presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Clonfert, in the county of Cork, complaining of the conduct of one of the police, who, at a public meeting, was detected in the crowd endeavouring to excite disturbance, by throwing stones at the military. Such conduct ought to have been visited with immediate dismissal, but he was informed that no inquiry had been made into it, and that the policeman was still employed. The hon. Member said, he would take that opportunity of stating, that he had that day read, with the deepest regret and surprise, the observations alleged to have been made by the highest legal authority in the country, in another place. In these remarks, it appeared to be insinuated that meetings held in Ireland for the purpose of redressing the many grievances under which Ireland was suffering, were of a rebellious description. It was, unfortunately, true that Irishmen were not by law entitled to the same protection or privileges as Englishmen, and that the Habeas Corpus Act, which could be suspended in England only by Parliament, was not in this, its most important feature, yet extended to Ireland. It was a melancholy truth, that this distinction still existed on the statute books, and that by a clause of an act of the Irish Parliament (21st and 22nd of George 3rd) the Lord Lieutenant had the power, in cases of actual rebellion in either country, to suspend that Act by an order in council and by proclamation. Though this was the law, yet the spirit of the times, and the less severe policy of late Governments, had rendered that clause of the Act obsolete and effete. In the Act to which he referred, it was enacted that the Lord Lieutenant should have that power in cases of invasion or actual rebellion in either country, but when those very cases had occurred, the Government of those days did not feel themselves justified in resorting to the powers vested in the Lord Lieutenant, but to resort to the power of Parliament itself: thus, in the year 1796, when Ireland was invaded, a necessity for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act was declared, and it was suspended by Parliament. In the same way, during the rebellion of 1798, Parliament again suspended the Habeas Corpus Act but without any recourse to the power given to the Lord-Lieutenant by the Act of the 21st and 22nd George 3rd. Indeed, he could not find any instance in which the Act had been suspended by proclamation; and if a necessity existed, it was the duty of Parliament not to leave the responsibility on any Lord Lieutenant, but to follow the course which had been pursued by all the Parliaments of Ireland—when a necessity existed, to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act itself. He regretted to find some of the high authorities of the country looking out for a summary mode of suspending this Act, which was the palladium of our liberty, and he still more regretted to find too wide a construction given to what constituted rebellious acts. This enlarged construction of what was to be considered rebellion, would prevent the poor tithe payer of Ireland, and the starving manufacturers of that country, from meeting to complain of the grievances which they suffered, without at the same time subjecting the country to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. And this, too, was to be done at the will of a Lord Lieutenant, whilst the King of England himself possessed no such power in England, He was apprehensive that the re- vival of this power, which did not exist in England, would be the cause of fresh jealousy in Ireland; and if Parliament was awake to the interests of this country, they would take care that all the real grievances of Ireland should be speedily removed. It could not be denied that there were grievances under which that country suffered, and whilst those grievances existed, there would be complaints, and there would be meetings and petitions against tithes and church cess; and those complaints would be loud and numerous; and the measures lately adopted by the House at the suggestion of the Government would not tend to allay the dissatisfaction and discontent which prevailed. Having said thus much on what he thought a no very ambiguous intimation of the intention of Government to resort to this obsolete Act—a course which every friend of England as well as of Ireland ought to deprecate—he again adverted to the petition which he held in his hand, and expressed a hope that an inquiry might be instituted into the circumstances to which it referred.

thought that the petition presented by his hon. friend, the member for Kilkenny, was one into the matter of which the Government were bound to make inquiry. He did not rise, however, to enter into that subject, but to express his surprise at the statement made by his hon. friend (Mr. Leader), that such a power should exist as that which authorized the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice and consent of six members of the Privy Council in Ireland, to do what the King could not in England—to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in cases of invasion or rebellion in either country. He was anxious to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, whether there really existed any law which placed the operation of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland on a footing so different from that upon which that great protection of the liberty of the people rested in England; and also, whether meetings, such as had been described by the noble member for Kilkenny were considered by the Government to be rebellious. He hoped it was not so; but if it were, he hoped that the people of Ireland might be placed under the same law as those of England, and that it should not be left to this or that individual to state what was or was not rebellion, or that the assembling of large bodies of men should be so considered. This was a most important question for England and Ireland; for if such a marked difference in the law between the two countries were allowed to exist, it would raise another ground of jealousy on the part of Ireland, which would tend to increase the excitement already existing in that country. He did hope that Government would see the wisdom and sound policy of placing the liberty of the two countries on the same ground; and that if they could not, as he knew there was not now time to repeal this obnoxious Act, that they would do what would be the same thing in effect—allow it to remain in the same obsolete state in which it had been suffered to remain since it was passed. At all events, he hoped that Parliament would not be allowed to separate without some explanation being given on the subject.

