually, but their services were now forgotten. The Judges who went on the Special Commission praised them for their conduct: even prayers were offered up, thanking Providence for the interference which had saved the people at that time. He presented this Petition because he was anxious, with the petitioners, to relieve a sensitive and manly mind from that state of suspense which every honourable man must feel to be most painful.

said, he had to present a Petition with the same prayer, from Tonbridge, in Kent; but declaring a very different opinion on the subject. He would only now observe, that as indulgence was asked to be shown to the conduct of the Magistrates, on account of the excitement that existed in November last, he thought an equal degree of indulgence ought to be shown to the poor people who had engaged in these riots, on account of the severe distress that drove them to commit these offences.

only wished to say, that he seemed to have been guilty of some injustice to the persons whose petition he had presented when he did not have that read, and yet, when he suffered the petition just now presented to be read to the House. He must say, that that reading, and the statement of its contents, were against the understanding that there should be no discussion previous to that upon the appointment of a Committee. He would only add, that the Petition he presented was signed by 246 persons in six hours.

said, he had not entered into the case at all, but merely stated the feelings and wishes of the petitioners.

admitted that it had been agreed there should be no discussion, but there was no agreement that the petitions presented should not be read at length. The petition presented by the hon. member for Middlesex, was said to come from Winchester, but he, (Mr. Baring) having carefully read it over, was at a loss to believe it was sent to that House by the inhabitants of that city, for he asserted most distinctly, that the petitioners committed the most marked mistakes in their statement of the circumstances of the case. They stated in distinct terms, that Mr. Walter Long, a Magistrate, had put the handcuffs on Deacle, when the fact was, that that gentleman not only had not done so, but actually was not present at the time of the transaction, having been otherwise engaged in a part of the county several miles distant from the place where the whole affair took place. He wished the hon. Member had read the Petition before he presented it, if he wished, as he professed to do, that justice should be done to the parties concerned. The petition now presented by the hon. member for Winchester, was signed by all the people of the first respectability in the place—by the merchants, bankers, the clergy, and all the persons connected with the college there, while he would defy any one to say, that there were more than six respectable shopkeepers among those who had signed that presented by the hon. member for Middlesex.

said, he was not bound to answer for the situation in life of the persons who signed the petition: he believed them to be respectable.

said, that if the statement of the hon. member for Thetford were correct, it only showed that the farmers signed the petition in favour of their brother-farmers, while the gentry and clergy signed the one in favour of a Magistrate.

asserted, that the petition now before the House in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, was signed by persons of all classes, and particularly by a number of the yeomen of the county, persons, precisely in the same rank and sphere of life as Mr. Deacle: it could not, therefore, be regarded in the light in which the hon. and gallant Officer was pleased to place it.

saw affixed to the petition which had been just presented, the signatures of clergymen and professional men, many of them his friends, who would not have come forward but at the call of justice. Therefore, he thought that the gallant Colonel had made a most censorious and unjust charge, in drawing the distinction which he had done. He seemed to suppose that the gentlemen who had signed this petition, had done so on account of the rank of Mr. Baring; but he was certain that they would not take such a course with respect to Mr. Baring, or any other person. If the gallant Colonel withdrew the sentiment, there was an end of the matter; if not, the gallant Colonel had made a most unjust and unfeeling observation on persons of the highest honour.

said, all he had asserted was, that as the petitioners, in the present instance, moved in the rank of the accused, they were likely to have a bias in favour of them, while those who signed the other petition, and moved in a different rank, would probably be more favourable to the complaining parties.

asserted, that this was only a repetition of the imputation to which his hon. and learned friend objected. The petition presented on behalf of the Deacles, was well drawn up, by a clever and skilful hand, and calculated to raise a great prejudice against the Magistrate whose conduct was in question. He hoped that in the inquiry upon this subject, the character of the persons concerned, and the character of those who signed the petition, would be borne in mind: they had on one side, a petition signed by persons of the highest worth and respectability, and on the other, a petition containing the representation of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, whose character, he hoped, would be thoroughly examined when the matter came before a Committee. He believed that the whole would be found to be a conspiracy, not so much to inflict injury on the person against whom it professed to aim, but on one of the most liberal, most enlightened, able, and excellent men in that House, or in the country. He believed that through the son, it was intended to inflict a wound upon the father.

wished to ask, to whom the gallant Colonel alluded, when he used the word conspiracy.

said, certainly not to the gallant Colonel, who had stated, and stated truly, that he had no connection with the matter, except so far as his public duty as a Member of that House went. He was not bound to say to whom he did allude, and he did not wish to do so, as the persons to whom he might allude, had not the power to reply to what a Member said in his place in that House.

said, he had no doubt that there was a gross and foul conspiracy,—a conspiracy against an unoffending man and woman. He was of opinion that grosser, fouler, or more unfounded charges, were never made against any man or woman in this country.

with respect to what had been said as to the signatures of the farmers and of gentlemen, wished to observe, that the petition presented by the hon. member for Winchester had been shewn to the farmers assembled there at a dinner on the market-day, and that they signed it without an exception.

