presented a petition, very numerously signed, indeed by some thousands of the inhabitants of the town of Thurles, in the county of Tipperary, praying for the total abolition of tithes and the Repeal of the Union. The hon. Member said, that the petition stated that the majority of the Members of that House were ignorant of the interests of Ireland. It also stated, that the Repeal of the Union was as much required by Ireland as the Reform Bill was by England, and that the majority of the English Members were as indifferent to the interests of Ireland as the Members of the boroughs formerly were to the interests of their constituents.

said, the hon. Member must be aware, that he could not present a petition so worded.

said, the petition merely stated that the English Members were not acquainted with the interests of Ireland.

said, that it appeared the wording of the petition was, that the majority of English Members were indifferent to the interests of Ireland [Cries of "Read, read!"]

said, as his object was not to delay the time of the House by any discussion, he would read the petition. The hon. Member proceeded to read the petition at length. The petitioners complained of the grievances inflicted by the tithe system, that it had brought odium upon the Church Establishment in Ireland, and that the Tithe Bill of last Session was likely to increase that odium, and bring about some frightful crisis. That, without the total abolition of tithes, all hope of peace or prosperity for Ireland was in vain. The petitioners contended, that from the various and important duties the English Members had to discharge relative to the local concerns and the colonies of that country, they could not find time, even if they were acquainted with its local wants, to attend to the interests of Ireland. They, therefore, prayed for a repeal of the Legislative Union. The hon. Member said, that, perhaps, he had expressed himself in stronger language than he was warranted by the wording of the petition. He moved that the petition be brought up.

said, that it was a bold assertion to say, that the affairs of Ireland were neglected, whilst there were one hundred Irish Members in that House. Those hon. Gentlemen must want either the power or the will to attend to the affairs of that country. He did not believe, that the accusation was well founded, for nothing could be more inconsistent than to say, that hon. Gentlemen of such talent wanted power; and it would be as uncharitable to suppose, that they wanted will. When the House considered that there were reports from Ireland upon agriculture, manufactures, population, the criminal jurisprudence, and when there were two debates a week upon Irish affairs, that one-half of the English Members had visited that country, and that they had one hundred Irish Members to give them all the information they could require—it was rather a bold assertion to say, that they were utterly unacquainted with Irish interests; and he was bound to say, in justice to the hon. Members for Ireland, as well as the other Members of the House, that, in his opinion, the charge was without the slightest foundation.

observed, that there was a great deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman had just stated; but that it happened to be totally irrelevant, to the case at issue. The hon. Gentleman made a statement, in the course of his brief observations, which fully bore out the allegation of the petitioners respecting the ignorance of Irish affairs generally prevalent in the British House of Commons. He had stated, that there were one hun- dred Irish Members, and that they were all awake and watching over the interests of their country. Now, if the hon. Gentleman had known as much of Ireland as he had given credit to the House for knowing, he might be aware that this hundred was not entirely composed of representatives of Irish feelings—Irish wants—or Irish wishes. Many of them, very respectable Gentlemen, no doubt, in private life, were the representatives of the contrary. They were the representatives of the system of oppression which had ground Ireland to the dust; they were the representatives of that misrule which had cursed that beautiful, but unfortunate country; they were the representatives of the bitterest polemical spirit which ever actuated human beings, the representatives of individual feelings, individual wants, individual interests—the representatives of any and everything but Ireland. The hon. Gentleman ought, therefore, to have known, that though some of the eyes of Argus were not and would not be closed, while they were permitted to open on the light, others were shut most effectually to all which could benefit that unhappy country. What information, he would ask, could Government give them that they were not already in possession of? Why, the Irish Members were there day after day to listen to their Coercion Bills and other arbitrary measures. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, could not instruct them about the state of Ireland. The very observations of the hon. Gentleman suggested the ignorance of the House on Irish affairs. He did not mean to say, that English Gentlemen were not desirous of serving Ireland; he believed many of them were; but what could they do when they were totally ignorant of anything relative to that country; unless, indeed, such information as they received from the poisoned and corrupt sources which the press of this country supplied? But the English Gentlemen would require, at least, 100 schoolmasters to teach them, before they could understand legislating for Ireland. The people of Ireland, therefore, felt they had no resource but in a Repeal of the Legislative Union. They felt that the claim for the Repeal was a just one, and they were determined to persevere in their demands. The Union had been carried by every species of the most profligate bribery and corruption. The blood of mothers and of infants had been shed in order to accomplish this abominable measure. In fact, there was not in the records of Spanish brutality towards South America, anything half so brutal as the treatment Ireland had received at the hands of those who were the instruments in carrying that iniquitous measure.

said, that he and other Irish Members were most anxious to give every possible information to the English and Scotch Members on the subject of the Union and its effects upon Ireland. As an instance of the system of legislation adopted by this country towards Ireland, he begged to advert to an observation made the other evening, when an hon. Member said, that if there was not one Protestant in Ireland, still the Protestant Church ought to be kept up in Ireland. Surely, this was a strange jumble to legislate upon, and yet, absurd as it was, it appeared to be acted upon, in a very great measure, by the Parliament of this country whenever Ireland was concerned. To show the manner in which the Protestant Church was supported in a country the great portion of the population of which were Protestants, he begged to read a statement to the House. The hon. Member accordingly read the following table, exhibiting the state of population in fourteen parishes in the county of Kilkenny, indiscriminately taken, showing the total number of inhabitants and Protestants in each parish in the period of a century, namely, from 1731 to 1831, and demonstrating the progress the State religion had made in the last 100 years; together with some brief notes that would explain what would be generally found, in Ireland, the state of residence of the beneficed clergy;—

Parishes.	Population in 1731.		Population in 1831.
	Total Inhabitants.	Total Protestants.	Total Inhabitants.	Total Protestants.
			No
Killcoan (a.)	83	none	Return in 1831	none
Ballygurram (b)	214	none	693	none
Killbride (c)	75	none	937	none
Killmackavogue (d)	250	23	1027	1
Killcollum (e)	300	49	2139	none
Rathpatrick (f)	490	67	1627	none
Killculliheen (g)	422	92	1353	6 families or 24 souls
Rathkyran (h)	445	34	1,511	none
Aglishmartin (i)	148	none	1,485	none
Portnescully (j)	630	23	no return	none
Poleroan (k)	697	38	1246	1
Tubird (l)	71	46	1,103	none
Ballytarsna (m)	201	32	no return	none
Clonmore (n)	227	27	1,147	3
	4,258	391	14,268	29

(a) It is situated in the barony of Ida. This and Killbride held by one incumbent, who resides in another diocese.

(b) Tithes 165l., of which 110l. is payable to the Corporation of Waterford, and the remainder to the Vicar, who is not resident, having five other parishes in the diocese.

(c) Incumbent not resident.

(d) Incumbent not resident, same as Ballygorum, being one of the six parishes that form the union of Rosbercon.

(e) Tithes 480l., of which 320l. is payble to Sir E. Leighton the impropriator, the remainder to the Vicar, who is non-resident, having two other parishes in the diocese.

(f) Incumbent not resident, being one of the six parishes that form the living of Rosbercon.

(g) Incumbent, or Curate, not resident: the former has also another parish in this diocese, and two in that of Ferns, where he resides. The Curate is allowed for the cure of the twenty-four souls 50l. per annum.

(h) Incumbent not resident.

(i) Incumbent not resident; lives on a preferment in the West of Ireland (Dunmore.)

(j) Incumbent not resident. This parish is in the barony of Iverk, on the Suir, and one of the three parishes that form the union of Poleroan.

(k) Incumbent resides, keeps no Curate, and has two other parishes in the diocese.

(l) Incumbent not resident, has four other parises in the diocese.

(m) This parish is half a mile in length, by the same in breadth. Incumbent not resident.

(n) The incumbent resides in his glebe-house, which was built for him, by the Board of First Fruits.

Here were fourteen parishes, indiscriminately taken, in eleven of which there were, according to the recent census, 14,268 inhabitants (the other three parishes not enumerated, or appearing in the population abstract). In ten of the fourteen parishes there is not a single Protestant, and in the other four there are but thirty-two Protestant souls. Could such a monstrous state of things be continued, and a gorgeous establishment retained and kept up to provide for men, who, for the greater part, have no duties to perform, and are, consequently, absent from the places from which their income is drawn? It was a stain upon England, and on civilized man, to draw from a people one-10th of their scanty subsistence, with a peasantry half-sheltered, half-clothed, whom want, neglect, and suffering, have made reckless; who, without employment, food, or sympathy, linger out life in idleness or mendicancy, or sacrifice it in crime or despair. This would give the House an idea of the blessing which the Protestant Church and the collection of tithes conferred upon Ireland; and, surely, Ireland ought to bless the Protestant Church and this House for upholding that Church in all its splendour in so wretched, so impoverished a country. He must also complain that, owing to the compulsory Tithe Composition Bill, a great increase had taken place in the amount of tithes originally collected. In one case, a gentleman residing in the county of Kilkenny, who, heretofore, only paid 15l. tithe, and who was most punctual in his payments, had his tithes raised to 53l. His hon. friend (Colonel Butler) had a petition to present from this gentleman, complaining of this increase of the assessment. Here was an instance of the impolitic operation of this Bill, which had the effect of burthening those on whom the Government could heretofore rely—and for what object? Why, to perpetuate the injustice of supporting, in an extravagant manner, a Church unconnected with the great mass of the people; and, as far as had yet been learnt, there did not appear to be the least intention to do away with this burthen and lighten it in the smallest degree. Did they think that this cunning injustice would be borne tamely? If they did, they were much mistaken.

complained of hon. Gentlemen for ever dragging in the subject of the Church upon petitions totally foreign to that question. Here was a petition upon the Repeal of the Union. [Mr. Finn And also praying for an abolition of tithes.] He was aware that the tithe question was mixed up with the Repeal of the Union, for it seemed to be the principle upon which those who got up Repeal Meetings, acted, to also mix up that very popular subject with it—the tithe question; fearing, no doubt, that the Repeal of the Union would not be attractive enough to command an attendance at meetings, to be called for that purpose alone. But still he must complain of hon. Gentlemen for ever lugging in the subject of tithes, no matter whether the question was or was not before the House; and he particularly complained of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, making the statement he did, when he at the same time stated, that a petition was to be presented on the subject of the increase of tithes, upon which occasion an opportunity would have been afforded to the hon. Gentleman to make the statement which he had just made. He would not now enter into the subject adverted to by the hon. Member; but he would just observe that the cases stated by the hon. Gentleman were those of ecclesiastical unions—they were not substantial parishes—if they were, they would be nothing more nor less than sinecures; but they were not; and this he would prove upon another occasion. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Compulsory Tithe Bill had increased tithes in Ireland, but he had not stated the reason for this increase. When he brought forward the second reading of his Bill relative to the abolition of tithes in Ireland, he was sure that he should be able to satisfy the House that there were good and sufficient grounds for the increase in the amount of composition adverted to by the hon. Gentleman.

contended, that there were good reasons for mixing up the question of tithes with that of Repeal of the Union; for they were both grievances which the people complained of, and they were determined, whilst petitioning to be relieved from one, to be, also, relieved from the other. The complaint against Irish Members last year was that they did not go into the details of the question; but it was now especially their duty to go into the details after the introduction of the extraordinary and iniquitous measure of the right hon. Secretary—because, when the Bill was brought before the House the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, would run away into declamation, and no opportunity would be allowed of fully and fairly discussing the details. Why, the right hon. Secretary himself had said that he found it necessary to go into the subject at very great length, because the House was in a state of ignorance respecting it. He begged that right hon. Gentleman not to lend his immaculate private character to so nefarious a measure. He had a great respect for that right hon. Gentleman; but it was not by the graces of the drawing-room, or the amiabilities of the nursery, a man was to be qualified for the duties of a Secretary of State for Ireland, in the present distracted condition of that long misgoverned country. He begged the right hon. Gentleman not to be persuaded that his Bill would give satisfaction in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a measure founded upon the 147th Clause of the Church Temporalities Act of last Session, which Clause was abandoned in the progress of the Bill, he would be indeed the pacifying Secretary. It was vain to say that the Catholics were the agitators of the tithe question; for, since 1824, when the grass lands were subjected to tithes, under the Commutation Act, the Protestant Gentlemen had taken pride in the agitation; and now the Duke of Devonshire was one of the defaulters.

said, that though he did not mean to commit himself to any part of the Bill to be brought in by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, he would say, that in his opinion, the most convenient form of collecting tithe funds was not by a composition, but by a land-tax—that principle he would most strenuously support. It had been said by the honourable and learned member for Dublin, that nearly all the English Members, and part of the Scotch, were ignorant upon Irish affairs. Now he would say for the whole of the Members of that House not Irish, that no subjects whatever received more attention, or took up more of the time of the House, than those connected with Ireland. Although Members might differ in opinion with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that was no good ground for saying that therefore they were inattentive to Irish affairs—it was quite possible to obtain in Ireland information of a very different nature from that which that hon. Gentleman gave them. He remembered an instance in that point took place upon the Coercion Bill. The Member for a county, in very flowing language, stated that it was in a state of the greatest tranquillity—while the Lord lieutenant of the same county, who was resident upon the spot, stated it to be very much disturbed, and in a state of almost complete anarchy. He might charge upon the Irish Members, that they were ignorant of Scotch affairs, and unfit to legislate upon them; but as he knew their persevering nature, he would not; then why should the other Members be so often told that they were both ignorant of, and inattentive to, those affairs they were called to legislate upon? The House, in his opinion, had in general shown great attention to, and a complete knowledge of, the state of Ireland.

considered the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, on a former night, a most improper one. To take two-thirds of the tithes away would be something like a national robbery; for those two-thirds belonged to the poor of Ireland. He approved of the principle of the proposed Tithe Bill, as he thought the collecting it as a Land-tax would put an end to such horrible scenes as had lately been transacted in Ireland.

rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulating the Corporation of the city of Dublin. He had obtained leave the last Session of Parliament, and had prepared the Bill; but apprehending that his own local knowledge was not sufficient in some of its details, he had submitted the Bill to his constituents, both in public meetings which were held for the purpose, as well as having published it in the newspapers. He knew that this Bill would give entire satisfaction to the great majority of the inhabitants of the city of Dublin, and the reform in the Corporation would, in their opinion, be a practical measure of the utmost utility. Therefore, at present, the Bill came before the House fortified with the circumstances;—first that he had got leave before to bring it in; and next, that the object of it was one which his constituents entirely approved of, and anxiously desired to see realised. He ought, therefore, not to apprehend opposition to the measure, and he believed none was intended on the part of the active, able, and learned Gentleman whom he had succeeded in the representation of the city of Dublin. He had, therefore, every reason to suppose he should not have any difficulty in prevailing upon the House to grant the leave he sought for. His only apprehension upon the subject was of a personal nature, for the discussions lately, on many measures proposed, had turned, not on the merits of the subject, but on the merits of its advocate. He therefore felt it his duty to apologise to the House, though it was naturally his duty, as one of the representatives for Dublin, to bring in any measure which might be considered as useful to the city of Dublin. However useful it might be, if there were any opposition to it, by the Government the could not flatter himself for an instant with success. It was for him to show that leave ought to be granted, and for its opponents to find out pretences and excuses for interrupting the course of right and justice—pretences and excuses, he should be able to show, which must be of the most flimsy description. Let the House see what enabled him to bring the Bill before the House. They were told something in the King's speech of Corporation I abuses. They had heard a great deal about these abuses in the last Session of Parliament, and had been told that the Reform Bill was a valuable and practical measure, because it would enable them to introduce Reform into the Corporations of the British dominions. The Corporations which required that Reform principally, were those of Ireland and Scotland. The case of Scotland was a grievous one, from the form in which the Corporations existed; and yet these Corporations were superior to the Irish Corporations. In Scotland the members of the Corporation were resident in the town, generally of the same feeling with the community; and though there might be some difference in their political sentiments, there was no religions animosity between them and the inhabitants. Scotland was free from some of the worst evils of the close Corporation system. It was not so, however, with Ireland, and the Irish Corporations. There all the evils which affected Scotland existed, with the addition of their being inflamed to the highest degree; at the same time that they were debased by being mixed up with religious dissension, occasioned by the unjust preference of one persuasion over those professing a different creed. Such were the evils peculiarly attaching to the corporate system in Ireland. But of all the Corporations in Ireland, the Corporation of Dublin was the worst, and it suffered under the accumulation of these disadvantages. It was so circumstanced that the evils which in other cases pressed most heavily, were in this case most severely felt. The courts being held there, and the Sheriffs being appointed by a monopolising corporation, and chosen from a favoured religious persuasion, all the evils to which he had referred were mixed up so as to produce the worst possible consequences. Such was the situation of Dublin; such had hitherto been the situation of Scotland; such was now, emphatically, the situation of Dublin. Scotland, however, had obtained a Corporation Reform. A complete Reform, at least as far as was intended by the Reform Bill, had been given to the Scottish boroughs. Edinburgh, which was formerly a close borough, had now a proper constitution. The city was now identified with the Corporation. Why had not Dublin had the same? He should show, that Dublin more required such Reform. It ought to have had it the moment the Reform Bill was passed—as soon as the present Administration came into office. And the Reform, if any, must be an effectual one—a Reform adapted to the peculiar construction of the Corporation, and of the laws under which it at present existed. The Corporation of Dublin (unlike that of Edinburgh) did not depend on charters only. It had ancient charters, to be sure, as well as modern ones, but it did not stand on charters alone. It had been the subject of regulation by Acts of Parliament—by more than one Act of Parliament. It had been peculiarly the creature of the Legislature—it had been framed by Acts of Parliament, regulated by Acts of Parliament, and altered by Acts of Parliament; and it was, therefore, emphatically the creature of the Legislature. He could not here be met by being told, that the abuses of the corporations of Ireland were remediable by any general propositions from the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of Corporations. No general measure of that Committee could alone remedy those evils. The circumstances attending the Dublin Corporation were exclusive, and must be dealt with, in reference to the Acts of Parliament relating to Dublin. His plan of a Bill, (and if they meant to do an act of justice to Ireland they would sanction it) was, that they should have a specific act in respect to the Corporation of Dublin. There being already two Acts of Parliament which regulated the Corporation of Dublin, the Parliament was the place where the question relative to that Corporation ought to be settled. There was this advantage with respect to the Corporation of Dublin—they were not called upon to create, but simply to alter and amend the existing system. There was in the Corporation of the city of Dublin a Lord Mayor. There was also an upper house, where the twenty-four Aldermen of the city transacted the public business. There was also a commons' house, and the number of Common Council amounted to 141. The Corporation, therefore, had all the necessary forms and features for an efficient Corporation, and it was only necessary that the right of election and the right of representation in the Court of Aldermen should be restored to the citizens of Dublin, to make the Corporation all that it could be wished. He was not asking for a Bill to undermine or destroy the Corporation; all he wished was, to make that a reality which was now only a mockery and a means of oppressing the inhabitants. He wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the case. He knew that as it was a case connected with Ireland, it would not claim that attention which it merited. How often had he been taunted by English Members, who said, "Why don't you bring something practicable forward, and we will support you?" Well, he would now try whether they were in earnest. Whatever hon. Gentlemen might think of other measures which he thought necessary to bring forward, there surely could be no doubt entertained as to the practicability of the present one. It was easy to see, from the attention which hon. Gentlemen were paying to the subject, that it was an Irish question. He would not, however, be either deterred or dispirited by their inattention; he had a duty to perform, and he was determined to go through with it. It was impossible for any man to have a stronger case than he had; but he should soon have an opportunity of seeing, by the decision on the question, the value of a strong case in that House. He had before stated, that the frame of the Corporation of Dublin was popular; the skeleton was perfect; but it required to be filled up. It required a new spirit to be infused into it, in order to restore it to its natural healthy state. There was no such thing as a right to freedom in Dublin—so the Courts of Law had lately decided. It had been alleged, that a right to freedom was acquired in three ways—by birth, servitude, and marriage. The Corporation tried the question in the Court of King's Bench, where it was decided that no such thing existed as a right to the freedom of the city. [The hon. and learned Gentleman being here inaudible by the noise in the House, paused for some moments.] He had paused, that he might not interrupt hon. Members in their conversations. Certainly it was a presumptuous thing of him to call their attention to this subject. There was in the Corporation of Dublin this worst feature of a close borough—self-election. The members of the Corporation could withhold the freedom from whomsoever they pleased, or they could confer it upon whom they pleased. There was no qualification. The lowest of human beings, even the criminal in the dock, was equally eligible with the highest man in the land. There were, therefore, two features in the Corporation of the City of Dublin—exclusiveness and religious intolerance. The Corporation of Dublin was, in its nature, in the first instance, exclusive, for it had the power of having as many members as it thought fit, while it had also the power of having as few as it chose. Ought that to be permitted? Was it not an anomaly in the constitution? What was the consequence of this power of exclusion? It was, that, in a population of above 200,000 there were only 1,900 free of the city; so that that inconsiderable portion of the inhabitants—inconsiderable, whether wealth or character were considered as well as numbers—had the whole power, privileges, and immunities, of the City of Dublin, with its 200,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, entirely in their own hands. They had the election of aldermen, mayor, and sheriffs of the capital of the country, where all the Courts of Justice held their sittings. The other obnoxious feature in the Corporation of the City of Dublin was, its religious exclusiveness, founded upon the worst and basest bigotry. In the year 1792 or 1793, about forty-one years ago, the Legislature enabled the Roman Catholics of Ireland to become freemen of the several Corporations of that kingdom; of course Dublin as the principal city, had the first right to be free. From 1793 to 1834, how many Catholics, he would ask the House, were admitted to the freedom of Dublin? He did not desire to know how many were admitted to the mastership of guilds, or the offices of mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, or other civic dignity, but merely how many were admitted to the simple freedom of the city? The House could not answer, perhaps; but he could. There was not one—not a single one! He earnestly implored the House to see what a feature—a monstrous revolting feature—this was on the double monopoly enjoyed by the Corporation of the City of Dublin. It amounted, in point of fact, to a complete exclusion of the whole Catholic population. It was not because there were not honest, industrious, wealthy men among the consecutive generation of 200,000, which had come on, disappeared, and been again supplied in that City, for the contrary was acknowledged even by the Corporation itself; but it was because they were Catholics, and because the Corporation was actuated by the worst feelings towards that class. The Catholics of Dublin had shown themselves possessed of industry, integrity, loyalty, and all the qualifications which could dignify human nature; but all had been spurned by this Corporation, which for forty-one years had excluded the Catholics from the enjoyment of their municipal rights. In addition to this, they were told, that they could not compel the Corporation to do justice. Would not the House interfere? He entreated them to do so, though, if he had any bad feeling to gratify, he should wish them not to interfere. This was a monopoly even among the Protestants, for, out of the whole number, only 1,900 enjoyed it. They were, likewise, told of the excessive anxiety of this House to do justice to Ireland in practical matters. Here was an opportunity of showing this anxiety, by removing a most odious monopoly. And of what nature was this monopoly? Why, it was the appointment of the sheriffs; and how the monopoly was exercised, in this respect, every Irishman knew. These Sheriffs appointed the Juries, and through them the administration of justice between man and man was most scandalously perverted. Could they be surprised at the peasantry breaking the law, when they who had to administer it made it a mockery? He knew, and the fact was sworn to before the Commissioners of Inquiry, that instances had occurred in which Juries chosen by these Sheriffs had tried the question brought before them, not upon its merits, but by the favour which was felt by a particular class to one of the parties in the suit. In every county in Ireland there was an immense quantity of local taxation. This taxation was disposed of exclusively for the benefit of the Grand Jurors themselves, or, at least, for the benefit of their families and neighbours. The Sheriff had the entire appointment of the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury had the levying of the local taxation. In 1791, the Grand Jury of the City of Dublin taxed the citizens to the amount of 2,100l. But let them see what had happened since that time. The Grand Jury cess of the City of Dublin amounted, in 1827, to 25,246l.; 1829, to 27,303l.; 1830, to 28,306l.; 1831, to 29,663l.; 1832, to 32,151l. This was the last return that was made, and they would perceive, that this taxation had been progressive, and that the taxation had increased upwards: of 1,000l. per annum. But who had to pay this amount of taxation? Certainly not the 1,900 freemen, many of whom were not even householders. Thus this narrow Corporation had the power of regulating the taxation of the 300,000 inhabitants of Dublin. Would they allow this state of things to continue? Let them not give the Irish mere words—let them not confine themselves to hopes—for "hope deferred maketh the heart sick;" but let them give, at least, a practical proof of a disposition to confer some benefit on Ireland. During the sixteen years that elapsed previous to Catholic emancipation, there was not a single Catholic admitted upon the Grand Jury. Subsequent to emancipation the case was just the same. The Roman Catholics got no greater share of emancipation from the hands of the Dublin Corporation than if the Act had not passed at all. From 1829 to the present period, there had been 316 persons on the Grand Jury of the City of Dublin. How many Catholics did the House think there were amongst the number? Why, just seven. Why should this be the case? It did not occur from any ineligibility. The principal merchants of Dublin were Catholics; the principal part of the commercial wealth of Dublin was in the hands of Catholics; and he knew some three or four Catholic merchants in Dublin who could buy the Corporation out and out, and who, after paying its debts, and purchasing its assets, would still have a fortune left. During this period, out of the 316 Grand Jurors, there were but 115 persons; for several of; them served on the Grand Juries year after year. In the return he found that Alderman Perrin served thirteen times, Alderman Warner fourteen times, Alderman Smith eleven times, and Alderman Abbot nine times. What a system was that! Would they permit it to continue, by refusing him leave to introduce his Bill? The only pretence that could be given was, that the Commissioners of Inquiry had; not yet presented their Report; but that was an idle pretence. Let the House look to the time that was likely to be spent before that Report was laid upon the Table. The hon. Gentleman, who was at the head of that Commission, Mr. Sergeant Perrin, than whom there was no better common lawyer, had written to him (Mr. O'Connell) a letter which he had only received that morning, in which he stated that he had accepted retainers for a circuit. That, of course, meant that he would be engaged in every cause. He could not possibly be in that House before April, and it would take a considerable time to consider of and draw up the Report; then how could there be time to pass the Bill through that House, after considering the Report? Another fact was, that the Dublin Corporation had the supply of the water to the whole city of Dublin, which was secured to them by several Acts of Parliament. It was thought that the Legislature, in giving them such a power, would at all events have fixed a maximum of rates. They had done so, certainly, to the houses of the gentry, but upon the manufacturer, the distiller, and the brewer, the Corporation had the power to charge what they liked, and they had charged most handsomely. Government was called on to interfere—they would not. The Court of Chancery was applied to, to allow the remonstrance to lie—it would not. The matter was laid before the House of Lords, and it was ordered to lie there. What was the consequence? Why, the Corporation of Dublin actually levied 45,000l. more than they were entitled to levy. The city of Dublin was governed under the operation of two Acts—there was first the Act of Settlement, the 17th and 18th Charles 2nd, c. 22. The Cromwelian adventurers wishing to contract the Corporation completely, passed an Act for the purpose of putting it under their regulation, and empowered the Lord-lieutenant to regulate the Corporation for twelve months. How were the guilds in Dublin represented? The different trades were entitled to a separate representation, yet the shoemakers had three attorneys to represent them, and all the guilds were represented in like manner, by attorneys, attorneys' clerks, and half-pay officers. Were such abuses to be allowed to exist one twelvemonth longer? Was another year to pass over, and the citizens of Dublin be subjected to a body that had the exclusive power of taxing them as they chose? Would that first article of life, water, be still exposed to a high tax, and the people prohibited from enjoying even that luxury with which nature herself supplied them. When he told them of the disaffection of the people of Ireland, of the disfavour the Government of the country was in, and of the species of distinctions that were made between both countries, were they to prevent him from putting an end to this most monstrous monopoly? A more plundering Corporation than that of Dublin never existed; and he called upon them to say, whether they would not therefore adopt some measure to redress it. If it had been in this country, or in Scotland, the Legislature would never have permitted mischiefs to such an extent to exist for so long a period. In England the Corporations were statutable, but this Corporation was entirely legislative, and was a creature of the Legislature. He would say three words as to the nature of his plan. He had already stated, that the form and elements of the Dublin Corporation were already in existence. He, therefore, did not propose any violent alteration. He would divide Dublin into eight districts, each of which should return three Aldermen, except one, which should in its turn elect four, beginning with No. 1. This would give twenty-five Aldermen. The Aldermen should be elected from the Common Council; and he would give his reason for this presently. He would have each of the Aldermen hold office only six years, in order to prevent that body from becoming an oligarchy. Each ward or district should return eight members to the Common Council; this would make sixty-four. The merchants' company should return eight; but then it should really be a company of merchants. This would make seventy-two. Each of the other twenty-four guilds should return one member each to the Common Council, making in all ninety-six. He would have the right of election to be in the 10l. householders; in a word, he would place it upon the same footing with the election of Members to sit in that House. In the Common Council so elected, he would place the right of electing all public officers, such as Sheriffs, &c., to be taken out of their own body. He would also vest the appointment to all places of emolument in the Common Council. The election of Lord Mayor he would leave on the same footing that it was, or at least was to be, in London. By thus increasing the importance of the office of Common Councilmen, they would soon find that that body would be filled by respectable and trustworthy citizens, from whom all other appoint- ments would emanate. The police was altogether a separate establishment; the paving board was also a separate establishment. It was admitted, that there was much of extravagance in the collection of the various amounts; they were collected at a charge of from 8l. to 17l. per cent. By his plan there would be only one Board, and the revenues would be collected at from 2l. 10s. to 3l. per cent. But he would insert a clause in the Bill declaring that there should be a separate account kept in the Bank of Ireland for this money; and that whoever paid his taxes into the Bank within twenty-one days of their being due, should be allowed to put the 2½ per cent allowed on collection into his own pocket. He was sure that this appointment of one Board only would produce a saving of 50,000l. a-year to the country. [Mr. Littleton: I calculate it at 25,000l.] The right hon. Secretary admitted, that, at least, 25,000l. would be saved. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought it would amount to 50,000l., and in a little time to much more. He begged pardon for having detained the House at such length. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the Corporation of Dublin.