would confine himself to two points of the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, and from his hon. friend who presented the petition; and he should abstain from saying anything which now, at the close of the Session, could lead to a discussion of the important topics to which the petition referred. He had been asked whether he had received information of improper conduct on the part of a policeman, who mixed with the crowd at a peaceable meeting, and threw stones at the military for the purpose of provoking them to fire upon the people. He was not aware of any such occurrence, and, so far as he knew, no complaint had been made upon the subject elsewhere than in the House of Commons. If the occurrence had actually taken place, he thought the complaint would have been made in the proper quarter, and an immediate inquiry would have been instituted. It was manifest, that if a tithe of the allegations of the petition were well founded, there must have been gross misconduct on the part of the Magistrates; but he felt it his duty to say that a certain "poetic taste" prevailed amongst the persons who "get up," as it is called, Irish petitions, which induced them to exaggerate, and he therefore trusted, that Gentlemen would not make up their minds upon the unsupported assertions of Irish, petition-makers or subscribers. As to the Habeas Corpus Act, he would reply to the question of the hon. Member for Middlesex, that the Act was the same in Eng- land and in Ireland, but by the Act of the 21st and 22nd George 3rd, the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland were empowered to suspend the Act, in the event of an invasion or a rebellion. That was a power which had seldom been resorted to; and if it was meant to say, that there was now an intention to make use of meetings for constitutional purposes, as a pretext for enforcing that law, he would reply that it was impossible that the noble and learned Lord alluded to could have meant any such thing. In the event of a rebellion in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant had the power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act; and it was, of course, to be borne in mind, that a rebellion might be confined to a single county, or to a small number of persons. To constitute rebellion, it was not necessary that the whole country, or a whole province, or even a whole county should be actually in arms against the Government. It was rebellion, when any number of the King's subjects united to compel, by force, any change in the laws of the country, to set the lawful authorities at defiance, to control the Legislature, or to supersede the executive. He should not, then, say any thing which might provoke a discussion of the subject; and he thought that nothing could be more dangerous, than that the House should take the statement of petitions from Ireland for real facts. What conduced most to the peace of Ireland was the due and impartial administration of the laws, and the confidence which that inspired in the minds of the people. Nothing, therefore, could be more dangerous, more malicious, malignant, or mischievous, than to diminish the respect of the people of Ireland for the law of the land, and for public functionaries. If gentlemen, either in that House or elsewhere, would persevere in indulging in eloquent invective against the state of the law, and the conduct of the authorities in Ireland, their course was calculated, as much as any thing could be so, to lead to that state of rebellion which would render necessary the application of the Act alluded to by the hon. Member for Kilkenny.

said, that, at the meetings held in Cork, there was nothing done by the people which was in any degree illegal. They assembled, not as was said of them, to enter into any combination against English manufactures, but to give all the encouragement in their power to those of their own country—a course with which he presumed no man would find fault. It should not be a matter of surprise, that the petitioners in the present case should have come to Parliament in the first instance with their complaint, rather than to the Irish government, for they saw the Government lending the aid of the military and police to prevent meetings for most constitutional purposes. It was quite absurd to talk of rebellion, or a tendency to rebellion, in Ireland at this moment. There was nothing of the kind. He could say generally of the whole country, that it was disposed to be tranquil; but of that part of it with which he was more immediately connected, he could state that no part of the kingdom was more tranquil. He had received a letter that, morning from a gentleman who was not a party man, and who, alluding to the arrival of the Lord Lieutenant and Sir Hussey Vivian in the Cove of Cork, expressed his satisfaction at that event; as he added, that if they came to see the state of that part of the country, they would find that the statements which had been made of the disturbed condition of the country were wholly without foundation. In fact, he added, "the country is perfectly tranquil—the harvest is abundant, and potatoes are in great plenty." He would repeat, that there was nothing in any of the meetings in Cork, which the most ingenious lawyer could torture into rebellion, or to a tendency to rebellion.