said, he should not trouble the House with the pedigree of the petitioners whose names were subscribed to that which he held in his hand. He would just say, by way of illustration, ho would warrant one fact—that, though it was upon the same subject as the last petition, it was signed neither by a Mayor, a Magistrate, nor a Clergyman. It was the petition of the Western Branch of the great Northern Union of the working classes of the metropolis, held at the Bazaar coffee-shop, in Castle-street, Oxford-market. The subscribers designated the petition as that of the petitioners on behalf of the Union.

objected to the petition being received, on account of the irregularity of the manner in which it was signed. It did not appear whether the parties signing formed a portion of the meeting at which the petition was agreed to.

observed, the practice was against the petition being received, because it was not shown, or even stated by the petitioners, that they were part of that body whose representations or complaint they made to the House. They acknowledged they petitioned on behalf of the Union, not stating they were members of the Union. Finally, it was a maxim in the Common-law, that they, as an Union, not being a Corporation, could not have been empowered to sign for any others of that Union but themselves.

merely observed, that it was very respectfully worded, and only joined in the prayer of both the former petitions that an inquiry should be instituted. Under the advice of so high an authority, however, he should be ruled by former precedents.

presented petitions from High Wycombe, in Bucks, and from Louth, in the county of Lincoln, praying for an inquiry into the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; and a petition from Thomas and Caroline Deacle, stating their case, and praying for redress.

said, he had received a communication which led him to think that it would be extremely desirable for the ends of justice to postpone the motion of which an honourable and gallant Member had given notice, relative to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. He would therefore beg leave to suggest, to the hon. and gallant Officer, to postpone his motion for the present.

said, that although he had fully intended to bring forward his motion to-night, still he had no objection to postpone it, if the hon. and learned member for Kerry was prepared to show that the ends of justice would be impeded by its being brought forward at present.

said, that the parties having originally understood that a Committee was to be moved for, had since learned, that it was to be opposed by the Government, and it was to show that an inquiry ought to be granted that they now wished the matter to be postponed. The documents which he had seen, satisfied him that the parties were entitled to have an opportunity of making out their case.

said, that he, as an individual Member, had no particular objection to the motion being postponed, if the hon. and gallant Member felt it right to do so; but he thought that postponing it, unless a strong case of necessity were made out, would not be fair justice to the parties against whom the charges were made.

said, it was known when the matter was before the House on a former occasion, that the motion for a Committee was to be postponed; and, consequently, the parties had had ample time to prepare their case. He therefore saw no good reason for a postponement now.

observed, that this was a question which might be brought before the House in various shapes—for instance, by motions for the production of documents. But it was extremely desirable that there should be but one discussion upon it. The question was one of vast importance in every point of view. It was important to know whether England was to be transferred to Ireland, and whether the same system of magistracy was to be introduced in this country as prevailed in Ireland—which, he hoped, would never be the case. Under the circumstances of the case, he advised the gallant and learned Member, not to make his motion at present.

said, that whatever the learned member for Kerry might say of justice, what he now proposed was the grossest piece of injustice that could be done; and it was impossible for him to listen to the manner in which it was propounded, without being convinced that there did exist a conspiracy to oppress and to do a cruel injustice to an individual. He very well understood the threat conveyed by the manner and gestures of the learned Member, and was aware that he was at his mercy, or that of any other man who would choose to get up petitions from the dregs of the community, for the purpose of vilifying him, and slandering the character of his relatives. But he should be quite confident in appealing from the candour of the hon. and learned Member to the honour and feeling of a body of gentlemen—If the hon. and gallant Member should refuse to go on with his motion, he (Mr. Baring) would immediately submit one to the House. Although the learned Member might bring forward his calumnies day after day, and make himself the tool of this vile and dirty conspiracy, he (Mr. Baring) would make a motion, that under the difficulties of the case, the House should go on with the present inquiry, and he would not hereafter, con- descend to answer any calumnies which might be uttered. He felt deeply on this subject, and hoped he should be excused if he had used any strong expressions. But if any hon. Member had a charge to bring forward, let him bring it forward fairly and manfully, and not advance it one day, and postpone it the next, for no other purpose than to create excitement and hostility.

said, that having been assailed, he hoped the House would allow him to defend himself. Having been assailed by the hon. Member in a more brutal manner than he had ever been assailed in that House ["Order," "Chair."]

rose to order, and begged that the Speaker would have the kindness to state whether it was allowable for any Member of that House to address an hon. Member as having assailed him in what he termed a brutal manner.

said, he had used the word hastily.