, in what he had to say, would not detain the House more than a few moments, because he was sure that, as the hon. and learned Member proceeded, the House became quite convinced that the present was not the most fitting-opportunity for the introduction of the Bill to which the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion referred. He begged to remind the House, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had never raised his voice in favour of Corporation Reform, before Government announced the intention of appointing a Commission of Inquiry into the state of the existing Corporations. To the Government belonged the merit of originating that inquiry; the merit of cordially approving of it belonged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He trusted the House had not forgotten what passed on this subject during the last Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman, at that period, moved for leave to bring in a Bill similar to the one he now proposed to introduce, and his Motion, after much discussion and objection on the part of several Members of the House, was agreed to, on the con- dition that the Bill should be introduced forthwith, in order that the Commissioners then about to be appointed, might have the advantage of knowing what reform the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to make in the Corporation of Dublin. However, the hon. and learned Member, though he obtained leave, never thought proper to introduce his Bill; and what, security had the House that the hon. and learned Member would not, in the present Session, pursue the course he had adopted in the last? One of the reasons which induced the Government last year to accede to the hon. and learned Member's Motion, was the belief that a separate measure would be required for the reform of the Corporation of Dublin. They had, however, since ascertained that such a mode of proceeding was not necessary; and he had the authority of Mr. Serjeant Perrin, whose opinion on such a matter was entitled to every confidence, for stating, that it would be unnecessary to pass more than one law for the whole of the Corporations in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the importance of ingrafting the consolidation of the collections of the local revenues with any measure which might be passed for the amendment of the Corporation of Dublin. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member in that opinion; but it would be expedient first to settle the principles by which the Reform of the Corporation should be regulated. Under these circumstances, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and the more especially as he expected that the Report of the Corporation Commissioners would very shortly be presented to the House.

wished the House to consider what effect the refusal of his Motion would produce in Ireland. None of his statements had been contradicted; and the only reasons offered for rejecting his proposition were, that he had made a similar one last Session, and that, a general measure on the subject was about to be introduced. Much as he respected Mr. Serjeant Perrin's talents, he could not allow that that Gentleman would be able to amend the Corporation of Dublin by any other mode than the introduction of a separate measure. That Corporation was regulated by statute, and any enactments for its reformation, if contained in a general measure, must be kept distinct and separate from the rest. But why should he trespass further on the time of the House? The existence of the grievances and abuses which he had exposed was admitted. No answer was made, or even attempted to be made, to his statement, yet he might rest assured that his Motion would be rejected by a triumphant majority.

felt convinced, that the commission the appointment of which was recommended, and having at its head a highly-gifted and honourable man—he meant Mr. Serjeant Perrin—would present a report to Parliament which would be entirely satisfactory to the people of Ireland. With this conviction strong in his mind, and representing, as he did, a large city, the inhabitants of which were greatly interested in the proceedings of the Corporation Commissioners, he thought, with all due deference to the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that the people of Ireland would be glad to see one general measure of Reform introduced, instead of a series of separate Bills, applicable exclusively to particular places. If the hon. and learned Member were allowed to introduce a Bill with reference to Dublin, what reason could be shown why he should not be permitted to propose a Bill solely applicable to the city of Waterford? He really did not understand why the hon. and learned Member should attempt to make a difference where no real distinction existed, and thus needlessly occupy the time of the House. Such, at any rate, was his opinion, and he would not shrink from avowing it, though it might excite the scoffing of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He trusted the Motion would not be persevered in, for if carried, so far from answering any good purpose, it would tend to destroy the feeling of satisfaction with which the people out of doors were disposed to regard the labours of the Corporation Commissioners.

wished to know at what period the Government expected to be enabled to propose a general measure with respect to Corporation Reform? If it would not be practicable for them to introduce any such measure in the present Session, they surely could not refuse the hon. and learned Member the privilege of bringing in a Bill to reform the Corporation of Dublin.

said, that he understood his right hon. friend (Mr. Littleton) to state, that the Report of the Commissioners would very shortly be presented to the House. Of course, when it should be presented, the House would proceed to take it into consideration. The Government had not as yet seen the Report of the Irish Commissioners, but they never would have directed those gentlemen to inquire into the state of the Corporations, if they had not intended to follow up that inquiry by some legislative measure. The hon. and learned Member had complained that his speech had received no answer. He (Lord Althorp) admitted that it had not received any answer, and for a very good reason—the Government had no wish to deny that, the Corporation of Dublin required reform; but he did not think it expedient to pass a separate measure for the Corporation of Dublin, for the Commissioners' Report might soon be expected, and a general measure applicable to the whole of Ireland would be founded on it.

said that, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord, he should ask leave of the House to withdraw his Motion.

said, he rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of persons dissenting from the Church of England in regard to the celebration of marriages. It was well known that, for a longtime past, Dissenters had complained of the grievance which they suffered and the violence done their consciences in being obliged, for the purpose of contracting marriage, to appear before a minister of a church from which they dissented, and to go through ceremonies inconsistent with their own forms of faith. It was likewise felt by many ministers of the Established Church as a most painful duty to have to perform the marriage ceremony for persons dissenting from the Church, who, as most frequently happened, disregarded the ceremony, and very often protested against it at its conclusion. Such being the feeling on both sides, there would not be found, he believed, a single person, whether Churchman or Dissenter, who would not be extremely pleased if a measure could be framed which, without doing any injury to the Church on the one hand, or violating the consciences of Dissenters on the other, might yet give the Dissenters relief from the grievances of which they complained. He was happy to say, that his Majesty's Ministers having turned their attention to this subject, were now enabled to propose a plan which, if it did not obviate every difficulty, or meet every objection, would, he trusted, be found sufficient to give real and substantial relief in the case he had just alluded to. The Dissenters, in calling for an alteration of the existing law, proposed one of two things—either that the Act of Marriage should be an entirely civil contract, with liberty to the parties afterwards to celebrate such religious ceremonies as were most agreeable to their feelings, or that power should be given to Dissenting ministers to celebrate marriages, and that such marriages should be held to be legal. With respect to the first of these propositions, he was ready to admit that it possessed a great advantage in its simplicity, and that it would at once obviate a great many of the difficulties with which this matter was incumbered. Yet, though it was in principle very defensible, it would be so repugnant to the feelings of a great portion of the country, that he did not think it would be wise or expedient to propose any measure of the sort. He then came to the second remedy proposed—namely, to allow Dissenting ministers to perform the marriage ceremony of persons belonging to their own congregations; and it was on this principle that the Bill which he had the honour to propose was founded. The Government did not intend to propose that every Dissenting chapel in the country should be licensed for the celebration of marriages; but, whenever twenty householders in a parish should represent by memorial or petition, that they wished to have a certain chapel in a fixed place licensed for that purpose, it should be incumbent on the magistrates at quarter sessions, or those by whom Dissenting chapels were at present licensed for the celebration of divine worship, to grant the required license, on the condition that a notice of the grant of such license be fixed upon a conspicuous part of the chapel. The minister of that chapel would then have it in his power to celebrate marriages; but this power could only be exercised on certain conditions, and in a specified manner. Parties wishing to be married according to ceremonies and rites differing from those of the Church of England, would have to proceed, in the first instance, in the same way as persons belonging to the establishment. They must either be married by bans or by license. If they chose to be married by bans, they would have to give a regular notice to the clergyman of the parish in which they resided; or if they resided in different parishes, the clergyman of each was to publish the bans. After they had been published, if the parties wished the marriage to be celebrated by a Dissenting minister, they must ask for a certificate of the due publication of the bans, and the clergyman of the parish, upon granting it, would enter in the book in which the bans were recorded, that a certificate had been granted on the application of such parties. The Dissenting minister would then have to give notice in his chapel that he would proceed in the course of the week to celebrate the marriage; and, after the ceremony, he would be required to record the marriage in a registry kept by him for that purpose. He believed that insuperable difficulty would be felt in making the parish clergyman enter on the general registry marriages celebrated by dissenting ministers, and, therefore, it was not to be denied that, in making the proposed alteration, the advantage of possessing in the registry of the Church of England a registry of all the marriages celebrated in the country would be lost. Still this defect would be compensated for by providing that registries should be kept by the Dissenting ministers, a copy of which, at the completion of every three months, should be transmitted to the registrar of the diocese. He, therefore, thought that there would exist sufficient proofs for the celebration of these marriages. There would, first of all, be the record of the bans, and of the grant of the certificate; then the registries of the Dissenting chapels: and, lastly, the copies kept by the registrars of the different dioceses. The registries at present were very irregularly kept; but it was conceived that they would be preserved in a more regular and complete manner if it were required that a fee should accompany their transmission to the registrars of the dioceses. There was, however, another difficulty with respect to this subject, to which he begged to call the attention of the House. I It was well known that the registries of the Established Church were regularly kept in a fixed and certain place; whereas Dissenting chapels were often abandoned by the religious frequenters, and, being used for other purposes than divine worship, the registries kept in them ceased to be of any value. It would therefore be provided, in the Bill which he proposed to introduce, that the magistrates at quarter sessions, on being certified by two justices of the peace that any Dissenting chapel had ceased to be frequented, should have the power at once to withdraw the license for the celebration of marriages in such chapel, and to order the original registry to be transmitted to the registrar of the diocese. Such an enactment as that would, he thought, provide against the difficulties which otherwise might be felt from the abandonment of a licensed chapel by its congregation. Another way in which marriages might be performed in this country was by license; and it would be enacted in the proposed measure, that Dissenters desiring to marry by license must make, as at present, application to the surrogate. The license having been granted, the Dissenting minister, on marrying the parties, would record the marriage in his registry. Such were the chief provisions of the proposed measure; and he thought he need not say that no little difficulty had been found in drawing them up, so as to meet the wishes of the aggrieved parties. But he was aware, that unless a disposition should be manifested to waive objections, and, to a certain degree, to give up scruples on this subject, both on the part of the Churchmen and Dissenters, no measure could be framed which would be satisfactory in its operation. He therefore trusted that concessions would be made on both sides, and that Parliament would show, that while it preserved the rights and privileges of Churchmen, had no objection, whenever any practical grievance was pointed out by the Dissenters, to inquire into the subject in the spirit of conciliation. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill "for the relief of persons dissenting from the Church of England in regard to the celebration of marriages."

was disposed to think that we had adopted a very bad principle upon the subject of the registration of births and marriages. Marriages should be a civil act, and then the registration would be matter of little difficulty, as was found to be the case in almost every foreign country. The evil here, however, was that every thing of that sort must go through the Church for the benefit of the Church; and hence the difficulties and irregularities, of which the people of this country had so much more reason to complain, than those of all other countries. We should, in the matter of registration, follow their example. Persons to be married, should go before the Civil Magistrate, who could and would keep an intelligible registry, which could be of easy access to all the parties interested in it. Our present system was too complex, and should be simplified as speedily as possible. In short, every thing should be done by the Government, which could put an end to jealousies between the people. He could see but little utility in the proposed regulations of the noble Lord; and, he would ask, were the marriages of the Jews to come under the operation of this Bill? The noble Lord had said nothing about them, although they were as much the King's subjects as any other class of people in the empire. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, was a partial Bill, but, as it was a step towards improvement, he would not object to it. He would only say that a civil registration would answer every purpose, better than that existing at present, and also far better than that now proposed by the noble Lord.

expressed his hope that, in whatever might be done upon this subject, the House would not reject the Protestant Church, though the hon. Member seemed to say he would reject it. [Mr. Hume: No, indeed, I did not say so.] He was glad when he heard that the hon. Member would not reject the Church; and he hoped the hon. Member would support that in all its essential rights and privileges. He thought, as far as he could judge of the noble Lord's plan, that it was too complicated for the House to be able at this instant, to give any opinion upon it. He felt that he could give no opinion. The noble Lord had stated in what places marriages were to be performed, but he had not stated by whom they were to be performed. Were licenses to perform the marriage ceremony to be given, without any examination? But at present he would say nothing more upon the subject, nor until he saw the Bill, with its details, in a printed form.

was not inclined to deny that, if in the existing state of society, general principles could be carried into effect, it might be considered a most advisable, simple, and efficient plan, to render marriage (after due publicity had been attained by some mode of publication) a civil ceremony, leaving it to the parties at a subsequent period to comply with such religious ceremonies as their own feelings and consciences might dictate; but the country was not precisely in that state and condition, for it contained persons of a great variety of sentiments on the subject of marriage, and the nature of the contract; and he was perfectly confident, whatever might be his own judgment, that it would be exceedingly difficult to carry into complete and universal effect the principle to which he had adverted without violating the conscientious feelings of a very large proportion of those who were attached to the Established Church. If we could find a practical remedy for the present grievances—if we could remove from the minds of the Dissenters the present unpleasant and painful feelings which they experienced—without violating the feelings of members of the Established Church, it would be expedient to do so. He was afraid, however, that there was no such middle course as might be found acceptable to the great majority of all opinions, and, therefore, the advantage which would be derived from the measure proposed by his noble friend was this, that, as on the one hand, the most scrupulous judgment could not possibly find any sound reason or ground for objecting to the present Bill being carried into effect, so he thought no honest and well-judging Dissenter would hesitate to comply with those terms and preliminaries which were essential to the due publication of the intention of the parties, and for the prevention of those fraudulent marriages which were the cause of such measures taking place. He was well aware that this measure was fraught with difficulties, but the difficulties concerning registration were very great. He was well aware, that a system of universal registration must be exceedingly advantageous; but he had read the report and the evidence, and he was prepared to say, that to the establishment of that universal registry there were difficulties which he could not overcome. In the first place, as concerned the registration of births, he was convinced that that would never be done voluntarily by the people of this country. His hon. friend, the member for Oxford, had said, that this was a complicated measure. He had never witnessed a measure on this subject, more simple than the measure now proposed. A Dissenter wished to be married in his own chapel—his bans were put up in the ordinary and accustomed forms; there was no difference made—no alteration in the law whatever; but this Bill, if it were passed into a law, would give him the power of going to the minister of the Church where the bans were published, and say,—"Give me a certificate and a declaration, that I may be married in a particular chapel." On looking to the history of the marriage-law in this country, he was inclined to think that, by agreeing to this Bill, the House would be doing no more than adverting to the ancient system. In ancient days, the intervention of a priest was not necessary; and when it became the custom, it was not for the purpose of rendering the contract of marriage good and valid, for as far as the year 1756, in 99 cases out of 100, a promise given de prœsenti between two individuals, was sufficient to make a marriage binding. Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act was the original innovation; an Act, which, although it was calculated to put an end to some of the evils which prevailed, the evils of clandestine marriage, yet introduced other evils and mischiefs, surely as great as those which it was intended to suppress. That Act was fraught with great injustice, for it compelled the honest Dissenter, who conscientiously differed from the doctrines of the Church of England, who considered the marriage service, however sacred and venerable in the opinions of members of the Church of England, as an adaptation of forms of which in his conscience he disapproved—it compelled him, before he could enter into the bonds of matrimony, to begin by violating his own conscience. He was sure that every one in the House would feel most desirous to adopt any measure which could relieve the Dissenters. Not only every man of honesty, but every individual who revered a ceremony, such as the marriage ceremony of the Established Church, and did not wish to see it constantly disregarded, would be desirous of supporting a measure such as that which had been introduced by his noble friend. He should be exceedingly sorry, if, in giving this just and well-deserved measure of relief to the Dissenters, the Legislature were under the necessity of violating the rights and consciences of members of the Established Church; but when he said that there was nothing but the publication of the bans, which told whether the parties belonged to the Established or the Dissenters' Church, he was at a loss to conceive how the most tender conscience that ever raised a scruple, could by possibility be offended at having so simple a reform. This publication was requisite to avoid what otherwise might take place with so much facility—viz., the contracting and the performing of clandestine marriages. There was no chance of the marriages of Dissenters being more clandestine than the marriages of members of the Church of England. He trusted that this Bill would be recognized and hailed by all Dissenters as a great measure of relief.