said, he had not quarrelled with the expressions attributed to the noble and learned Lord in another place. What he complained of was, that such an inequality of law should be allowed to exist between the two countries. The knowledge that a power was given to a Lord Lieutenant over the liberty of the subject in Ireland, which was denied to the King of England, would only serve to increase the jealousy which already existed in that country.

said, that he must protest against the reflections cast by the learned Solicitor-General for Ire-laud (Mr. Crampton) on petitions from that country, when he intimated that statements of facts in those petitions ought always to be received with doubt, as they were generally exaggerated. During the time that he (Sir Richard Musgrave) had the honour of a seat in that House, many such petitions had been presented, and he defied the learned Gentleman to mention any petitions containing assertions that had been controverted. He had lately been in the south of Ireland where many tithe meetings had been held, and although many of these meetings had been numerously attended, no disturbance of the peace had taken place. The meetings had uniformly been conducted in a peaceful and legal manner.

said, he would take that opportunity to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lamb) on the subject of the melancholy transaction which took place at Clithero a few days ago. He was the more anxious to put this question, because he saw that an hon. Member (Mr. Irving) who was connected with that transaction was now present. He was informed, that when the Chief Magistrate of Clithero understood that the hon. Member, who was then at a distance of two miles from the town, was about to enter it with troops, he objected to the proceeding, from prudential motives, though it had been sanctioned by Colonel Clayton and two other Magistrates. He had abstained from asking any question on this subject for several days, but as he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had by this time received full information on the subject, he hoped that he would now detail the whole of the circumstances. He the more especially wished this to be done, because he had this day received a petition from Whalley, complaining that the constituted authorities there had behaved in a manner highly unconstitutional.