said, if the hon. Member apologised.—

said, he did apologise at once. He had no hesitation in doing so. He had never meant what the word would imply—[The Speaker resumed his seat.] He had not identified himself with this transaction but as a Member of that House, having been called upon by the British subjects who alleged that a woman had been handcuffed—that a verdict had been returned against those who had been parties to that act—that the rich—the exceedingly rich—were in that House—and that the assailed had nobody to standby them, because the wealth, the power, and the station of their oppressors would bear them down. When these persons demanded an advocate in that House, if they had not a zealous one before, they had one zealous now, and he told the hon. Member, that the people of England should have an investigation. The hypocritical pretence—if such a one there had been—of looking for an investigation and at the same time crushing it by other means, should not continue. Conspiracy? What had he to do with your English conspiracies? He had been more assailed than any man that ever lived, and he could bear it patiently. He could bear even the self-exultation which shone upon him now. He would now suggest to his excellent friend to bring on his motion, that the House might see whether the feeling which was professed was real. Let them have an investigation, and see whether it would be followed by an acquittal, which, notwithstanding all that had happened, he hoped might be the case. Let them see if now the inquiry would be resisted. If it were, he should know what to do.

said, that he felt he must, under the circumstances, bring forward his motion. But he must first observe, that the moderation with which he had treated the subject was not fairly returned by the violent—as he must call it—and unprovoked language which was indulged in by some hon. Members. He really did not see that the hon. member for Kerry had said anything which called for the attack that had been made upon him. The word "conspiracy" had been used in the discussions, in a most unsparing and a most unwarrantable manner. What! because Members presented petitions from the people, was it to be said that they went about raking up petitions from low persons through the country? He considered such language an insult, and while he held a seat in that House he would not silently suffer it to be applied to him. The hon. and gallant Member then referred to the particulars of the case, reading from the Morning Herald a passage from the speech of the learned Judge upon the trial, condemning the unnecessary coercion applied to Mrs. Deacle, and also adverting to a letter, published by Mr. Bingham Baring, which, he said, had induced him to bring the matter before the House, as he conceived that letter to amount to an admission of the charges made against him. The former debate had taken such a turn that it was impossible for him not to take a further step in the matter, upon being applied to by Mr. and Mrs. Deacle to do so. The arguments used were not defensive, but criminatory. Then, as now, the imputation of conspiracy was freely thrown out. It was evident that if a conspiracy existed, the witnesses on the trial must have been perjured, and the Judge must have abandoned his duty. When a question of this nature was made the ground of imputations of which no tribunal in the country could take cognizance, he hoped the House would, for the sake of its own character, if not that of the magistracy, see the necessity of instituting an inquiry. If it were urged that that House had no right to inquire into the conduct of the Magistracy, he would reply by referring to the opinion of the noble Lord now at the Head of the Home Department, who, in 1819, declared himself in favour of an inquiry into the conduct of the Magistrates at Manchester. He would also mention the case of Mr. Kenrick, in 1825 and 1826. The hon. member for Thetford then took a very different course from that which he now pursued. The Government did not, on that occasion, object to the inquiry which was sought for, but raised some difficulties as to certain papers, and the hon. member for Thetford said, that their doing so would almost lead to a suspicion that they meant to screen the individual. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petitions of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, respecting the conduct of the Magistracy of Winchester.

thought, that the minds of the public would never be satisfied until the charges of the petitioners against his hon. friends should have been investigated by a Committee of that House. It was impossible that the conduct of those Magistrates could be justified otherwise than by showing what was the state of the country at the time of the transactions respecting which the petitioners complained. He admitted that there was one part of the conduct attributed to his hon. friends, which nothing could justify but resistance on the part of the persons arrested; he meant the handcuffing of Mrs. Deacle. But, after a careful examination of all the conflicting testimony that had been brought forward on the subject, it was his entire conviction, that that proceeding was the act of the constable himself, without any instructions or authority from Mr. Francis or Mr. Bingham Baring. Upon the whole, he thought that the public had dealt unfairly with his hon. friends, in giving to Mr. and Mrs. Deacle the benefit of their acquittal at the Assizes, and refusing to allow to Mr. Francis Baring the benefit of his actual acquittal in the action for damages, or to Mr. B. Baring the benefit of his virtual acquittal, for such the verdict of merely nominal damages must be considered. He thought, that under all the circumstances, the House ought to give his hon. friends an opportunity of setting themselves right with the public, by the investigation of a Select Committee; and he should, therefore, second the Motion.