expressed his regret with the hon. member for Middlesex, that this country seemed so far behind all others in Europe, with regard to registration. A large portion of the community, under the present system, were altogether excluded from its benefits; and it was quite necessary that a complete and extensive change should be introduced. He hailed with satisfaction the measure of the noble Lord, as the first step towards concessions to Dissenters of their just claims. He said the first step, because he had no doubt the noble Lord agreed with him in thinking that they could not stop here. There were some demands made by Dissenters, which he, as a member of the Established Church, considered both unjust and unreasonable, but there might be a difference of opinion on such matters, and, at all events, he should ever be found a decided advocate for the practical redress of every existing grievance, while the demand for it was just and reasonable.

said, he was induced to believe, from the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Members who had preceded him, that the measure now proposed, was only a preliminary proceeding to one of a more general and extensive nature. The House was, however, in the meantime, in possession of this easy and simple measure which had been proposed by the noble Lord. But notwithstanding this, he felt anxious to state that he could not agree with the noble Lord. With respect to a statement made by the hon. member for Middlesex, that registers were made out negligently, he would observe, that it was a duty imposed upon the clergy by Act of Parliament, and that they were compelled to the due discharge of this duty, whatever might be the inconvenience attending it.

said, that he had listened to the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the subject of the Debate, with that attention which its great interest demanded; and he thought the statements it contained so clear, that no one could misapprehend them. Throughout the whole of that speech, the aim of the noble Lord was, to show that his Majesty's Ministers were very desirous of affording relief to the Dissenters, and to prove that this measure would effectually secure the relief they desired. But after hearing the speech of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), he found that, though the measure was one professing to have for its main object the relief of the Dissenters, yet that a deference to the authority of the Church was still to be maintained, and great pains taken to prevent anything being done, that should displease the members of the Establishment. For his own part, he confessed that he saw no sufficient reason for this tenderness towards the feelings of churchmen, for since it was a Bill intended to regulate the marriages of Dissenters, he could not understand why churchmen should either assume, or be permitted to have, any interest whatever in the matter. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets had given it as the result of his experience, that the people of England belonging to the Established Church would be grievously wounded if the marriages of Dissenters were to be celebrated wholly by, and among themselves, without the Church having any cognizance of the matter. Now, with all deference to the experience of the hon. and learned member, he (Mr. Buckingham) must take leave to say that, as far as his experience went—and it was as varied and extensive, perhaps, as that of the learned Civilian—though possibly among different classes of society, he should say that he had never met with any lay members of the Church, who had not expressed their readiness to concede to the Dissenters the entire management of their marriages, burials, and all other ordinances of this description, without the interference of the Church in any way whatever. To the clergy of the Establishment, who had a pecuniary interest in the preservation of the emoluments which flowed from these ordinances, the transfer of their celebration to the Dissenters might perhaps be objectionable; but, as far as the general feeling of their congregations were engaged, he believed that few or no objections would be taken by them to such a transfer as fully and completely as the Dissenters themselves could desire. The question had been raised as to whether marriage was generally regarded in this country as a civil contract, or a religious one; and undoubtedly it was important to settle that point, in order to legislate on a sound basis for its future regulation. The reasons which induced him to think that, even in England, it was regarded much more in the light of a civil than a religious act, was this.—First, that though the solemnization of marriage was accompanied by a religious ceremony, all the obligations imposed by the contract were purely civil, and recognized only by the civil law. If there be at any time a breach of the promise to marry, a violation of the marriage vow after marriage has taken place, a desertion of the wife by the husband, an infidelity in either party, or any other departure from the duties of the married state, they were cognizable only by the civil law; they were prosecuted in Courts of Justice, and tried like other offences against the law, without any reference whatever to the peculiar creed of the parties. Secondly, that in acts purely religious, the magistrate was never consulted or applied to; nor could any human authority be justly exercised either to allow or to prevent them. When, for instance, any individual, as a purely religious act, associated himself with some religious community, entered himself as a member of some particular sect, and joined with his religious brethren in all the duties which his union to them imposed, neither the civil magistrate nor the clerical authority were ever applied to, or their jurisdiction admitted in any way whatever. It was clear then, from this, that marriage was not regarded as a religious act, either by the law, or by the community; while its subjection to civil prosecutions and civil penalties, for breaches of any part of its contracts, gave it a civil character in almost every stage, from its first contraction to its ultimate annulment by divorce. It would have been far better, then, he thought, since an alteration was to be made, had the whole subject been regarded as to its civil obligations; and these secured upon a firm and general basis; while the religious solemnization of the contract by different sects might have been left entirely to the direction of the several sects themselves. Among the provisions contained in the Bill, was one which still made it imperative upon the parties to have the bans of their marriage published in the parish church. Now, he asked, what was the intention of the publication of bans at all? It was undoubtedly to prevent clandestine and improper marriages, by giving such ample notice of the intended union to the community at large, as to allow all who could state any objections to such union, to come forward and prevent it in time. But when Dissenters were about to be married, where could there be so proper a place for the publication of their bans, as in the chapel, and among the congregation to which they belonged? All their friends, connexions, and associates would be there: and every thing respecting them be generally and accurately known; while, in the parish church, which, being Dissenters, they would certainly not frequent, they would be as unknown as in another town, and the whole object of the publication of the bans be thus neutralized or defeated. Besides which, all those who were in the habit of hearing the bans published in the parish churches of large and populous districts, must be well aware, that the multiplicity of the names called over, was such as to become tiresome in the extreme, and lead to great inattention, while the divisions of the whole mass into the smaller portions which they would form, if the minister of each Dissenting chapel published the bans of all persons belonging to his congregation, would leave only a few names to be announced on each Sabbath; and these would obtain greater attention, and greater publicity—in the very places where it was most important that that publicity should be given. There was one consideration, however, which presented itself to him with greater force than all the rest. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had objected, and most reasonably, to the introduction of so partial a measure as the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned member for Dublin for the improvement of that Corporation only, while a great general measure was in preparation for improving other Corporations as well. Exactly the same objection, he thought, might be made to the present Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces. As a part of those measures of relief which the Dissenters sought, it was acceptable as far as it went; but it was deeply to be regretted that it should stop there. If it were really the wish of his Majesty's Government to afford relief to the Dissenters—and that was their professed object in introducing this measure—it would be well to ask, what were the points on which the Dissenters asked such relief? Did they confine themselves exclusively to the desire of being able to celebrate their own marriages in their own way? Certainly not. Whether the House consulted the memorials transmitted from the various bodies of Dissenters to Lord Grey, or the petitions from them presented to the House, they all prayed for much more. First, for a general registration of births, instead of baptisms, to secure them that legal evidence on which the transmission of property, and various other rights, so materially depended; secondly, for a general registration of marriages, unconnected entirely with any religious authority, and leaving the mode of solemnization open to all; thirdly, for a power to inter their dead in parochial cemeteries, without the intervention of the Established clergy, and by a funeral service of their own; and fourthly, for an equal admission to, and participation in, all the honours of the Universities, without subscribing to religious tests, or being at all called upon to adhere to any particular opinions. If the noble Lord or his Majesty's Ministers, would introduce at once a Bill conferring on the Dissenters of England all these rights, he doubted not but that it would be hailed by the whole of that large portion of his Majesty's subjects, with the greatest gratitude and joy; but the present measure, he feared, would be regarded as partial and insufficient: and since he was persuaded that, before the close of the present Session, attempts would be made to secure for the Dissenters, each and all of these objects of their desire, he ventured still to hope that his Majesty's Government would anticipate their wishes, by framing one general and comprehensive measure, which should embrace all these objects, and thus complete the great work of religious freedom, by emancipating all sects from any subjection or subordination to any dominant ecclesiastical power.

agreed with his hon. friend that this was a national question, and should be considered in its general importance and bearings as a national question. The measure that had been proposed was, in his opinion, not sufficiently comprehensive. He, as the Representative of a large body of Dissenters, felt a warm interest in the subject, and therefore could not refrain from asking the question, was it not felt that births, marriages, and deaths, should be properly recorded?

, characterized it as an act of injustice, that the rights of Dissenters should have been so long withheld from them, and that Bill was no restitution of their rights. Many petitions had been presented to the House on this subject, (with the whole of which he did not agree in sentiment); and many more would be presented, of which opportunities he would avail himself to express his opinions more fully and decidedly. A great deal had been said of clandestine marriages. Now the fact was, that there were fewer clandestine marriages among the Quakers and I Jews, who were not subject to those laws, than there were in the Established Church. Why not allow Dissenters to celebrate marriage in their own way, as the Jews and Quakers were permitted to do? He would leave the noble Lord to reconcile this difference. The measure proposed by the noble Lord was a minute and contemptible one. He would attend to the progress of it, and, on the second reading, would do it as complete justice as his ability would permit.

, in reply, said, the objections would be more properly discussed in some future stage. The hon. Member who spoke last, said the measure was minute and contemptible. It certainly did not go so far as totally to extinguish the Established Church, or to separate Church and State, as the hon. Member wished. It was not one of those grand and decisive measures which involved total overthrow. He did not mean to deny the advantages of a general registration, but there were difficulties and objections which the member for Middle- sex did not seem to have considered. A general registry might be kept in two ways, either by the clergy of the Church of England, or it might be a civil registry. There were objections to the latter. It would require much complicated machinery, and would involve compulsion. The Dissenters would no doubt object to the former. The great difficulty was, that if the Dissenters registered their own marriages, they might be celebrated in obscure places, which would give rise to difficulties.

rose to bring forward the following Motion:—"That the Committee on every Inclosure Bill shall, in their Report, certify whether a portion of land, as near to the village as conveniently may be, and not less than in the proportion of one acre to every twenty-five inhabitants according to the last population census, has been by such Bill directed to be allotted out of the commonable lands or waste grounds to the incumbent of the living and the parish officers for the time being, and the owners of one hundred acres of land in such parish, as trustees in trust to let the same in small portions, at low rents, to all labourers resident in the parish who may be desirous of hiring the same, such rents to be paid to the parish officers for the time being, in aid of the poor-rates; or whether there be any special reason why such allotment cannot conveniently or properly be made in that particular instance." The plan, said the hon. Member, of giving small allotments of land to labourers was not quite a new one. The experiment had been tried in some instances, and found very beneficial. In the November of 1830, when the firing of stacks and farmyards was occurring in different parts of the country, it was not found that labourers having these small allotments were in any instance connected with such outrages. In a parish in the county of Cambridge half an acre had been given to each labourer, with a condition that he should be discharged if he did not pay the rent. Since this establishment was formed, it had been found necessary to discharge no more than two; the poor-rates had been diminished, and the habits of the labourers greatly ameliorated. The pro- position he meant to submit to the House was to render it compulsory to appropriate a certain portion of any land that might hereafter be enclosed for the purpose of allotting it to the poor. Besides other advantages, labour would be created by the necessary fencing, draining, and cultivation of such allotments. It would be a stimulus to improvement to have the labourers allotments in immediate contiguity, in place of being dispersed over the whole surface of a parish. The rent accruing he proposed should be appropriated to the uses of the parish. The principal objection to the plan was, that it would take from every owner a portion of the land which of right belonged to him; but it was the same with roads. The owner of land in the case of a road was deprived of a portion of his land, but it was for the public benefit. The proprietors of land would eventually be more benefited by such allotments than if the inclosure was divided among them, for, while a body of more independent and comfortable labourers would thus be created, the poor-rate would be diminished. This diminution of rate would be a great benefit to the proprietor, for it was he, in fact, and not the occupier, who paid the poor-rates. They would pay a lower rate, and eventually receive a higher rent. Before he had the honour of a seat in that House, he introduced this system into one parish. It had been tried for some time, and was now found to be completely successful. This success appeared in the greater comfort of the labourer, and the crops produced on these allotments were more abundant than the crops of the neighbouring farmers. He might say it succeeded wherever it had been hitherto tried. One objection was, that by dealing out such small portions of land, a body of men would be created who would be neither farmers nor labourers. This might be a valid objection if he proposed to give large portions of land; but as he proposed to allot to each not more than a quarter or half an acre this could not alter the character or position of the labourer. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

opposed the Motion. Very little benefit could arise now from a plan of this kind, when there remained but few inclosures to be made. He had no doubt of the good intentions of his hon. friend, but he could not support a motion which appeared to him a mere peddling attempt at getting rid of a great and extensive evil. He hoped the subject would be taken up on a more enlarged scale, and in a way calculated to do real good. This measure was much too partial in its operation. It would affect but very few parishes.

saw no good that could arise from the Motion. Poor lands were already out of cultivation, and there was no likelihood that if other poor lands were now enclosed, they could be advantageously cultivated by labourers. What was now proposed would not effect the object which his hon. friend had in view. The number of enclosures likely to take place was too limited to be extensively beneficial. The best way to improve the condition of the poor would be to afford them an opportunity of converting their labour to most profit.