said, he would state, as shortly as he could, what took place on the occasion to which the hon. Member alluded. A considerable time ago, an intimation had been made to him (Mr. Irving) by many of the most influential and respectable inhabitants of Clithero, that if he offered himself as a candidate, he would be well received. To that a short reply was returned, and this was the only communication he had had previously to his proceeding to the town. Another gentleman, it appeared, had also set up as a candidate for the representation of the borough. There were in that neighbourhood three manufacturers of great wealth and importance, and he believed highly respectable men, with whom, however, he had no acquaintance. They employed a very considerable number of men—not less, he supposed, than 2,000 or 3,000. Each of these gentlemen was considered by some as a proper person to represent the borough. He knew not how they had come to a decision, whether by ballot or otherwise, as to which of them should stand; but one of the three, Mr. Fort, had been selected. There was, however, another interest, which did not consider any one of these gentlemen as a proper Representative for the borough. A committee had been formed of the gentlemen constituting a part' of the constituency of the town of Clithero, and on the invitation of that committee, he (Mr. Irving) had been invited to come forward as a candidate, and personally to present himself to the electors of the borough. That invitation was accompanied by a statement, which had been forwarded to him, emanating from Mr. Thomson, and in which he believed Mr. Fort had also joined, assuring him that he might enter Clithero in perfect safety. In answer to that invitation, he replied that he should reach that town on the evening of Monday the 30th of July last, and in pursuance of that reply, he proceeded to visit that town. He was joined at the house where he had sojourned for the night in the neighbourhood of Clithero, by about sixty persons, manufacturers, gentlemen, and yeomen mounted, and with that cavalcade, increased as it proceeded by about twenty individuals on foot, he proceeded to enter the town. On reaching the town he found a dense concourse of people assembled—indeed such a multitude as he was not prepared to expect. Stones were thrown, some at himself, and others at the gentlemen by whom he was accompanied. He was personally insulted in the grossest manner by being spit upon, Stones and other missiles were hurled into his carriage, and yet he was inclined to view all this with perfect indifference. After this, three several attempts were made to open the door of the carriage, and those attempts were accompanied with imprecations of the grossest nature, such as "Pull him out,"—" Burke him,"—"D—n him, kill him." This all transpired before he (Mr. Irving) had reached the inn, and it was but justice to say, that he had only been saved from being dragged from his carriage by a person who seemed to be of great importance amongst the multitude, and who, it subsequently appeared, was the gamekeeper of the other candidate for the borough, Mr. Fort. He succeeded in arriving at the inn in which the self-formed committee in his support had assembled, and around which, on his arrival, he found the people so densely crowded, that had he made an attempt to enter, it would have been impossible that he should have succeeded. At this moment there were persons busily occupied in the hind part of the carriage in the endeavour to overturn it. The linch-pins of the carriage were also attempted to be removed, the stones were flying as thick as hail, and under the directions of some voice in the multitude, the post-boys proceeded to drive on. They did so, despite of every attempt made by him (Mr. Irving) to stop them. He could not feel surprised that they obeyed the order to drive on—such was the shower of missiles by which they, in common with himself, had been attacked; and when they were surrounded as they were by a multitude of the greatest scoundrels in the world. He begged not to be understood as describing the constituency of Clithero in such terms, nor could he do so, for though the multitude or mob amounted to about 10,000, yet the constituency of Clithero were not more than between 200 and 300. He again begged to repeat, that he was the mere instrument in the hands of others, and had not himself done any act calculated at all to give offence to any party. Having been driven away from the town in the manner and under the circumstances which he had described, at the next neighbouring place, to which he had been carried after a long and mature deliberation of the Magistrates who had assembled, they thought fit to send for a military force from the nearest town, which was distant two or three miles from the place at which they had assembled. He here begged to remark, that his belief was, that whatever feeling had been raised against him, owed its origin to his having voted in favour of the Anatomy Bill. At the place where they proceeded to after leaving Clithero, he and his friends had remained some time, when the landlady gave information that the resting-place of the party was known in Clithero, and that a great body of men were moving from that place, towards the place in which he had taken up his temporary abode. At this period he should remark, that Mr. Garstang, the bailiff of the town of Clithero, of whom it had been said, that he dissented from the course pursued of calling in aid a military force, had a consultation with the Magistrates, and came from that consultation, convinced that the interference of the magistracy was called for in this instance, and he had even joined with the body of Magistrates, who had acted in signing the report, which had been made by them in reference to this transaction, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He now came to the last point, to which, in reference to this transaction, it was necessary for him to refer—namely, as to the return to Clithero. He must first observe, that before this. Colonel Clayton, one of the Magistrates who had acted, had set out on his return home, when, on meeting with the military, he again turned back, and joined the party. The party then returned to the town, and on entering it, he (Mr. Irving) perceived that the numbers of the crowded multitude had been greatly reduced; in fact, it appeared to him that at least two-thirds of the people had gone away. Still, however, a great concourse of people remained, and that concourse increased as they proceeded again into the town, and in their progress the military were assailed with missiles, stones, and brick-bats, which were thrown from the houses as the cavalcade proceeded. In addition to this, other offensive weapons, such as sticks, were used by persons in the crowd against the military force, which was most severely attacked in that way. It was then that the commanding-officer applied to the resident Magistrates to read the riot act, and in obedience to that application, the riot act was read by the bailiff and other Magistrates, in various parts of the town. The commanding-officer of the military party then endeavoured, by the action of the horses of the corps under his command, to disperse the crowds which had assembled. In doing this, that officer, he knew, was extremely sorry that injury should have been done to any individual, and nobody could regret such an event more than he (Mr. Irving) did; but soldiers, when called upon to act, and having weapons of defence in their hands, could not be expected—nay, it was na- tural that they should resist the attacks with which they were themselves assailed. After this endeavour to restore tranquillity, he and his friends again proceeded from the town, under the escort of two troops of military. Under that escort they had reached the neighbouring town of Blackburn, when, in consequence of information which followed, one troop of the military was sent back to endeavour to restore the public tranquillity of the place. He would here remark, that notwithstanding what had happened on the first occasion, he had been anxious to have canvassed a certain portion of the electors of the borough, who Were distant from the town itself; but he had been informed that, in that district, the men were armed, and that it would be as much as his life was worth to make any such attempt, and therefore it was, that he had abandoned the canvass. To this fact he begged to call the attention of the Attorney General, whom he was glad to see in his place, as one which greatly interfered with the freedom of election, and he could assure the House that he made the statement without having in view any personal motive, but on general views with reference to the rights of any individual claiming or seeking the Representation of any town or borough. He also could assure the Attorney General that he could point out the chief actors in the system of intimidation or interruption to a candidate, which had, in the present instance been practised, and those individuals were certain of the members of the committee for securing the election of the opponent candidate to him (Mr. Irving). He could not but take the present opportunity of noticing the conduct which had been pursued by a candidate for the neighbouring town of Blackburn, Dr. Bowring, who had been pleased, in the course of his speeches and addresses to the electors of that borough, to attack and cast imputations upon him. The learned doctor had alluded to his being a West-India proprietor, and insinuated that, therefore, he was inimical to the abolition of slavery, while at the same time, the learned doctor well knew that he had suggested a plan which had met the attention of his Majesty's Government, by which that subject might be set at rest. The learned doctor had said much elsewhere as to what he (Mr. Irving) was, and he would take the liberty of telling the House what he was not. He was neither an Atheist nor a Deist in his religious principles; neither was he republican in his political principles, nor had he trafficked in revolutions. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had heard his statement, and for the attention they had bestowed upon it.