said, that when, on a former evening, he stated his intention to oppose the motion of his hon. and gallant friend (Colonel Evans), he did so with considerable reluctance, because he thought it probable that his taking that course might prejudice the parties accused. He felt so much doubt as to the course which he ought to take, that he had consulted others, for whose judgment he had much deference; and upon the best consideration, he had come to this conclusion, that it would not be consistent with his duty to vote for the Committee. He pledged his honour that he had come to that determination without any communication with the hon. member for Thetford. He made that assertion upon his honour as a Gentleman. He opposed the motion with great unwillingness, because he had a high esteem for the hon. member for Portsmouth (Mr. Francis Baring), and it gave him pain to do anything which might have the effect of preventing that Gentleman from setting himself right in the estimation of the public. But considering the nature of the investigation for which the Committee was required, and how little it was likely to give satisfaction to the public, he felt that it was inexpedient to go into it. As to Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, they had had their option to proceed against the Magistrates, either by a criminal information or by an action for damages, and they chose the latter course. Upon the trial it was proved that acts attributed to Mr. Francis Baring had been done by Mr. Bingham Baring, and that the former Gentleman, instead of having acted with harshness, had treated the petitioners with great humanity. But in the petition which it was now proposed to refer to a Committee the whole weight of the imputations was thrown upon Mr. Francis Baring, contrary to the evidence given upon the trial. That appeared to him to be a good reason to believe that the accusations against Mr. Francis Baring were wholly unfounded. If the persons accused were not Members of that House, would it be said that the House ought to inquire into their conduct by a Select Committee? Were every such complaint against every individual Magistrate to be brought before that House, and tried by a tribunal, the decision of which, as every Gentleman must know, would not give satisfaction, for many people out of doors would suppose that the Committee could not be impartial? He hoped and trusted, therefore, that some other means of arriving at the truth of those transactions would be found. As to the case referred to by the gallant Member behind him (Colonel Evans), in which the conduct of Magistrates was proposed to be made the subject of inquiry by a Committee of the House, he had himself certainly moved for the Committee on that occasion. But there was no parallel between the present case and that. The transaction in Manchester was one of such magnitude, such enormity, and the conduct of the Magistrates appeared to him to be so unjustifiable, as to call for an investigation by a Committee of the whole House, In the case of the petitioners, the conduct blamed was that only of an individual Magistrate; and, therefore, not thinking that a Select Committee was a proper tribunal before which that conduct should be tried, he felt bound to oppose the Motion.

felt great regret at being obliged to oppose the Motion; and the more so, as he had had a communication that day with Mr. Bingham Baring, who was most desirous that the inquiry should be gone into. But he did not think that any person who had not been convinced by the clear and satisfactory statement of his hon. friend, the member for Portsmouth, would be convinced by the evidence taken before a Committee, especially as that evidence would not be given upon oath. If all questions like the present were to undergo an investigation before a Select Committee, every hon. Member must perceive, that the greatest inconvenience would be the consequence. He, therefore, felt it to be a matter of public duty to oppose the Motion.

had hoped, when the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) pointed out the difficulty of meeting the wishes of the petitioners and of the accused Magistrates, by investigating the subject in a Select Committee, that the noble Lord would not have concluded without pointing out the course by which a satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at. It was not for the sake of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle that he so much desired that the whole of those transactions should be inquired into, but for the satisfaction of the public, in whose minds there was a strong impression that in this case justice had not been done, He admitted that the statements of the two parties were very much at variance, but there were no allegations of either party which were not open to proof. In presenting petitions upon that subject, when it was first mentioned in the House, he had been satisfied to wait until he should see whether a satisfactory inquiry could be had in the Courts of Justice. But as that had not been the case, he could not see the justice of refusing the fair inquiry which was called for by both parties. He could not allow himself to be set down as one of a conspiracy for the course which he had thought it his duty to follow, and he would assure the hon. member for Thetford, that it was not his practice, as that hon. Gentleman had asserted, to bring up petitions from the dregs of society without regard to truth. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman had been betrayed into those expressions by the irritation of the moment, and that he would take the first opportunity of retracting them. When the petition which he (Mr. Hume) had that evening presented was put into his hands, his first inquiry was, whether the allegations contained in it were capable of proof? He was answered that they were capable of proof; and more, that the proof was at that moment ready to be produced. In that petition the Magistrates were charged, not only with unjustifiable harshness, but with subornation. He did not see in what way injury could be done by the inquiry which was demanded; and he thought that when the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) opposed the Committee, he ought to have been prepared to suggest a better means of inquiry. As the noble Lord had not done so, then he was driven to adopt the next best mode of coming at the truth which he could obtain. If his Majesty's Ministers were desirous to maintain the character of the magistracy, they ought themselves to be the first to go into the inquiry. It was not the character of the Messrs. Baring alone that was involved, but that of the whole magistracy of Hampshire; and although the question had not been made personal, and Mr. Bingham Baring was one of the accused, yet he was not the only one accused. There was one fact which had not been denied; that a female had been handcuffed without any appearance of resistance to excuse such harshness; but if the allegations were wholly groundless, he thought that when they had made such an impression upon the public mind, it was incumbent upon his Majesty's Ministers to go into the inquiry for the satisfaction of the public.