, in reply, said, there were twenty Inclosure Bills this Session, and he saw no reason why such a measure as that proposed by him should not be applied. If they could not do all the good they desired, they ought to do all they could.

rose to bring forward the charge which he had to make against the Irish Government and which was one of serious importance. It was in fact no less than that, in a case of the Crown against a subject, a jury had been empannelled in such a manner as to secure a conviction contrary to justice. Serious as the charge was, he had no doubt but that he should be enabled to establish it to the satisfaction of the House. The case of which he complained arose out of a libel written when the Coercion Bill passed through Parliament, which was, of course, a period of great excitement, particularly amongst Irish Members, who might certainly be pardoned if they had indulged in very strong expressions in reference to that Bill. This libel was published, with the signature of an hon. and learned Member of that House attached to it, in the Pilot newspaper. The Coercion Bill received the royal assent on the 2nd, and the publication took place on the 8th, of April. A prosecution was commenced, and the panel was returned according to the worst manner of the ascendancy in that country, and under a jury law already condemned by the Government itself. Out of one hundred and seventy-four names on the panel, only seven were Catholics; and there were as few Protestants who were unconnected with the party opposed to the person to be tried. The Government in that case were opposed to the people, and they well knew that Tories in such a case were fit tools to work with; and they accordingly left all such upon the panel. During the first administration of Lord Wellesley in Ireland, and when that noble Lord commenced the good work of grappling with ascendancy in that country, he was an object of the most untiring vituperation. His public character was traduced; his administration maligned—nay, even his private life was held up to odium, contempt, and execration. One of the instruments of faction, a newspaper of that day, published a libel against the noble Marquess, so audacious, so foul, and so untrue, that it was most properly deemed to be a fit subject for a state prosecution, and it accordingly was prosecuted by the Attorney-General. That Attorney-General was the present Lord Plunkett; and he would quote the description of that libel, which was uttered by the eloquent individual who conducted the prosecution. Mr. Plunkett described the publication as one which contained "much political observation," and, said he, "Such I would rather suffer to pass unpunished, than to do any thing that would have a tendency to tie up public discussion! But it contains malignant private calumnies—it bears the mark of the mercenary slanderer, who is ready to sell his venom for hire, and to invade indiscriminately the character of the private individual and public functionary." "The libeller," continued Mr. Plunkett, "charges the Marquess Wellesley with various distinct enormities. It charges him with an abandoned youth—with irreclaimable depravity—with contempt for the established religion—with inordinate lust of power—with immoralities practised within the walls of Dublin Castle, of so atrocious a character that it would violate public decency to disclose them in a newspaper. This man (the libeller) proceeded Mr. Plunkett, "has asserted the scenes of profligacy which prevailed at the Castle were such as to deter persons of respectability from attending the court—that females of any notions of delicacy or propriety could not appear there—and after including the charges of irreclaimable depravity, contempt of religion, hoarding avarice, and revolting immorality, the writer institutes a direct comparison between the profligate Lord Wharton and the Marquess Wellesley." This was a severe, but it was a just description of that libel. It was a mercenary and slanderous libel. The juries of that day, however, were constituted as the jury was, that tried the editor of the Pilot. They were selected by the sheriffs, who were themselves selected by the corporation of Dublin, that is now doomed to destruction for its mal-practices. The Government of that day was in favor with the people, and in disfavor with the ascendancy party; and, in conformity with ancient practice, the jury found a verdict of acquittal of the traverser, and sent him abroad (in triumph over the head of the Irish Government. Would it be believed that the jury that condemned Mr. Barrett the Editor of the Pilot, was composed of the same class of politicians as those who acquitted the private malignant libeller of Lord Wellesley; nay, that there were on both juries the same individuals? Let the House draw their inference. The trial of Mr. Barrett proceeded; there were, as well as he could remember, at least fourteen intents elaborately laid in the indictment. The jury could not have read the one-third of them, when they flippantly returned a verdict of guilty. They encumbered their verdict with a despicable recommendation to mercy; and the court evinced their susceptibility of the gentle attribute of mercy, by sentencing the traverser to an imprisonment of six months, a fine, and the additional punishment of entering into heavy recognizances for a great many years. It was painful to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that it had been reserved for a government calling itself the friends of the people, to have instituted, in a time of profound quiet, of complete national repose—when the public peace incurred no danger of excitement—more prosecutions against the press than any of its predecessors. By a return laid before the House in 1830, of all prosecutions during the reign of their late Majesties, George 3rd, and 4th, either by ex-officio or indictment, under the direction of the Attorney-General for libels against the Government, embracing a period of sixty-eight years, ending in 1829, during which time scarcely a day passed in which there were not libels directed against Members of the Government, there were but forty prosecutions instituted in Great Britain. A Tory oppression, antipopular, press-prosecuting government, or series of governments, instituted forty prosecutions: whilst a Whig, liberal, popular, liberty-of-the-press-loving Ministry, had instituted, in three years, in a small portion of the empire—In Ireland—thirteen prosecutions for libel. The conduct of the Government, besides, had a most censurable originality in this respect, for they were not satisfied with the prosecution of the libeller; they prosecuted the mere machine, the instrument of publication,—they condescended to prosecute the printer as well as the author. In the case, too, of Mr. Barrett, the Government had pursued a course of vindictive conduct. When that individual was sent to prison, the public sympathy gathered about him. The sanction of the public did not ratify the verdict of the jury, and the general feeling declared that he who was a martyr to a principle should be sustained by the support of the country. The circulation of his newspaper increased, new friends came to his assistance, and the principles for which he was doomed to suffer were likely to obtain increased circulation. The Government then came down—the noble Lord and the Secretary for Ireland admitted that the Government did come down—with an order to the Stamp Commissioners to enforce that section of the statute of 1815, which superadded to the punishment of imprisonment the aggravated penalty of ruin to the fortune of the individual—ruin to him and to his family, and to his creditors, if he had any, and to his dependents, many of whom the editor had. He had given notice that he would apply this night for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal that law, and the noble Lord came down there to intimate the intention of the Government to repeal it. He would not complain of the noble Lord doing that which he would have endeavoured humbly to accomplish; but he would say that he did not feel any gratitude for this intimation of the Government. He attributed this measure to the spirit of British indignation which had been aroused out of doors by the arbitrary use of this power, and which declared unequivocally that the law should be altered. He would conclude, by reminding the House, that every Catholic was excluded from the jury that tried Mr. Barrett—that every Protestant unconnected with party was excluded from that jury, and that the jury which was empannelled consisted of men of the most violent and anti-popular opinions on political subjects. Under such circumstances he felt that he did not ask the House to do more than was required by the case, to intimate, by a resolution, that which could not be denied—that such a practice was calculated to affect the public confidence in the administration of justice. The hon. Member concluded, by moving the following resolution. "That the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the special jury in the case of the King v. R. Barrett, and the subsequent suppression by the Government of the Pilot newspaper, of which the said Mr. R. Barrett is the proprietor deserves the condemnation of this House."

said, that if he had suspended his judgment upon the present question until the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's statement, he should have been entirely disappointed, for he had never heard a case more weakly supported. He would beg to call the attention of the House to the facts of the case. On the 11th day of May, notice was served that the Jury would be struck; that proceeding was, at the request of the traverser, postponed till the 15th of May, and 207 names were gone through before the forty-eight were agreed upon. The fact was, that the liberality exercised on the part of the Crown in striking the panel in this case was perfectly unparalleled. He defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to state a single objection that had been taken on the part of the Crown. The truth was, that the objections to the names on the panel had all proceeded from the counsel for the defendant. The Crown solicitor did not strike off a single individual until the list was reduced to forty-eight, when it became necessary for each party successively to strike off a certain number in order to reduce it to twenty-four, and the Crown solicitor, in exercising that part of his duty, did not strike off a single individual unless for good and sufficient reasons. Not one of the objections raised by the attorney for the traverser had been resisted by Mr. Kemmis, for, if there had, it would have been impossible to have obtained even forty-eight names out of 207. It was, no doubt, true, that the names of Mr. Guinness, and Sir Thomas M'Kenny had been struck out of the list, but against these Gentlemen no possible objection could have been made on the part of the Crown, for they were men not only of irreproachable character, but of independent fortunes. Mr. Kemmis had really performed only his duty in what he had done; and there was not, he could assure the House, the shadow of pretence for inflicting censure on that officer for the discretion which he had exercised in this case. The Jury had undoubtedly been struck according to the old system and before the new law came into operation; yet it should be recollected, that the grand panel from which it was taken, had been formed for every other purpose—for trials of every other description, and that, therefore, it could not with justice be said, that it had been prepared or packed with a view to the trial of this particular case. The hon. member for Drogheda had said, that duriug sixty-eight years of Tory Government, there had been only forty prosecutions against the press. Now, there was a strong impression in his (Mr. Littleton's) mind, that the return on the authority of which that hon. Gentleman professed to make that statement, must be a very erroneous one, and that impression was especially strengthened by an account which he held in his hand, of the number of such prosecutions that had been instituted by the Government immediately preceding the Administration of Lord Grey. It appeared from that document, that no less than five such prosecutions had been instituted by Sir James Scarlett, the Attorney General under the Duke of Wellington's Government. He found, too, in looking at this return, that the number of counsel employed in each of those cases was about the same as in that now immediately before the House. In those cases, the number of counsel employed had been generally six. He was ready to admit, that eight counsel had been employed in the present case; but then there were peculiar circumstances connected with it which, as he believed, rendered the employment of a large bar necessary. The hon. Gentleman had said, that this publication had been sent forth during a period of great excitement, and that that fact went far to excuse the conduct of the defendant. Now, he (Mr. Littleton) would say, that the very circumstance of this libel having been written and published during a period of excitement, under the name of a member of Parliament, rendered it far less excusable than it otherwise would have been. It appeared to him, that the fact of this libel having been the production of an individual who was a Member of that House, who possessed there the full means and liberty of giving due expression to his feelings and opinions, but who, instead of taking that legitimate channel of conveying his sentiments to the world, went out of doors, and sought, in the manner this writer did, to excite the public mind—it appeared to him, he repeated, that that fact went far to aggravate the guilt of the libel. He was sorry, that an individual so circumstanced, finding himself unable to give free and unchecked vent within those walls to such sentiments as that libel contained, should have gone out of doors and in such a manner endeavoured to excite and agitate the public mind of Ireland. He regretted, that any Member of that House should have been the author of a publication, the object of which every fair and impartial man that read it must admit was unadulterated mischief—a production in which it was stated, that so great, so mortal, so deadly, was the hatred which the people of England bore to the people of Ireland, that there was no longer any security for the lives, the fortunes, or the liberties of the latter; that, so prejudiced was a British Legislature, so destitute of every feeling of humanity or justice, that there was not the slightest chance of the people of Ireland obtaining justice at their hands when any question affecting that country came before them; and that any one that should say, that a British Parliament would do justice to Ireland would deserve the name of an audacious slave. Such was the character—he believed that he had accurately stated it—of the publication in question. He would conscientiously declare, that if he had been on the Jury, he would have found it as they had found it—a libel; and he would fearlessly assert, that any Jury of honest, conscientious, and well-meaning men, whether in Ireland, England, or any other part of the King's dominions, if they had been empanelled on the case, would have returned the same verdict. The Jury did no more than common justice in finding that verdict, and, as honest men, they could not possibly have found any other. He repeated that, if he had been on the Jury, he would have concurred in it, and he need scarcely, therefore, inform the House, that he should certainly resist the present Motion.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had told them, that if he had been on this Jury, he would have concurred in their verdict. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have done so, as he knew that he was incapable of violating his oath. This he would assert, that no man could have found such a verdict in such a case without violating his oath from party principles and political motives. It was said, that any honest Jury would have found a similar verdict. Why, then, were the names of such respectable men as Mr. Guinness, and Sir T. M'Kenny struck off' the panel from which that Jury had been selected? One of those individuals was Governor of the Bank of I Ireland, and they were both of unimpeached integrity and respectability. Was it intended to have an honest Jury or a fair verdict when such men were struck off the list? Did the House require stronger evidence to prove the efforts of the Crown to obtain a partial verdict in its own favor? If it did, that evidence was to be found in the striking off the names of every Catholic on the list. One of them was Mr. William Murphy, a gentleman who possessed more property than the whole twelve who sat upon the Jury. When they wished to convince the people of Ireland that a British Parliament would do justice, were I they to stifle an inquiry which the circum-Stances of the case so strongly called for? The names of the other two Catholics were Mr. John O'Brien, and Mr. Stephen Grehan; all three most respectable gentlemen, and all three, he might remark, who had, in many instances, and in many respects, dissented from his (Mr. O'Connell's) line of politics. Thus the Government struck off four or five of the most respectable and independent men on the panel, and then they were to be told, that the Jury had been fairly selected. Now who, he would ask, was the foreman of that Jury? Mr. Long, the coachmaker, a gentleman whose name had been heard of before in that House—a bitter opponent of the Government, who had taken a most active part in a not very distant election against the Government candidates, Perrin and Harty, and who had succeeded in turning them out. Such was the foreman. Who was the next upon the Jury? Mr. Isaac Hynes, a gentleman who acquitted the Morning star of a most frightful and atrocious private libel upon the Marquess Wellesley. This Mr. Isaac Hynes must either have believed the truth of that libel, or he must have violated his oath, and yet such were the first names on this honest and honourable Jury, as it was called. There were eight other persons upon it, all of whom were corporators; and he need not appeal further than to what had taken place in the course of that evening, to show the House, that the corporation of Dublin and he had been uniformly and strongly opposed to each other. He had come in as member for Dublin in spite of them, and, from the most melancholy incident in his life to that of the most satisfactory and triumphant—namely, his return for Dublin—there had not been an occurrence between him and the corporation of Dublin in which he had not been opposed to them; yet it was out of such a corporation the Jury had been selected to try whether the letter published under his name had been a libel! There were two Scotchmen on the Jury, certainly respectable gentlemen; but why should individuals, unconnected with the country, be on such an occasion elected for such a purpose? One of them, he bad "to remark, was a member of the Kildare-street Society, to which he and his friends had been always opposed; and yet these were the men selected to try this question, and, in support of their verdict, they heard an English gentleman of high character stand up and pledge his honour for its correctness! He would fearlessly assert, that if there had been a fair Jury, they would never have found that publication a libel. The right hon. Gentleman had rather inaccurately stated the tenor of it to the House; there was only one passage in it that resembled what the right hon. Gentleman had represented as its purport to the House. He was ready to admit, that there was a passage in the letter, in which it was stated, that that man would deserve the tille of a slave who should say—because he would not believe it if he said it—that justice could be done to Ireland until she had a parliament of her own. He would adhere to that statement. Ireland never would have substantial justice done her until she recovered her domestic legislature. In the letter in question he had called on the Whitefeet to abandon their miscreant outrages; assuring them that it was only by peaceable and constitutional means they could have justice done to themselves, and their unfortunate country. Was it libellous to give them such advice? He had in vain endeavoured to extract from the King's Bench what portion of this publication was deemed libellous by the court. He had asked the Judges there, by making a Motion for an arrest of judgment, to lay down their opinion as to what part of the publication was deemed a libel by them. He had already stated what were the two great features of the publication in question—namely, to show the people of Ireland that they had nothing to expect but from a domestic legislature, and to convince them that it was only by legal, peaceable, and constitutional union they could achieve that object. Now, though he would admit that some of the expressions in the letter might be considered to be harsh, yet he would maintain, that there was nothing in it that could be construed into a libel. He had just said, he had endeavoured to obtain the opinion of the Judges of the King's Bench on the point as to what part of the letter was libellous; but they would give him no answer. They merely said, that the Jury found the publication a libel, and that they were satisfied with the verdict. He knew, when he was writing that letter, as well as any man, that it would be prosecuted if the Government could find the means of subjecting it to prosecution; and, with the knowledge which he possessed on the subject, and fully aware as he was of the extreme latitude of the law of libel, he was sure, at the time he wrote that letter, that no Government could possibly have the hardihood to prosecute it This was his conviction at that time. There was, besides, just at that period a prospect of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), the then Secretary for Ireland—under whose Government, he would remark, there had been more prosecutions against the press than under any preceding one—being removed from that office. He, therefore, thought at the time that the chances were against the Government subjecting that publication to prosecution. He had already stated to the House the composition of the Jury that had tried it. There was his (Mr. O'Connell's) letter tried by a Jury of his personal enemies—tried by a Jury every man of whom had been all their lives opposed to him. The Jury was selected from the panel after the most respectable men had been struck off it. The individual who struck the Jury on this occasion was, be it remembered, an officer of the Crown, removable at pleasure. Who was the officer that struck the grand panel from which that Jury had been taken? The High Sheriff of the city of Dublin. Hon. Gentlemen must know, that no man could be High Sheriff in the city of Dublin who did not pledge himself to uncompromising opposition to his Catholic countrymen. In the 207 names on the grand panel, there were to be found only three Catholics. Now, when the Catholic wealth and respectability that existed in Dublin were taken into account, was that a fair representation of it? There was a large host of corporators in the panel—many of them had been discharged as insolvents, and many of them had been bankrupts. If, as the right hon. Gentleman had told them, the publication in question was calculated to promote sedition and disturbance, he certainly was not the person that would have written it. He had written it, certainly, not under any strong feelings of delicacy on the subject to which it referred, for he had no right to feel them. He had written that letter in the conscientious discharge of a duty which he owed to his country. He felt at the time the madness of slavery on him, and he had said so. He felt that that House, in passing the Coercion Bill—in founding a measure that deprived Ireland of the benefits of the constitution upon the tittle-tattle of the right hon. Gentleman, and upon statements adduced by him without his allowing them the benefits of a Committee to investigate and to refute them—he felt, he repeated, that the House, in taking everything at the mere word of the right hon. Gentleman, and passing such an infamous measure, had perpetrated a gross and crying injustice to Ireland. He should not deserve to be a Member of that House, or a subject of a constitutional Government, if he did not feel indignant at such conduct. He would appeal to every English Gentleman who valued the liberties of his country, to say what would be his feelings, if an Irish Parliament, with five-sixths of it composed of Irishmen, had passed such a law for England? Would not his blood boil within him at the passing of such a measure? He wrote and published that letter under a full conviction of its truth. It was published in both countries. It was said, that it was first published in England, but such was not the fact. He was now sorry that he had not taken that precaution, for, of this he was sure, that no man would have dreamt of prosecuting such a publication in England. It was first published in Ireland. Was it just, then, when it was prosecuted there, that the very men opposed to him should have been put upon the Jury—the very men, some of whom were violent opponents of the policy of the present Government, were selected for that Jury—the very men who opposed them in the elections, and who now had sent a deputation over here to endeavour to obtain from the Sovereign a reversal of their order for the dismissal of Colonel Blacker from the commission of the peace? Did they imagine that carrying the Coercion Bill—that indulging in taunts against the people of Ireland—tended to convince them of the benefit and utility of the connexion of the two countries? His own opinion was, that if those who wished to preserve the connexion between the two countries had not done their duty in giving advice to the people of Ireland, that House would be compelling them, at the moment he was speaking, to seek a separation. They might have a majority against this Motion, as no doubt they would; but let them not suppose that by such a decision the public would be satisfied with a verdict dis- creditable to the Government, and disgraceful to the administration of justice.