was glad that he had given precedence, on the present occasion, to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because the statement made by the hon. Member had much shortened that with which he must have necessarily troubled the House. He was not prepared to pronounce any decided opinion upon the conduct of the parties concerned in the transaction in question, for some of the statements with which the Government had been furnished, and having reference to some points affecting some of the troopers individually, had only been received in the course of this day. He regretted that any town in this country should, on any occasion, have manifested and displayed such a spirit of dictation, and Such a feeling of hostility to free discussion, as had been manifested by those who had so long and so loudly complained against the party who had been called the borough mongers. With regard to the calling out the troops upon the present occasion, he did not think that the Magistrates Could be blamed for the course they had pursued. A misconception had gone forth that the bailiff of the town of Clithero (Mr. GarstangJ had opposed the military being called out; for, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that gentleman had joined with the Magistrates, who had acted on the occasion, in their report of the transaction to the Government. The only doubt or question upon his (Mr. Lamb's) mind was, why it was that the hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends returned to Clithero accompanied by the military. If the military went there to allay any tumult that prevailed, he could not think it was quite correct that they should be accompanied by, or that they should carry back with them, the cause of that tumult. At the same time he did not mean to dispute the right of the hon. Gentleman to enter the town; but it certainly appeared, that the tumult which took place on his appearing, was renewed on his return with the military; and when one troop returned (in the manner which had been described by the hon. Gentleman) without him, peace was restored. He had already said, that an inquiry was going on with reference to this transaction, and therefore he was not prepared to give any decided opinion in respect to it. Therefore, the only question which he had to answer on the present occasion, was that which had been put with reference to the reading of the Riot Act. The Riot Act had been read by Mr. Abbott, a Magistrate, from the door of the inn, and who afterwards went on horseback and again read it amongst the mob; and it had also been read by Mr. Garstang, the bailiff, in other parts of the town. Even after this had been done, the attacks upon the military were continued, and he conceived that not the slightest blame could attach to the commanding officer for the course which he had felt it to be his duty to pursue. The Magistrates had said it was time to disperse the mob, and on that authority the commanding officer had acted. He did not believe that the troops had been guilty of any violence, but he thought that the great damage had arisen from the persons who, in the course of the tumult, had been trodden under foot.

asked how soon after the Riot Act had been read did the troops charge?

That was one of the points which required further explanation. He believed it was not long after, in consequence of the excessive ill usage which the troops were receiving.

said, that the statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. Irving) was so much in accordance with the account he had received of the transaction, that he had no doubt of its accuracy. He regretted very much that attempts had been made, not only at Clithero, but in various other places, to raise a prejudice against Members by connecting them with the West-India interest. Such a course, he admitted, was not likely to lead to a reasonable or satisfactory adjustment of the slave question. With respect to Dr. Bowring, the hon. Member had really thrown out aspersions which were wholly unfounded, and ought never to have been made. Dr. Bowring, in his speech, after his triumphal entry into Blackburn, might have called the hon. Member a slave proprietor; and if that tended in any degree to cause the hon. Member to be treated as he afterwards was treated, no doubt Dr. Bowring would very much regret having used that expression. But what was now the hon. Gentleman's conduct? He now came down coolly, and charged Dr. Bowring with being an Atheist, a Deist, and a Republican. Now he (Mr. Hume) did not belive that any of those words were correctly applied to Dr. Bowring. That learned person was a friend to every measure calculated to improve the happiness of mankind, and he was most enthusiastic in his desire to put an end to slavery; but that was no ground for throwing such aspersions on him as those in which the hon. Member had indulged.