thought, that the House must have been gratified by the tone of moderation in which the hon. member for Middlesex had supported the Motion, and must feel that the excuse which he had found for the hon. member for Thetford was creditable to himself. As to the proposed inquiry, he (the Attorney General) thought that it must turn, not altogether upon the allegations of the petition, but in a great degree upon the state of the country at the time when those transactions took place. It was to be considered that at that time no man could feel himself safe, and that depositions (whether true or false) had been made, deeply implicating Mr. and Mrs. Deacle in the proceedings of the rioters. An hon. Member behind him had censured Mr. Justice Taunton (who presided at the trial) for censuring the conduct of the Magistrates in attending to see their warrant executed. Certainly, in ordinary times, it was better that Magistrates should leave the execution of their warrants to the constable; but in a time of such great excitement and danger, he (the Attorney General) could not concur with the learned Judge in censuring the Magistrates for taking the trouble to see that the warrants were executed, and that the constable was not interrupted in his duty. He considered a Committee of that House a tribunal the least calculated that could be devised for attaining the ends of justice in the present case. The persons arrested under such circumstances were acquitted at the Assizes, and they proceeded by action against the Magistrates. The trial then took place; or, in other words, the Jury having thought that the assault against Mrs. Deacle was made out, gave such damages as they thought would meet the case. These proceedings having taken place, he really could not see why that House ought to be turned into a Court of Appeal. It was said, he knew, that both parties were desirous that a further investigation should take place; but, as far as he was able to foresee, he thought that neither side could gain any thing by such an event. It was also said that there were precedents to justify such an interference on the part of the House of Commons; but he must confess that those which had already been mentioned did not appear to him to bear any resemblance to that which was now before them for consideration. With respect to the Manchester case, that was very different. What had taken place there was on a very large scale; besides which, the yeomanry were thanked by the Government for what they had done, which circumstance, of itself, rendered it imperative on those who thought that the yeomanry had misconducted themselves, to bring forward a specific motion on the subject in that House, and to demand that inquiry should take place. The case of Mr. Kenrick, which had also been mentioned, appeared to him to differ materially from that of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; for in the former, though it was a Magistrate that was implicated, it ought also to be remembered, that he was likewise a Welsh Judge, and that there was no mode of getting him removed from that office in the event of misconduct but by an Address to the Crown. Another argument that had been made use of in favour of an inquiry in this case was, that it had made a great impression on the public mind, and that it ought, therefore, to be publicly investigated; but that impression appeared to him to be now rapidly subsiding; and he thought that inquiry, therefore, so far from doing good, would only give rise to still further excitement, at a time when, if left to itself, it would entirely disappear. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, he must contend, that no ground had been made out for taking this inquiry out of the hands of a Court of Justice. It appeared to him that to do so would be giving a premium for bringing forward a succession of such charges as these. If this attack upon Mr. Deacle had taken place during times of ordinary peace and tranquillity, it would, perhaps, have been advisable to have investigated the question; but, when they remembered in what agitated and excited times these circumstances had taken place, he thought, that to institute such proceedings would be putting an undue check upon the vigilance and activity of Magistrates.

was surprised at the course adopted by his Majesty's Ministers upon this occasion. He wondered how they could consent to allow a case of this importance, affecting, as it did, the conduct and character of the magistracy generally, to pass without notice and without inquiry. It was impressed strongly on his mind, that those who were accused of misconduct in this case had, on the first mention of it to the House, invited hon. Members to suspend their judgment until they had taken legal measures to challenge that verdict, of which the effect was, to strengthen the imputation which the inquiry at the trial raised against them. He also recollected the statement made by an hon. and learned Gentleman, who had been professionally engaged in these transactions, and who, in commenting on the trial, had asserted, that the defendants were taken by surprise, by the turn of that trial, and by the evidence produced against them. He had likewise not forgotten the declaration of the hon. member for Portsmouth, that they intended to move for a new trial as soon as the Courts were re-opened in Westminster Hall. Now, however, it turned out, that the defendants did not intend to venture upon any further judicial proceedings. He did not find fault with them for adopting that resolution. No doubt they had been ably and judiciously advised. He agreed with the hon. member for Hampshire, that considering the opulence of Mr. Bingham Baring, the verdict on the trial at Winchester was a mere nominal verdict. He supposed, therefore, that his legal adviser had told him, either that that verdict would operate in his favour as an acquittal with the public, or that he was very lucky in gaining a verdict with such small damages, and in having it tried in Hampshire, where his influence was so great, instead of having it tried in some county where he must have met the plaintiff on a footing of greater equality. He would not conceal from the House, that after all the statements which had been made by the opposite party, it was his opinion that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and all their witnesses, had been most shamefully calumniated in that House. An hon. and learned Gentleman, who had once filled a high legal situation, had even gone so far as to say, that he had no doubt that all the witnesses had perjured themselves. It was not enough when the defendants in a cause met with defenders of the first rank and importance in that House, and were fortified against all attacks by a family of Representatives ready to come forward at any moment in their behalf—it was not enough, it appeared, that they should have the benefit of such a defence, but they must also have every assistance which could be afforded them by charging the Jury with partiality, and by accusing the witnesses of perjury. But, in his opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had little to do with the grave question which was then before the House. That was evidently the opinion of his hon. and gallant friend, for he had submitted their case to the consideration of the House long before he received any petition from them. His hon. and gallant friend, on reading the newspaper report of the trial, and the strong remarks made on it by the Press, determined to bring it before the House on his own responsibility. It was not until hon. Members had discharged the fire of their artillery upon these individuals, who were unknown in that House, and without any relations, friends, or political associates to defend them—it was not until their characters had been whispered away, and their witnesses had been traduced as guilty of perjury, and the Jury which gave them a nominal compensation had been charged with partiality—that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle felt themselves called upon to make, in their petition, a full disclosure of the injury which they alleged that they had suffered. He had read their petition through with great attention. He would not say what credit he was inclined to give to the statements which it contained; he would only say, that they appeared at least to require investigation. Still the case was not, as he said before, a mere case between Mr. Bingham Baring and Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; but it was a grave case between the magistracy and the unprotected people of England; for it had been gravely stated, that not only Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, but also 200 or 300 of the peasantry of Hampshire had been carried hand-cuffed to prison. Indeed, it had been gravely argued, that no hardship had been suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Deacle in this respect, inasmuch as it had been suffered by so many others. For his own part, and in this respect, he would say, that as Mr. Deacle was a gentleman of rank and education, the defendants had a right to take some credit to themselves for having administered the laws with impartiality, for it appeared they had hand-cuffed both the rich and the poor, the gentleman and the labourer, without the slightest distinction of rank. He was surprised to hear that it was a matter of trivial importance that the magistracy of England—hereafter to be an irresponsible magistracy, if such oppression as this were to remain unnoticed—should possess the power of placing irons on the wrists of unoffending individuals, who, when brought to trial, were proved to be not guilty. He contended that by law the magistracy possessed no such power: he contended that, even where parties were guilty, it was contrary to the law and Constitution of England, both in practice and in theory, to subject them to this iron degradation, unless they presented resistance to the authorities in whose custody they were. It was against this that the people of England raised their protest—it was against this assumption of arbitrary and irresponsible power that they had in all quarters of the island given expression to their indignation. He had heard with the same indignation as his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that the charges brought against the Messrs. Barings in that House were the result of a dirty conspiracy. He was not conscious of the existence of any such conspiracy; but if it were supposed that by such taunts he would be deterred from raising his voice on behalf of the injured and oppressed in that House, those who used such taunts would find themselves grossly mistaken. As long as he had a seat in that House, he would always be ready to raise his voice in behalf of the poor, however much such conduct might displease those Gentlemen whose arithmetic was puzzled in counting their millions, and whose immense fortunes were accumulated at the expense, and almost by the destruction, of their poorer fellow countrymen. He would not vote for a Committee, if Government would point out any other mode of inquiry into the circumstances of this case. He had not yet heard, that the Home Secretary had offered to receive depositions upon oath from both parties on this subject. If the Home Secretary would do that, truth might yet be elicited, and justice done between both parties. If some such measure were not granted, he should be compelled to vote for a Committee of Inquiry, in spite of the inconvenience to which such Committees generally gave rise. He concluded by stating, that if such a Committee were granted, he should enter upon its duties with a mind open to conviction, and influenced by no other feeling than a wish to vindicate the justice of the country—the rights of the people, and the equal claims of the parties.