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the member for Drogheda, that Mr. Barrett is an ill-used man; he is an ill-used man; but by whom has he been ill-used? Not by the Government, but by those—[Mr. O'Connell to those around him "Let him alone."] I presume that I am to be "let alone" in this House.

I rise to order. [Loud cries of "Order order."]

I say, Sir, that the disorderly interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman does not become him in the House, in which that hon. and learned Gentleman has the honour to sit. I say that, when I am discharging my duty in the face of the House and the country; and when I am speaking before the hon. and learned Gentleman and the country, as I trust I shall always speak, without fear or hesitation, before his face, I need not the permission of the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor his audible exclamation that I should be "let alone," to obtain a hearing for any observations which I may consider it my duty to make.

I rise, Sir, to order. If I am out of order in what I am about to state, you, Sir, will at once correct me. I rise to explain the reason of the observation which the right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me. It was addressed to two Members near me. In consequence of both of them speaking to me at the same time, I was obliged to raise my voice to them to say, "Let him alone." If I used any other expression, I call on the right hon. Gentleman to state it. If I addressed any observation to him, I call on him to state what it was. My observation was solely intended as a private communication to two Gentlemen near me, and from the cause I have mentioned, I was obliged to raise my voice in order to enable them to hear me.

If the House is satisfied, I am sure I am. I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman in his address to the House, with patience. I only ask the Gentlemen opposite to extend to me a similar degree of patience for the few words which I shall have occasion to address to the House. I say again. Sir, that Mr. Barrett is an ill-used man—but I say again that if he has been ill-used, it is not by his Majesty's Government. It is by those who, fully aware of the legal consequences that would follow their acts, leave him to suffer them—who, fully conscious, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that a verdict of a jury awaited such a violation of the law, leaves the unfortunate publisher in that predicament from which one word of that avowal he has made to-night would have relieved him, while he sagaciously secures himself from sharing that vengeance of the law which he had himself originally provoked. The hon. and learned Gentleman has this night proved that he clearly anticipated the punishment which awaited Mr. Barrett, for he has endeavoured to make the House believe that the nature of the tribunal before which he was tried was such that he could not possibly escape, and yet, with characteristic prudence, he has allowed Mr. Barrett to undergo a punishment from which, by simply giving the notice he has given here to-night—"I am the author and publisher of the letter,"—he would have saved him. Mr. Barrett, I repeat, has certainly been an ill-used man, but it is by the hon. and learned Gentleman that he has been ill-used. The hon. and learned Gentleman apologizes for his want of caution in this case; he regrets that he had not sufficient caution to have this publication first made in England. I will ask the House and the country, now that another man is suffering in prison for that which the hon. and learned Gentleman has done, whether, of all the accusations that may be brought against the hon. and learned Gentleman, he can be justly upbraided with a want of caution in this case? The hon. and learned Gentleman tells us, that this case came for trial before a jury of corporators; and he adds—"You know that they have been always opposed to me." Why did he not add, that they were corporators whom he had, by joining with them in pledging "the glorious and immortal memory," thought to conciliate for the basest and lowest of political purposes? I know nothing of the negotiations that may have gone on between him and other parties; I have felt it my duty at all times to watch the hon. and learned Gentleman in all his public steps; but his private political intrigues of this description I did not deem it necessary to mind. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the libel was not published in England first, and that it was published in both countries. I now learn, for the first time, from the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the libel did not appear first in England, for I really believed, up to this moment, that its first appearance had been in this country. I will just state' the grounds why the Government, with such an impression on its mind, did not institute a prosecution for the publication of this libel in England. We felt that its publication here was so utterly insignificant and destitute of the power of mischief—that it was so incapable of making any impression on the minds of the people of England, and that owing to the paper which the hon. and learned Member had selected as the vehicle for its publication being of such trifling circulation, its diffusion must have been so extremely slight, that there was no necessity for prosecuting it, and that the consequence of instituting a prosecution for libel against it would only be to bring it into that note which it would never otherwise have attained in this country. But, on the other side of the water, the case was widely different. There, as every man knows, the influence, most unfortunately for the country, which the hon. and learned Gentleman possesses over the passions and feelings of the people, rendered this publication, comparatively innocuous as it was in England, pregnant with immense mischief in Ireland. For, though there was no legal proof that the hon. and learned Gentleman was the author and publisher of the letter in question, yet it was known by every man in Ireland who read it, that the advice and the suggestions in it proceeded from the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose dictates were as implicitly obeyed in Ireland as he would seek to have them obeyed in this House and in this country. He says, that the trial took place shortly after I ceased to have any connexion with that country, and he appears to complain of the delay. Now it was not the fault of the Government that that trial was not brought to a speedy issue. No man knows better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that every impediment was thrown by the defendant in the way of bringing the question to trial, and that every possible legal quibble was resorted to by the hon. and learned Gentleman and those concerned with him in the case, in order to postpone the trial. The hon. and learned Gentleman charges the Government distinctly with having packed the jury in this case for the purpose of convicting him—no, not for convicting him—I beg his pardon, for the purpose of convicting the person whom he left to bear the punishment of his faults. Now, my right hon. friend has clearly shown that no such charge is sustainable against the Government. There were originally 207 names on the panel. On the part of the Crown not a single name was objected to until the list was reduced by 159, leaving only forty-eight. Then each party struck off a name alternately, in order to reduce the list to the requisite number. It was done precisely in the same manner that an Election Committee is selected in this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that some names that he wished to retain on the list were struck off, but, in the same manner, might an election agent complain, and with just as much right, that some names he wished to have on a Committee up-stairs had been struck off. No one would think of making such a complaint, still less would any Gentleman come down to this House and endeavour for such a reason to cast a stain upon a Committee up-stairs, asserting that it would not fairly and honestly investigate the subject to come before it. Twelve names in this case were struck off by each party, in order to reduce the list to twenty-four, and then because some names that he wished to retain were struck off, the learned Gentleman makes that circumstance a ground for attacking the conduct of the Government, and impeaching the verdict of the jury. Now I ask the House of Commons in its fairness—I ask the people of England in their candour—to say whether this is an accusation that deserves, I will not say to be considered, but even to be entertained for a moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this letter was no libel, and he tells us that he wrote it in the positive discharge of a conscientious duty. The point as to libel or no libel was cautiously and calmly considered by the law officers of the Crown, not only in Ireland, but in England. The case was brought under their deliberate consideration. They were desired to look at it in all its bearings, with an intimation not to select for prosecution any thing with regard to which there would be the slightest doubt as to the verdict of a jury. With these instructions this letter was referred to the law officers of the Crown for their con- sideration, and it was the opinion of every one of those so consulted that a grosser or more disgraceful libel never polluted the pages of the public press. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that no honest man would convict for this publication as a libel. He admits, however, that there were certain passages rather harsh in it—those passages, I suppose, in which he describes this House, though I recollect his having employed still less courteous terms in painting us on another occasion. He tells the people of Ireland in this letter, that this House is animated with an intense hatred to Ireland—that England and Englishmen entertain a deadly hostility to that country, and that it is idle to expect justice from such a Parliament. To be sure the hon. and learned Gentleman introduces the usual advice about peace and obedience to the law and good order, which so frequently, in the learned Gentleman's addresses, accompanies the most exciting provocatives to mischief, He calls upon "his good friends," his "sweet friends," and begs them not to be stirred up—"

"To such a sudden flood of mutiny."

He tells them to bear with the yoke, though it galls them to the neck—to submit to the injustice, though it is crying and apparent—to bear with the oppression, though it is most grievous and burthensome, but in no case to violate the law. Such are the recommendations, and so accompanied, which the hon. Gentleman gives to his countrymen in this letter—recommendations which he has so often addressed to them with similar accompaniments. Now, I put it to any man of common sense in the country, whether he believes that the object of such a production was to enforce obedience to the law or to the Government? The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to observe that it was said, that this letter was well calculated to inculcate obedience to the laws, though it might be harsh in some of its terms; but he (Mr. Stanley) hesitated not to say, that no man—no honest man—could lay his hand upon his heart, and deny that it was a libel on the institutions of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained of the Jury, and particularly that upon it were two Scotchmen—men who it was urged were unconnected with the country, but who, he must add, were not imbued with Irish prejudices, to the exclusion of two Roman Catholics; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked the House whether it could conceive so gross a case of injustice, so gross an instance of partiality, or so complete a violation of every fair principle, as to have on the Jury two Scotch Presbyterians, without one Roman Catholic, to try him, Mr. Daniel O'Connell—no, he begged pardon—to try Mr. Barrett, for this libellous publication? In the first instance, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in November last, while endeavouring before the Court to obtain a postponement of the trial, had then also complained of the manner in which the Jury had been selected; and the question had been solemnly argued before the Court of King's Bench, and the objection raised was set aside by the Court, on the ground that no legal objection had been offered; that the charge of partiality, made merely on belief and suggestion on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, was completely refuted, and that, on the affidavits before the Court, the Crown solicitor stood fully exculpated. Such, in common with the full bench, was the decision of the learned Chief Justice, on whom the hon. and learned member for Dublin had passed so glowing an eulogium the other day, and admitted that, against that learned individual, no exception could be taken. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had said, that no honest man could have found the publication in question to have been a libel. He (Mr. Stanley) must, however, remind the House, that the Court upon the trial pronounced no opinion upon the publication, but left it to the Jury to draw then-own inference; but when the question as to the matter being a libel or not was raised before the full bench, and when it became the duty of the Court to pronounce an opinion upon it, that opinion, without a doubt in the mind of any one member of the court, was, that not only was the publication a libel, but also that they concurred fully in the verdict of the Jury. Nay, he was convinced, that a very few passages of the publication (with which he most assuredly should not trouble the House) would, on perusal, satisfy every unbiassed and impartial mind, that the Jury and the Court had come to a just and proper conclusion, and that the letter in question was, as alleged in the information, a wicked and seditious libel, calculated to produce the mischievous ef- fects which were attributed to it. Whatever was the character of the publication, the hon. and learned Gentleman had now avowed himself the author, though he allowed another individual to bear the punishment. The hon. and learned Member had declaimed against the unfairness of the trial, but it did not mark much generosity in the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he permitted another person to bear the responsibility. As to the fairness of the trial, he would add, that on the part of the Crown, not a single objection had been taken on striking the Jury, to any name upon the panel, whilst, on the part of the defendant, 160 names were objected to before the list of 48 jurors was completed. Notwithstanding the declaration of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that no honest man could concur in the opinion that the publication was libellous in its character, he (Mr. Stanley) had shown to the House, that not only the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, but also of England, the Jury who had tried the case, and the Judges who had passed sentence, all agreed in the opinion that no man could read the letter and not feel that it was a wicked and seditious libel. He himself had no doubt upon the subject—the only doubt he entertained was, whether the party now suffering the punishment was the individual who ought to be imprisoned.