, being a member for Clithero, would make a few observations in vindication of the Magistrates of that place. He had known the Magistrates who acted upon the occasion referred to long and most intimately, and he could venture to assert that, from the Chair to the Bar of that House, there were not more respectable men. He spoke from a long acquaintance with them. In judging the conduct of the people of Clithero, it should be borne in mind, that upon the entrance of the hon. Member (Mr. Irving) it was not the inhabitants of the town only, but of the neighbourhood, who had flocked in in great numbers for the purpose of giving that hon. Gentleman a hostile reception. The House should be informed that the neighbourhood contained many factories, mines, &c., the persons employed in which were always ready to take part in any outrageous or riotous proceedings.

could not refrain from expressing his regret at what had occurred at Clithero. He not only regretted that the inhabitants of that place and its neighbourhood should have been guilty of such conduct under any circumstances, but more particularly did he lament that an individual so honourable and worthy as was his hon. friend (Mr. Irving) should have been selected as the victim of such disgraceful outrage. The people of this country had now got a reasonable, full, and fair right of Representation. If ever they had it, or could have it, they had it now. Let them then set the example of enlightened conduct becoming the trust reposed in them, and act as it was expected that freemen should act. He (Sir Edward Sugden) had been among the first to declare that he would obey, and inculcate upon others the duty of obeying, the Reform Bill, as soon as it became the law of the land; and he was most sincere in his wish that it might be productive of all the benefits expected from it. With respect to the particular transaction at Clithero, he was of opinion that if the soldiers had gone alone into the town, the riot would have been quelled. He did not pretend to say, that if a candidate went into a town with the view of canvassing the electors upon principles contrary to the popular sentiment, he must not expect to encounter the popular opposition of the place, and ought patiently to bear with it so long as it was confined within proper limits. He for one should most patiently submit to all the demonstrations of popular disapprobation, provided they were so limited. It appeared, however, that the opposition encountered by his hon. friend did not express the genuine sentiments of the electors or of the inhabitants of Clithero. Great numbers, it appeared, flocked in from the neighbouring places not at all connected with the town, and solely for the purpose of obstructing a candidate in the exercise of that right which, under the Reform Bill, he was entitled to. There was only one way in which the people of England could show themselves worthy of the new trust reposed in them, and that was by acting temperately and legally in the exercise of it. By some it was supposed that his hon. friend had done wrong in returning to the town after he had been driven out of it. To him (Sir Edward Sugden) it was quite clear, that had not his hon. friend so acted he would have been stigmatized as a rank coward. "That coward Irving" would have been the expression of those who now complained of his having dared to show himself a second time. He was of opinion, that before a sudden ebullition of political feeling, the party who was the object of it ought to retire, for the purpose only of giving time to the assailants to deliberate upon their conduct, and return to a state of cool reason. Here, however, there was nothing in the nature of an ebullition, which was always sudden and unpremeditated. It was quite evident that this attack was premeditated. Could it be doubted by any reasonable mind? The people would not otherwise have returned to the charge against his hon. friend, having already driven him out of the town. It was impossible not deeply to regret the injuries which had been committed in the conflict between the military and the people; but, at the same time, he must say that, had not the promptitude shown upon the occasion been evinced, greater mischiefs might have ensued. With regard to his hon. friend (Mr. Irving), if he represented him as one of the highest and most respectable merchants that this or any other country could boast, he believed he should not be thought to say too much. No man could stand higher in the scale of society than his hon. friend. Was it not then too bad that one who had so deep a stake in the country, one who was connected with a most important branch of the national interests, and who was in himself so respectable and exemplary a character, should be assailed by tumult and personal outrage in the exercise of a just and undoubted right, and one which partook of the very essence of the Bill which the assailing parties pretended to be an object of their worship? He believed it was only necessary to address the people of England in the language he was then addressing to the House, and they would respond to the sentiment. When an appeal was made to their cool reason, the result was not doubtful.