had had no intention of imputing any improper motives to the hon. member for Middlesex; and he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have imagined that he had done so. He admitted that he felt strongly on this question, and he certainly had no pretensions for saying he was able to form an impartial opinion upon it: perhaps he might be allowed to say, that he felt still more strongly on the subject, from the impression that the late prosecution which had been instituted against this young person (Mr. Bingham Baring) took its origin, not from his own demerits, but from the line of politics which he (Mr. Baring) had adopted. At the time that these transactions were taking place, there were 400 persons confined in the gaol at Winchester; and he thought that when that circumstance was taken into consideration, it would in some measure account for the confusion and excitement which had prevailed in the country. But the case had been mis-stated with respect to the Deacles. The Barings did not accuse the Deacles—it was the Deacles who accused them; and the whole extent to which the Barings went was to show that the statements of the Deacles were not founded in fact; and with this addition certainly, that there were primâ facie grounds for taking up the Deacles, and for instituting proceedings against them. He came down unprepared for the discussion, expecting that the Committee would be granted. He could only refer, therefore, to the various depositions given before the Magistrates, to show that there was good reason to apprehend Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. The Magistrates would have neglected their duty if they had not apprehended them. Several of the people who were tried, said, in their defence, that they were ordered by Mr. Deacle to go to certain places to get money. The Judges too stated, that there were farmers who instigated the people, and deserved to be tried more than the misled peasantry. The people themselves were much aggrieved, and perhaps no class deserved more pity than the agricultural labourers. They had no criminality in their minds. They were goaded on by others. The verdict was good evidence, and it acquitted all the Magistrates, except Mr. Bingham Baring, and he was only condemned because he was said to have struck a blow. The verdict of the Jury was the safest guide for the House. It was not the Magistrates who accused Mr. Deacle's witnesses of perjury, but Mr. Deacle himself. He wished it to be made out, according to his petition, that the witnesses had not deposed to the truth. The hon. Member also animadverted on the contradiction between the statements of Mr. Deacle's own witnesses and his own petition. Mr. Bingham Baring, at a time of great danger, exerted himself more than any other Magistrate, and nearly lost his life by an attempt to resist a mob. That fact, which was much to his credit, had been laid hold of by a powerful writer, who circulated his slanderous attacks throughout the land, who had for many years spread poison throughout the country. This man had stated that he would ruin the Barings; and to effect that object he continually brought forward the case of that unhappy young man who lost his life for making an attempt on that of Mr. Bingham Baring. He must take the liberty to refer to the testimony of Mr. Justice Alderson in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, to show that his conduct had been what it ought to be. The choice of the cart was the act of the constable. The Magistrates went to arrest the people who were suspected, because there were no military in the county. It was proved that Mr. Bingham Baring could know nothing of the Deacles, by his asking of the constable who they were. It was impossible that Mr. Bingham Baring could have been on the spot when the handcuffs were put on Mrs. Deacle; they were not put on either by Mr. Francis Baring. It was the general rule at that time to handcuff the prisoners who were sent to Winchester gaol; and it was in compliance with that rule that the handcuffs were used. It was physically impossible that the order to handcuff Mrs. Deacle could have been given by Mr. Bingham Baring. He admitted, with reference to the fact of who carried Mrs. Deacle, that a mistake as to the person was of no consequence. Mrs. Deacle, however, was carried carefully across the dirt, and thanked Mr. Francis Baring for his care. On the arrival of Mr. Deacle at Winchester, he too thanked Mr. Francis Baring, and said he hoped Mr. Baring would call again to-morrow. He believed, too, that there was no intention of rescuing the Deacles; but, looking at the state of insurrection in the village, it was very natural that the Magistrates should fear a rescue. That was the reason for making so much haste. As to the blow, Mr, Deacle had put his hands upon the reins, and Mr. Bingham Baring, seeing that, had ridden up to the cart from behind, and did put the riding-stick he had in his hands upon Mr. Deacle. All the gentlemen who had been with Mr. Bingham Baring were made co-defenders, and were unable to give their evidence that they did not see the blow, though they were about, and would most probably have seen it if a blow had been inflicted. They never heard even of any blow, and yet, if a blow had been given, that would have been the first thing complained of. Mr. Bingham Baring knew nothing of the aggravated circumstances that were related on the trial, till they came before the Court, and he accordingly left his case entirely in the hands of the attorney, who was the Clerk of the Peace. Under the circumstances of the county, the young Magistrate who acted so vigorously deserved praise. As to not going for a new trial, the reason was, that it could not be done without giving the plaintiff an entirely new trial, and without, at the same time, obtaining the advantage of separating the defenders. The verdict, however, when translated into English, only meant that the Magistrates were acquitted of all the other charges except the blow. He had his doubts whether going for a new trial would benefit the defenders, because the gentlemen had not seen the blow, and their denial would not weigh against the assertion of other men, who said that it had been given.