said, that the question here was, not as to whether this publication was a libel, but whether the Government had resorted to the proper means of procuring a conviction. He asked, why was it that recourse had been bad to means which reflected so much discredit on the Government, and against which the members of the Government professed to be so decidedly opposed when they sat upon the Opposition side of the House? On the present occasion they had not endeavoured to show that the Jury was not packed. This question was not to be decided by the enthusiastic ejaculations of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. No, it was to be decided by facts, and by facts alone. How was the question put—he would not say by the Secretary for the Colonies—but by the ex-Secretary for Ireland? That right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to show the House that the Jury was not packed. He began with an attack upon the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and with an attack upon that hon. and learned Member the right hon. Gentleman concluded. He began by saying, that Mr. Barrett was ill-used; certainly he had been ill-used, but by whom? He found he must here be permitted to adopt what had become an aphorism in the Government of Ireland, and say, "Wait awhile." Had not the Government disinterred a Statute, which had lain buried from 1815, and for no other purpose than of bringing it to bear upon the dearest interests of Mr. Barrett? Had not the Government of Ireland sent an intimation to the Chief Commissioner of Stamps to put it in full force? The Chief Secretary for Ireland wrote to the Stamp-office, not immediately upon the conviction of Mr. Barrett, but three weeks afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman either did this himself, or got some one to do it for him. Well, what was the consequence? Why, Ministers and their agents put into force a law, the extreme tyranny of which they recognised by the admission, that it was a law which ought to be repealed. He happened to have been one of the counsel engaged for Mr. Barrett, and could state, from his own knowledge, that once, twice, or thrice, the party so often alluded to to-night, had offered to avow himself as the author, but Mr. Barrett would not allow him. He could assure the ex-Secretary for Ireland, and his colleagues, that they could not escape from this question by attacking another individual. It was a question which would produce much matter. He did not despair of recalling to the recollection of the ex-member for Limerick (Mr. Spring Rice) those expressions which he had uttered, with so much eloquence, while sitting on this side of the House. It was not by the sympathetic acclamations of a few on the Opposition side, nor (he would not say by the uproar, for that was a discourteous word) by the disinterested assent of the many on the other side, that this question was to be set at rest. He was not surprised that the ex-Secretary for Ireland had taken up so strong a position, as he knew that this charge was, in a great measure, brought against himself. He was willing to give credit to the present right hon. Secretary for Ireland for a desire to do justice to that country; but, as he was not a member of the Cabinet, and could only advise, and not adopt, measures, he must not be looked to as responsible for the policy pursued. Dur- ing the official career of the right hon. ex-Secretary, a charge, very similar to the present, was made against the Government, in the case of Byrne and Welsh. No Catholic was found on the Jury in that case; and, in 1832, when the Special Commission was appointed, it was alleged, that no Catholics were allowed to sit on Juries in the Queen's County. Upon that occasion, three trials upon tithe questions took place at Clonmel; and, though there were thirty-six Catholics upon the Grand Panel, every one of them was struck oft". The charge, therefore, of packing Juries was not new, at all events to the right hon. ex-Secretary, for it was made repeatedly while he was in office in Ireland. In 1833 it was charged against the Jury which sat in the case of the King v. Welsh that not a single Catholic was permitted to be upon that Jury. The same charge was now made in the case of the King v. Barrett, and he had a right to assert, and did assert, that in that case the Jury was packed. In the first place, out of a list containing forty-eight names, only four were Roman Catholics. This fact had neither been explained, nor denied, by the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last. He held in his hand the original panel, from which the list of forty-eight names was selected, containing 714 names of individuals, the majority of whom were Roman Catholics; and of these it had been stated, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the officer of the Court went through 207, and no objection had been made on the part of the Crown. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was not unacquainted with the manner in which Juries were struck; but to this point he begged to call the attention of the House. The Clerk of the Crown selected the list of forty-eight names, and, this being done, the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, with a plausibility of manner unmatched in the records of candour, had stated, as a proof of fairness, that no objection had been made by the Crown Solicitor to the list so selected by the Clerk of the Crown. He trusted the House would not be carried away, or influenced, by warm eulogiums upon individuals, from whatever quarter they might emanate; for he was satisfied, when the House came to a sober and impartial consideration of the question, there would be found in the facts ample grounds for demanding redress. He had already stated, that, out of 207 names, the Clerk of the Crown had selected forty-eight names, of which only four were Roman Catholics. He had stopped at the number 207 of the panel, when, if he had proceeded further, he would have found that the names of no less than ten Roman Catholics followed. It should not be forgotten, that the original panel, from which the selection was made, commenced with the names of Members of Parliament, followed by those of the Aldermen and Common Council of the city of Dublin; and it was returned by the Sheriffs, arranged according to civic rank; and from this list the Jury was to be selected, by the Clerk of the Crown, according to the orders issued by the Castle authorities. Such was the panel, the formation of which ought to go to a Committee of Inquiry; and, if this was ventured upon, it would be seen, that the fallacies of previous Governments had been adopted by the present Administration. The list thus formed, then, in course, was subjected to a convenient system of filtration, by the Crown Solicitor, after it had passed from the hands of the Clerk of the Crown. He was sure that the course thus pursued was unknown to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, who understood the potteries much better than the existing state of Ireland. But, to proceed,—from this list the names of the only Roman Catholics returned (four in number) were struck off by the Crown Solicitor; and, putting all declamation aside, was this just,—was this candid on the part of the Government? The House would judge of the justice and candour manifested, when it was informed, that one of the four names thus expunged was that of a bank-director, who had signed resolutions against the proposition for a Repeal of the Union. It was true, that, during the agitation of the Catholic Question, this mode was pursued as to the impannelling of Juries; but, when that question was settled, the then Attorney-General, under a Conservative Government, Mr. Joy, issued his injunctions upon the subject in terms which he would read to the House. These injunctions were contained in a letter, dated the 2nd of March, 1830, by Mr. Joy, to the High Sheriff of Fermanagh, and were to the following effect:—"As several trials of considerable importance are to take place at the next assizes for your county, and as it is very desirable that no pretence for complaint should arise, the Attorney-General particularly wishes, that you should cause to be summoned a panel of respectable freeholders in your county, Catholic as well as Protestant, without distinction of religious creed or persuasion." Such were the instructions of Mr. Joy, acting under a Conservative Administration; and he begged to contrast them with the course pursued in the present instance, when, out of a list of forty-eight names, returned by the Clerk of the Crown, those of four Roman Catholics had been struck out by the Crown Solicitor. Was this just in a case where the subject matter for adjudication was a publication bearing the signature of Daniel O'Connell, and when such an antagonist was to be overthrown? In conclusion, he would ask,—would the Government be prosecutors and judges in Parliament, and, at the same time, the packers of a Jury in the Court of King's Bench?

said, that he held in his hand the affidavit of Mr. Kemmis, the Crown solicitor, referring to the mode in which the Jury had been selected, and which having been seen by the counsel for the defendant (Mr. Barrett) and used in Court on the occasion, when the Judges had given a decision to the effect stated by his right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley), he would read to the House. Mr. Kemmis, in his affidavit, and of course upon oath, stated, 'That deponent attended on the 11th of May before the proper officer for the purpose of striking the Jury in the cause, when an adjournment took place, at the instance of the attorney for the traverser, to the 28th of May, on which day deponent again attended, and forty-eight names were selected, upon reading each of which, the Clerk of the Crown inquired if there was any objection on either side to the names proposed. The deponent further stated that, to the best of his recollection, he did not make any objection, though the attorney for the traverser made various and numerous objections, insomuch that 207 names were called by the officer, before the list of forty-eight names was completed. And the deponent further stated, that although many objections were raised by the attorney for the traverser, he (the deponent) did not insist upon the retention of any name upon the list to which any objection was made by the attorney for the traverser.' That affidavit which he had lead, must be presumed to be a correct statement of what bad taken place, and he apprehended that the proceeding which it detailed, could not be called anything like packing the Jury. He had thought it right to read this affidavit, in order that the House; might see how far the statement as to the packing of a Jury by the Crown was correct.

said, that the affidavit; did not state whether the objections made on behalf of the traverser were yielded to by the Crown. The affidavit, in this respect, was most carefully drawn, and studiously avoided such a statement.

said, that many of the objections were not valid or legal. The affidavit, however, stated that "the deponent did not insist that any names to which objections were taken should be retained." The affidavit proceeded further, and stated, that when such objections had been made by the attorney for the traverser and yielded to by the deponent, the consideration of the objections was postponed at the instance of the Crown." The House would therefore see that the Crown solicitor distinctly swore, that the objections raised by the attorney for the traverser were yielded to by him.

had a question to put to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland—namely, whether it was true, that, out of 207 names forty-eight were chosen within that number without any objection being made on the part of the accused? If such was the case, there was an end of the question.

replied that he most distinctly understood such to have been the case.

said, it appeared to him extraordinary, if the list had been struck fairly, that out of a panel containing, as he understood, upwards of 700 names, the majority of which were those of Roman Catholics, so few of that persuasion should have been selected by the Clerk of the Crown. If that officer had selected only four Roman Catholics in a list of forty-eight, it required no reasoning or argument to disprove the fact of existing partiality and corruption. It might certainly so happen that some names might have been passed over by the officer, but he must confess, that after the personalities which had been indulged in upon the present occasion, with the view, apparently, to conceal facts and avoid the real question before the House, it seemed to him the subject was fitting for an inquiry. It was the duty of the Government to see that justice was done; and the question was, had justice been fairly done in this instance? It did appear to him that the very circumstance that there had not been on the Jury a single Catholic, though the majority of the names in the original panel were those of individuals of that persuasion, was amply sufficient to demand an inquiry before a Committee. He knew no other way by which the Government could clear themselves of the charge made against them.

, in explanation, repeated that it was clear the attorney for the traverser had continued making objections, until the forty-eight names had been obtained, and without any objection being raised to any name on the part of the Crown.

concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex in what he had said respecting personalities; and he thought that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonics had gone away from the whole question, in order to indulge in declamation. The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had totally-lost sight of the question before the House, in his eagerness to heap abuse and calumny on the head of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin. For his own part, he must at once express his conviction, that Mr. Barrett had not a fair Jury; if he had had an impartial instead of a packed Jury, he would not have been convicted. And what had the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said the other evening with reference to the proceedings, which had since been adopted towards Mr. Barrett? The noble Lord declared the law to be a monstrous one, and one which ought not to exist. What course did he recommend to be taken? Why, he said, there could be no difficulty in evading the law; and this suggestion came from the head of the Government in the House of Commons. He admitted, and he admitted with regret, that the mode in which the question had been met, was anything but fair on the part of Government. The Ministers were careless who suffered, provided they were not to be placed in a wrong light, or their agents called to account for their misconduct. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, had thrown his powerful mantle over the proceedings of the Court of King's Bench in Dublin; he admitted that the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps the most successful defender the Government could have; he admitted, and he deplored the fact, that there was not, perhaps, such another debater in the whole world as the right hon. Gentleman—but he lamented this. Yes, he lamented it, because, whenever the right hon. Gentleman found his argument fail him, and that his facts were deficient, he had recourse to his stores of eloquence, and by their power he drew the consideration of the House away from the subject matter of debate, and threw a gloss over his view of the matter, which often prevailed to their delusion. There was no one stuck more closely to his arguments than did the right hon. Gentleman, when he found that course suited his purpose; but, on the present occasion, he had totally failed, either to make out a case for refusing the Committee, or in making a successful defence for the conduct of the Irish Government. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an amendment to the original Motion, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the way in which the Jurors in the case of the King v. Barrett were originally appointed, and that they report their observations thereon to the House."

objected to the Amendment which had just been read, because the hon. Member who proposed the motion having come down to the House with a determination to press for a vote of censure on the conduct of the Government, finding his evidence and his facts far short of the mark to which he had hoped to raise the House, and finding also how utterly unable those who sided with him were to make out any case for censure but that the whole accusation in Mr. Barrett's prosecution fell through—No, no, and loud cheers.]—No, no! Then why alter the original motion?—He repeated, that the hon. Member finding that the accusation would fall through, wished to place the question in the hands of a Committee, and came again to the attack with the amendment now before the House. The Government were ready to meet the original Motion, and he called upon the House to proceed at once to the question.

said, that, after all that had passed that evening, the public would be the best judge between them. There had been a great deal of flippancy of assertion during the debate, and, in particular, great flippancy on the part of the right hon. Secretary, in the few words he said for the purpose of avoiding inquiry. No reliance was to be placed on what was gleaned from Mr. Kemmis's affidavit. Why, that very man was an accused party in the transaction, and it was not true to assert, that if Mr. Barrett's attorney had objected to any of the forty-eight Jurors, he would not have been allowed to be upon the Jury. If that had been the case—if Mr. Barrett could have objected with any probability of success—he was ready to prove to demonstration, that if Mr. Barrett could have struck off one of the forty-four Jurors that remained after the four Catholics had been struck off" by the Crown, he would have done so. He would not have allowed that violent Corporator Long to have remained on the Jury. He should like to know, whether those who defended the composition of this Jury had pointed out any persons on it by whose characters they would stand or fall. For his own part he had pointed out two Scotchmen; but the right hon. Secretary opposite, the admirable debater, as he had been called that evening, taunted him with pointing out those two persons merely because they were Scotchmen. Now, it was not for that reason; it was because one of these Scotchmen was a great bigot and a Tory, and had belonged to the Kildare-street Society, and to Societies of a like description all his life; the other Scotchman was also a Tory, though he was not so great a bigot as the first. It was for these reasons that he pointed out these two Scotchmen as improper to be on the Jury. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to another question, and had taunted him with his conduct towards Mr. Barrett. Now, the truth was, that he was the first, after he heard of a prosecution about to be commenced, to write to Mr. Barrett, telling that gentleman to substitute him (Mr. O'Connell) at once in his place, and stating, that his friendship would not be diminished by such substitution. Mr. Barrett's answer was, that he would deliberate. He wrote a second time, and told Mr. Barrett, that the only question to consider was, which of the two was to be prosecuted. Mr. Barrett, in answer to this letter, wrote, that his mind was made up; that the newspaper in question was his property; and, that that property had been increased by his (Mr. O'Connell's) writings in it. Mr. Barrett, in this letter, moreover added, "If they catch you, they will be sure to convict you, and send you to jail for three years, and Ireland can't afford that. Therefore I'll substitute myself for you, and go to jail." Yet, after that, he was taunted by the right hon. Gentleman with being guilty of libel—though he (Mr. O'Connell) could state, that there was no libel in the letter, which a man feeling for his country, and seeing the oppression it suffered, would pronounce to be a crime. He did not mean to say, however, that it was not a libel according to the present state of the law. The right hon. Gentleman was always disposed to make him his victim in that House; the right hon. Gentleman never spared him. But he would tell the right hon. Gentleman, that no one spoke words more like calumny, than those used by the right hon. Gentleman towards him within the walls of the House. He did not exactly know what reason the right hon. Gentleman had for his hostility, but he believed he could guess. With regard to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman, as having been made by him, he denied their truth. If he had made an address in the language used by the right hon. Gentleman, no Jury would have said but that it was intended to create a difficulty. But the right hon. Gentleman's own note-taker—the note-taker of the Government—was present, and had followed him wherever he went. Yet the right hon. Gentleman came down to that House, and stated what was untrue. If an inquiry were granted, and it bore the right hon. Gentleman, out in his assertions, good and well; but if the Government refused the inquiry, he would leave the right hon. Gentleman and his assertions, to the cheers of that House, satisfied that the country would believe, that he was accused wrongfully. This he would say, that to the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman had pursued him (Mr. O'Connell) on every occasion, in and out of the House, with the most unrelenting, bitter, and persevering hostility—a hostility, he was sorry to say, which was too much shared by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. With regard to the packing of the Jury, and the assertion made, that Mr. Barrett might have objected to more if he had thought proper, he could say, that he had never addressed twelve men less determined to do justice, than the twelve men who formed that Jury. The impression was so strong in Dublin against the fairness of the Jury, that if any person were to say, that it was a fair Jury, he would be laughed at. He (Mr. O'Connell) admitted, that there were some fair, honest, and upright men upon the panel. There was Mr. Graham, Mr. O'Bryen, Mr. Thomas Farrell, and three others. Mr. Graham was admitted by all to be a highly-respectable man, and he was accordingly the first Catholic ever chosen to be a Bank Director. Mr. Farrell, though not so intelligent as the others, yet was respectable, and he was rich. Yet all these respectable gentlemen were struck out by Mr. Kemmis. If the Government would grant a Committee of Inquiry, as was now asked, he pledged himself to prove this. But that they would not do. He knew they would content themselves with appealing to the passions of the House. He hoped, however, they would consider, that it was a question of importance. It related to the packing of a Jury; and he warned the Government, that by refusing an inquiry into it, they would lead the public into the foregone conclusion, that they already knew what would be the result, and dreaded it. As to the letter itself, he would not say, that some passages in it, taken separately, might not be construed into a libel, but he was convinced, that, taking it together, and as a whole, no honest man would pronounce it to be one.