said, that if such outrageous proceedings as had taken place in this instance should be resorted to in the case of other elections, he was afraid that there would be an end to the freedom of election altogether. He hoped, and trusted, however, that this would be a rare instance of such an occurrence. If it had been the new constituency in Clithero, to whom the Reform Bill had just given the right of voting, that had acted in this manner, the circumstance would have been to him a subject of much sorrow and regret, and he should at once protest against such a proceeding on their part, as one of the grossest outrages that could have been committed against the freedom of election; as, however, even the new constituency of Clithero would be small in amount, this riot, occasioned by a mob of upwards of 10,000 individuals, could not be attributable to the constituency, but was attributable, as in the case of many former election riots, long before the Reform Bill, or any thing like it, was thought of, to other persons who had nothing to do with the Representation of the places in which riots had occurred. In fact, it appeared that the riot was occasioned by an assemblage of the people from the neighbouring country. Now he believed that any borough situated, as Clithero was, in the middle of an extremely populous district, might be liable to the occurrence of riots of this description, whether its constituency amounted to 20 or to 300, which was the actual number at present in that place. He would not discuss the question as to the prudence of the hon. Member in returning to Clithero. He was satisfied, that if the hon. Member could have foreseen that the effect of his returning there would have been the necessity of dispersing the people by force, the hon. Member, like any other honourable and feeling man under similar circumstances, would not have taken a step likely to be followed by such consequences. He did not mean to deny that the hon. Member was justified in going back to Clithero, but the question here was one of prudence, and as to whether the hon. Member could have foreseen that the calamity of dispersing a mob of persons by force would have been the result of his return there. He was quite sure, that no one for the sake of maintaining his reputation for courage, would have taken such a step, if he could have foreseen that it would be attended by such consequences. He must, in conclusion, repeat what he had already said, that if outrages of this description were to take place at elections, there would be an end to the freedom of election.

said, that he was far from justifying the outrage which had taken place in this instance, but he would maintain, that such proceedings must be the inevitable consequence of the present state of things, when they found 10,000 persons, as the noble Lord acknowledged, in the neighbourhood of this place, totally unrepresented. It was a very fine farce to talk of the Representation of the people of England, when they found, as in the present case, only 300 voters and 10,000 people.

thought the Magistrates had a perfect right, under the circumstances, to bring the military into the presence of the people. He doubted their discretion, however, in bringing them into so narrow a town as Clithero, where it was impossible that cavalry could act with effect, and where they would be exposed to the most galling and irritating treatment. The office of the Magistrates upon such an occasion was one of great delicacy he knew; but he could not help wishing that they had merely brought the troops in sight: that alone would have given great force to the civil power. He made these observations in a precautionary spirit, because similar occasions might arise before that House met again. Every means of repression should be adopted before recourse was had to military force. It was a serious trial of temper to bring an armed force into the presence of a multitude, and in all cases where troops were called out, they should be accompanied by some one to direct them of a dispassionate and calm temper.

hoped that this discussion would have the effect of preventing similar occurrences, not only in Clithero, but everywhere else. If the people were left to themselves, such things would not take place. But when they were stirred up by itinerant politicians, who went about exciting the passions of the ignorant, and telling electors whom they ought to reject, and whom also they ought to elect, such outrages as they had witnessed at Clithero were to be anticipated. He condemned these mountebank orators as well for the mischievous intent of their labours as for the impertinence which made them presume to dictate to others how they were to exercise their rights. If such interference were permitted, riot and tumult only could be the results. If left to themselves, the electors of England would not disgrace their characters by such conduct.

returned his sincere thanks to the noble Lord opposite, and the hon. Gentleman, for the sentiments they had been kind enough to express respecting his personal conduct and character.

, pursuant to notice, rose to present a Petition from the Agents of Narroba Govend Outia, a deceased native Prince of India under the British Sovereignty. He had already declared that in his opinion the honour of the country was concerned in this transaction. It was of great importance that there should be no ground of complaint on the part of any native of our Indian possessions; and, above all, that an impression should not be made in that country, that the interests of the natives were lightly and improperly dealt with. On this point he must censure very much the constitution of the Court of Privy Council, which was the Court of ultimate appeal in the affairs of India. Even the Court of Chancery itself was not more pregnant with delay and expense than the Court of Privy Council, and the latter stood in as much need of reform as the former. He must complain too, of the outrage and injustice done to Narroba, not only in his property, but in his person; and as the subject of the Deccan prize-money was again to be considered, he thought it would be but right to refer the claims of Narroba to the consideration of the Privy Council. Narroba was dragged from his house, and placed under a military escort. His property was forcibly taken away, and many indignities heaped upon him by Captain Robertson. This subject was brought before the legal tribunal at Bombay, and a restitution of the property was ordered to be made to his representatives. That decision was reversed by the Privy Council, and against that decision he now sought the interference of this House. He must assert, that the seventeen lacs of rupees in dispute, were clearly the private property of Narroba, and not of the Peishwah; and that, under the amnesty, he was entitled to have retained them. Technicalities should not be permitted to stand in the way of justice, in a case like this, and even now at the eleventh hour it was in the power of his Majesty to alter the distribution of the Deccan prize-money. This petition had, however, more immediately for its object to pray that the costs of the suit of Narroba should be paid out of the funds in dispute, which he most decidedly said belonged to Narroba, and that the family of the deceased might net be exposed to ruin by prosecuting their rights.