thought, that as the parties involved in the transaction had courted inquiry, the refusal to institute that inquiry would only tend to increase the slander—for slander he trusted it would prove to be. Many charges were from time to time preferred against the magistracy for an improper exercise of their functions, and if it were seen that that House was disposed to give such charges a fair degree of consideration, it would greatly tend to tranquillize the public mind. Numberless instances in his own country justified him in advancing this opinion. He was decidedly in favour of inquiry, in order, if the allegations were false, that an end might be put to popular agitation.

was sorry that a sense of duty obliged him to oppose a measure which he believed the parties themselves sincerely desired. He was opposed to it, because he was persuaded that those parties were entirely innocent of the misconduct with which they were charged. He did not think that House the fittest tribunal for instituting a trial of the kind. If an appeal were to be made to any tribunal, it should be to one of those where the truth or falsehood of conflicting statements was established on oath. He discovered nothing in the present case, more than in many others of alleged misconduct of Magistrates, that demanded or warranted extraordinary interference. He believed those men to be innocent, and he did so without having the honour of their acquaintance further than meeting them in that House. From his own official experience, he could see much in the disturbed state of the country that might countenance the adoption of measures of more than ordinary precaution. Placing himself in the character of a Grand Juryman, and believing these persons to be altogether guiltless of the proceedings laid to their charge, he could not, consistently with a sense of duty, accede to their wishes for a new trial.

regretted that the Government did not consent to grant the inquiry, because the printing of the petitions had been refused on the express ground that there would be an inquiry. He thought it was plain that a female had been ill-treated, without the least justice in the accusations brought against her, and that in such a case there was ground for the interference of that House. The country would not be easily led to believe that there had not been some understanding between the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the powerful family of the Barings, and this again was a reason why an inquiry should not have been refused.

thought that the proposed appointment of a Committee would be most inconvenient, and was highly inexpedient.

said, that when he came into the House that evening, he had a strong impression on his mind to vote in support of this Motion; but what he had heard in the course of the debate which had since occurred, had completely altered his determination on the subject. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam- worth. He considered that as far as the parties were concerned, this case had been entirely set at rest by the verdict of a Jury. He must say, that he could not bring himself to believe the charge made against Mr. Bingham Baring of having struck a man in handcuffs a blow. He should vote against the Motion, because he did not think that any parliamentary grounds had been laid for the appointment of a Committee.

said, he should trouble the House with a very few words in reply. In the first place, he felt much pleased at the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, had treated the subject, although he was opposed to the inquiry. In the second place, he begged leave to assure the House, that as the word "conspiracy" had been made use of as affording one of the grounds upon which he would justify the appointment of a Committee, he had no such impression on his mind; the only ground he went upon was, that in a case which involved so much conflicting testimony, and on which neither party appeared well satisfied, it might be proper for the House to interfere, and make due inquiries.

said, he wished to know what difference there was between the new Commission to be appointed under this Bill, and that which had previously existed, as there had been a considerable outlay of public money connected with the subject, and he thought material savings could be made.

assured his hon. friend, the Bill was in the same form as the former one, and the Commissioners were to have the same powers; but it was intended to reduce the number of paid Commissioners from ten to eight, and the salaries were also to be reduced from 1,000l. to 800l. per annum, and they were to be employed for a longer term during each year; the nature of the inquiry made it necessary to collect a great mass of evidence, to be borne out by the necessary documents, previous to a report being made.

said, in the former Bill a clause had been introduced, preventing Members of either House of Parliament from being paid Commissioners. This clause had now been omitted, but he trusted there was no objection to have it inserted in the present Bill. Under the previous Bills there were ten paid, and ten unpaid Commissioners; now he presumed there were to be twelve unpaid, and eight paid, who were to have salaries of 800l. per annum each.

said, he had no possible objection to introduce the clause recommended by the right hon. Gentleman; it must have been left out by inadvertence. It was proposed the Commissioners should bear the proportions, both as to number and payment, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested.

said, he wished to suggest an amendment in the present Bill, in consequence of certain schools having been endowed for a specific purpose, such, for instance, as teaching grammar, which implied that the candidates for admission should have some previous knowledge of reading and writing. The scope of his Amendment, therefore, was, to enable the Commissioners, in cases of such a description, to ascertain whether the funds of the charity could not be distributed with greater advantage to those for whose benefit they were intended, than according to the precise rules laid down by the founder of the charity. He had understood that the gross amount of the funds intended for the purposes of education, amounted to upwards of 1,000,000l., and he was quite sure the persons who had bequeathed this money, desired that the greatest possible good should be done with it; and could they have seen the alterations that time had made on society, they would desire the State should make such alterations in their bequests as would best fulfil the objects they had in view, in improving the condition of those for whose benefit these funds were intended. Many schools were now without scholars, from the absurd rules laid down by the founders, which, according to the existing law, it was necessary to enforce.

said, the public should be relieved from the expense of the Commissioners; the charge should be defrayed by a per centage out of the funds of the charities, which had greatly profited in general by the labours of these gentlemen.

remarked, in answer to his hon. friend, that some charities might recover property immediately, and others might not receive it for a series of years. The former class, therefore, would have to pay the whole of the charges, while the latter would be exempt—he did not see how his hon. friend could make the burthen apply equally.

said, he was fully persuaded that neither the trustees of charities, nor the persons who were to profit by them, could have any objection to pay the Commissioners for recovering their money, and he was also sure there could be no difficulty in placing charities which were now worse than useless upon a sound footing, so as to promote the general interests of the poorer classes. The hon. member for Hindon had estimated the probable income of charities at 1,000,000l.; he (Mr. Harvey) had no doubt it was nearly double that amount. Some years since the rental and income of charities then inquired into by the Commissioners, amounted to 700,000l. annually. He was fully satisfied the country did not know the extent of the property which had been bequeathed for charitable purposes, and had been devoted to other objects. There were at present about 400 suits instituted by the Attorney General against the trustees of charities, for the non-performance of their duties, and there was 1,000,000l. sterling locked up in Chancery. One of the Companies in the city of London had recently been compelled to pay into that Court upwards of 100,000l., which they had received on behalf of a charity, but which had not been applied in the manner directed by the will of the donor. Now, when such sums of money were recovered, it was not too much to require those who received such benefits to contribute a certain percentage for the payment of those through whose instrumentality the money had been recovered. Several other of the City Companies had also large funds intended for charitable purposes, which had been misapplied. In one instance he (Mr. Harvey) had compelled one of them to lay out 20,000l. in the erection of alms-houses, from monies bequeathed for that purpose. He, however, proposed to call the attention of the House to the whole subject at a convenient opportunity.

said, the amendment he wished to see introduced into the Bill would have a prospective operation only; he had no desire that the charities should pay the expense of the Commission.

said, he feared the reduction in the number of the Commissioners would protract the inquiry very materially; they had hitherto discharged their duties in a most exemplary manner; he would, therefore, recommend their number to be increased, by which means the duration of their labours would be shortened, and probably the expenses be ultimately less

said, he had very strong objections to give the Commissioners power to decide whether the funds of a charity ought not to be appropriated to other purposes than those designed by the founder. He, therefore, should recommend the hon. member for Hindon to postpone his amendment, as it was likely to give rise to a lengthened discussion.

observed, if the right hon. Gentleman objected to his proposition he would withdraw it.

said, he hoped the Commissioners would ultimately have authority to inquire into the charities connected with the Universities; he had reasons to believe the funds intended for education had been misapplied. He would take this opportunity to suggest to his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) the propriety of introducing a clause into this Bill, similar to that recently annexed to the Bill for Public Works in Ireland, declaring the Commissioners employed under it were not to be entitled to allowance for superannuation.

said, he had no objection to agree to his hon. friend's suggestion.