said, he had very lately stated his opinions at length upon this subject, and he would not again repeat them. He was ready to admit that the case of Narroba had not been over-stated, but his property was not seized because he was a banker to the fallen Peishwah, but because he had assumed a military command in the service of that prince. Looking at the whole of the case as the law now stood, and the affair having since been discussed before the Privy Council, he would neither venture to pronounce an individual opinion, nor attempt to lead the judgment of the House.

But what about the costs?

General said, that the costs would be regulated by the decision upon the original claim.

said, he was in India when these transactions occurred, and felt it necessary to vindicate the character of those dauntless officers who had fearlessly discharged their duty. Let it be recollected that the country was then in open war, and the conduct of Mr. Elphinstone was from beginning to end of the most honourable character. That war was put an end to; but an under-current war still was going on, and the British officers then engaged had most meritoriously discharged their duty. A capitulation followed; but Narroba broke it, and hence the seizure of his treasure. Captain Robertson was selected to perform the duty of collector because he was the best acquainted with the language. Evidence was given that Narroba had carried away treasure, and hence he was imprisoned and the property confiscated. The people at Poonah were quiet; but why? Merely because we had then 10,000 troops there. He was convinced that Narroba never possessed the fiftieth part of the treasure which was seized, and that it decidedly belonged to the Peishwah. If the treasure had not been seized it would have been used to promote discontent, which it was necessary of all things to put an end to. He thanked the House for their attention, and would now make no further observations on the subject, except this, that he believed Narroba to be a delinquent.

supported the petition. He considered the case of the native Narroba one of great hardship, and entitled to the favourable consideration of this House: at least they ought to award costs to the agent for promoting the claim on which this man's family were now solely dependent, being reduced by the seizure of his property from affluence to actual want.

observed, that, although the circumstances in question had occurred long before be had the honour to hold his present office, it was impossible but that he must feel an interest in them. He would not, however, enter into the merits of the case, agreeing perfectly with his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General, that the proceedings must be considered as having been closed by the decision given by the Privy Council so minutely on this claim. He would not allow the subject to drop, however, without saying that he thought it impossible that any thing said in this or former discussions on this subject could possibly reflect on the high moral and professional characters of Mr. Elphinstone and Sir Lionel Smith, whose conduct towards natives of India in particular was remarkable for kindness and forbearance. The character of Captain Robertson, too, stood high in all the transactions with which he had been connected in India previously and subsequently to this transaction.

wished to put the question to the noble Lord opposite which he would have asked of the Secretary at War if he were in the House. He observed, by the papers which had been laid on the table, that a severe reprimand had been given to Major Wyndham by the Court of Inquiry, and from this circumstance he concluded that the Court were of opinion that the punishment of Somerville was for a political and not for a military offence, and that, instead of being punished for breach of duty, he was in reality flogged for having written a letter to a newspaper. His object in rising was to ascertain whether this man was discharged from the army, and, if he were not, whether it was the intention of the Government that he should be discharged.

said, the hon. Member was wrong in supposing a severe reprimand had been given to that gallant Officer: nor had it been proved before the Court of Inquiry that the soldier alluded to had been tried for one offence, and punished for another. As to the likelihood of the soldier being discharged from his Majesty's service, he was not prepared to give a positive answer. He knew it had been resolved upon as advisable, prior to the inquiry being instituted, and that the inquiry being then pending was the reason why that resolution was not carried into effect. In consequence of the result of that inquiry he thought it was probable he would be dismissed the service. Though not officially informed on the subject, he wished to set the hon. Member right as to the grounds of the decision in the case of Colonel Wyndham; the censure passed on that officer was not for having punished Somerville for writing a letter to a newspaper, for, on the contrary, that was proved not to have been the case.