regretted the personality with which the discussion had been conducted. If the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry were to be considered as a censure on the Government, he would not agree to it; but if it were merely intended by the appointment of the Committee, to ascertain the truth of the facts stated by the hon. Members who supported the inquiry, he should vote for the affirmation of that proposition. He was in conscience convinced, that if the election of the Jury had been by ballot, and that the six gentlemen whose rejection was complained of, had been members of the Jury, that circumstance would in no measure have altered the verdict of the Jury. He could not, however, but admit, that Juries in Ireland were not generally fairly chosen. In Queen's County, for instance, Catholics were universally rejected. He did not believe, that the Government encouraged such practices, or had any intention that Catholics should be excluded; but he must say, that they appeared remiss in allowing their officers to exercise such a prejudicial and dangerous power. He regretted the temper in which the Motion had been received, and thought, that the question should be decided on its own merits, and without regard to party feeling.

said, that the statements on both sides were so contradictory, as to render it utterly impossible to come to a fair and rational conclusion without further information. The only document which could at all enable them to come to a conclusion, was the affidavit produced by the noble Lord, which went to show, that there was nothing unfair in the choice of the panel. Now, was that affidavit conclusive, and did it altogether debar the inquiry which was demanded? But, even though this document was perfectly correct and unquestioned, it still appeared to be somewhat inconsistent and ambiguous. It would seem, that 207 names were called before forty-eight were retained, though it did not appear in what manner that number was retained. If he was to understand, that the traverser's attorney had the unlimited discretion and power to object, without assigning any reason, to any of the names on the panel, and that these forty-eight were called over without his offering any objection, then he would say there was no ground for demanding that inquiry. If the contrary were the fact, was it not right, that the Crown should be freed from all imputation of being parties to such conduct? He owned it appeared to him curious, that out of 207 names there should be only seven Catholics. Was not that a fit-subject for inquiry? It was rather extraordinary, that out of the 207 names, the traverser should not, if he had the power, object to more; and he could not help suspecting, that there should be something in the mode of striking off persons from the list with which the House was not yet made acquainted. He had no personal feelings to gratify in the question; he was altogether unacquainted with Ireland, as well as with the hon. Members on the Ministerial side; and he must say, that he was only anxious, that the facts of the case should be distinctly ascertained, and the difficulties with which it was encumbered removed.

had never shrunk from expressing his sentiments in that House, and on this occasion he must say, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, that the practice of excluding Roman Catholics from Juries in Ireland had prevailed to a great and shameful extent; but the question was, not whether that evil had prevailed, or whether that reprehensible practice had been continued, but whether it had actually occurred in the case before the House. He must say, that, regarding the question in a calm and dispassionate manner, he had not heard sufficient evidence to induce him to think, that the House ought to grant a Committee of Inquiry. It was perfectly true, that Committees of Inquiry had lately been granted for all sorts of things; but he really thought, that such concessions did not always add to the respectability of that House, or promote the objects of those who sought for those Committees of Inquiry. In the absence of any facts that would enable him to come to a conclusion on that subject, he was obliged to consider what probable motives the Crown could have for the conduct which had been attributed to it. Would any man tell him, that if any officer of the Crown so far violated his duty as to make a partial selection of Jurors, he would select Orangemen as the most favourable to the Government? If a Government agent were to commit such an act, all he would say, was, that he must be the greatest blunderer in existence. But, admitting that they were not indisposed towards the Government, was it natural that the Law Officers of the Crown should afford them an opportunity of being addressed in one of the most eloquent appeals to the passions and prejudices of party spirit, that was ever delivered in any assembly? The learned Gentleman, on that occasion, departed from his usual practice; he gave up both the case and his client, and made an appeal solely and entirely to the passions of the Jury. But so strong were the facts, so undeniable was the charge, that though he addressed the feelings of the Jury in every possible way, though he wrung every fibre of their hearts, yet their sense of duty prevailed, and they instantly returned a verdict against him. Would any hon. Member say, that Catholics alone would be insensible to the merits of this case, and that they would have returned a verdict of acquittal, on the same proof as that which instantly convinced a Jury of Protestants? He was bound, from what he had observed, being in absolute ignorance of the minute details connected with this question, to say, that it was in vain for the hon. and learned Member to hope to punish the Government in Parliament, because they obtained a verdict against him in Ireland. Was it to be said, that the people of Ireland were so demoralized, that no paper published in that country had a chance of succeeding, of being read and circulated, unless it was constantly filled with sedition against the State, and slander against individuals? He knew perfectly well, that there was a certain portion of the Press in Ireland with which nothing was sacred—which did not regard the most revered institution; and if, from political resentment, it thought fit to attack private life, or hurt the feelings of individuals, it did not hesitate to commit such mischief, and inflict such wounds. He knew, that if such a Press were not checked, it would revolutionize the country from one end to the other. He was not the advocate for curtailing the just privileges of the Press; but he could not help referring, in strong and indignant terms, to that part of it which had poured upon himself, within the last twelve months, every species of calumny, every species of insult and injustice—not for any crime, nor on account of any personal quarrel, for he had none—nor for any moral guilt—but because he presumed to differ in political sentiments from a certain party in Ireland. Those expressions to which he had alluded, those insults, and this gross abuse, conveyed to the minds of all educated men, no other impression than, that they proceeded from the most despicable and miserable malignity. Such a Press so abused, was an intolerable nuisance which must be abated.

agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, that the main question before the House was entirely lost sight of; but this he would add, by no one more than the hon. Member himself. The House had nothing to do with the personal quarrels of the hon. Member with the Press of Ireland; the subject was totally irrelevant. In like manner, what had the House to do with the question, whether the hon. and learned member for Dublin ought not to have surrendered himself, and stood in the place of Mr. Barrett. That was a question between him and Mr. Barrett,—between him and Mr. Barrett alone. If Mr. Barrett did not complain, who had a right to complain? At all events it was not a question for the House; and he must deprecate the personalities that had been introduced. They were not finding fault with the Judges who tried Mr. Barrett, or the verdict of the Jury by which he was convicted. The question was, whether Government, having instituted a prosecution, undue means were not taken to procure a conviction. As to the question itself, it consisted of two parts:—first, as to the manner in which the forty-eight names were selected; secondly, as to the manner in which the list had been reduced. The first was the act of the Clerk of the Crown; the second, the act of the Crown Solicitor. The hon. member for Wexford had admitted, that Catholics were excluded from Juries in Ireland, and in the county of Wexford, but would not allow that they were in this instance, although the Clerk of the Crown and the Crown Solicitor were, in both cases, the same. Then, as to the forty-eight names returned, it was notorious, that the Clerk of the Crown was the person to make the selection, and return such number. It was his act, and his act alone. He did make the return, and he included in that return but four Catholics; and he made that return out of a panel of 714, the greater part of whom were Catholics. The question therefore, arose, how did it happen that out of the first 207 names upon the list, there were only seven Catholics to be found? There was, at least, some management in this. The affair was endeavoured to be mystified; and it was said, that the Clerk of the Crown had read over the 207 names in the presence of the Solicitor of the Traverser, and allowed objections; but what sort of objections were they? Mere legal objections; the same objections which the Clerk of the Crown was bound himself to take in selecting the forty-eight names. In fact, he did that in the presence of the Solicitor of the traverser, which he might have done in his closet. The selection of the forty-eight was his act, and his act alone. Was it possible to suppose, that, if Mr. Barrett had the control over, the panel as suggested, he would have allowed the names of Mr. Long or Mr. Hines to have remained? They had now done with the Clerk of the Crown. The forty-eight names were to be reduced to twenty-four,—twelve to be struck off by the Crown Solicitor, and twelve by the Solicitor for the traverser. The Crown Solicitor exercised his right by striking off the four Roman Catholics, and two most unexceptionable individuals; the one, he believed, was the Governor of the Bank of Ireland, and the other made a baronet by the present Ministers, but who happened to be liberal men,—men who had espoused the Catholic cause previously to emancipation. And who were the four Catholics rejected? Four individuals of great wealth, great respectability, quiet men,—no agitators. One of them admitted into the close Corporation of the Bank of Ireland. There could have been no personal objection to these men; they must have been excluded because they were Catholics. This, therefore, was an insult upon the Catholic body which he could not but resent. He asked if a Jury so selected could be considered as unimpeachable on the ground of political bias? He did not mean to question the individual integrity of each member of that Jury; but he put it to the Ministers, and he put it also to the House, whether Mr. Barrett, or the people of Ireland, could have confidence in the decision of such a Jury? He regretted extremely that the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, in whose good intentions he placed the greatest confidence, should have been clouded by a proceeding so impolitic and unwise; impolitic and unwise in itself, but rendered still more so by the manner in which it was conducted. It was not originally a religious question; it was unfortunately made so by the manner in which it was conducted. For his own part, he looked upon it as one of the most unfortunate and unpopular steps that could have been taken by Government. It would, he feared, interpose a new and formidable barrier to the healing principle intended by the Catholic Relief Act, the true spirit of which, he was sure, it was the anxious wish of the right hon. Gentleman to infuse into his Government of Ireland. He had fondly expected that; after the Emancipation Bill passed, all religious distinctions would have been forgotten in Ireland; that the pernicious System of setting up one party against another would have been exploded; that Ireland would have been suffered to enjoy the blessings and advantages of religious concord. Five years had now elapsed since that Bill had passed, and he was sorry to say, that religious discord still prevailed, fomented and kept alive by the party opposed to Catholics; for this he would assert, that never was there so great an achievement—he would not call it victory—gained by any people, which was enjoyed with greater forbearance. He still more regretted that advantage should have been taken of that party spirit by a set of men who had hitherto, and at all times, and in the worst of times, to their great honour, voted for its extinction, for the purpose of obtaining the conviction of Mr. Barrett. This prosecution was commenced previously to the accession to office of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a legacy left to him. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman had repudiated the bequest.

begged to repeat what he had said before, that, although the officers of the Crown had a right to go through the forty-eight names one by one, they had not exercised that privilege on the present occasion. Resistance had been offered by the traverser's Solicitor in many instances, but not by the Solicitor for the Crown. Nay, more; in proof of the liberal conduct of the Government, he would state, upon the authority of an affidavit, by an officer of the Crown, in this prosecution, that, after the forty-eight names had been reduced to twenty-four, and that the Jury had been selected from them, the Attorney for the traverser objected to the name of Mr. J. Blacquiere, upon which the Clerk of the Crown consented to withdraw that gentleman, and substitute Mr. Armstrong in his stead.

acquitted the Government of any unfair intentions in the present case. Certain it was, that parties of the highest respectability had been struck off the Jury lists in Ireland; so much so, that, in the North, not a single Catholic was ever permitted to sit on a Jury. He repeated, that he did not believe the heads of Government had willingly lent themselves to this unfair system; but that their underling dependents were undermining them, and bringing them into disrepute, by their political interference in these matters.

would not detain the House longer than to express his opinion, that, consistently with his feelings of justice, he could not vote either for the Motion or the Amendment before the House. The Clerk of the Crown had but exercised the discretionary power with which the law had invested him; and had, doubtless, acted conscientiously in the rejection of the four Catholics, as alleged. If Committees were to be continually appointed to inquire into the motives of every discretionary act of public functionaries, that House would be degraded into a species of inquisition revolting to all feelings of honour and independence.

wished merely to say a word with regard to the vote which he was about to give on this question. His determination was to vote, in the first place, against the Amendment, and afterwards against the original Motion, in case it should be put. He did not think there was any ground for appointing a Committee in this case; and, after the affidavits which had been read to the House, the correctness of which could not be doubted, the conduct of the Government officers in this prosecution appeared clear from all suspicion.

said, that an hon. Member had stated that, if the Clerk of the Crown had reasonable grounds to suspect the four Catholics on the Jury List of being violent partisans, he was perfectly justified in striking off their names. It so happened, however, that such was not the case; for all the individuals, both Catholics and Protestants, whom the Clerk of the Crown had objected to were remarkable for having abstained from politics. On the other hand, two persons, who were suffered to remain were known to have been violent politicians, and even to have themselves published a libel upon that House and Government, when, at a meeting of the Corporation, it was suggested by them to present a petition to the King, at St. James's, instead of to Parliament, who would not bestow attention upon them. This was a libel to the same extent as the very libel upon which they were called, as Jurors, to pass judgment. As to the question, whether Mr. Barrett had been ill-used, he would beg to read a letter which he had received from that gentleman. [The hon. Gentleman read a letter, in which Mr. Barrett stated, that he felt convinced that the prosecution to which he had been subjected was an unjust and partial proceeding, the work of Tory treachery; that the author of the libel had offered to take his place, and stand the brunt of the charge, but that he (Mr. Barrett), considering that that hon. and learned Gentleman's presence in his place in Parliament was necessary to the salvation and preservation of his country, would not permit him to risk his liberty even to protect his own.] This was a noble instance of voluntary martyrdom on the part of Mr. Barrett. He entreated the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, if he was not afraid of inquiry, to support the Amendment before the House.

said, though the hour was late, and the attendance of Members then rather thin, yet, as he apprehended there would be no objection to the second reading of the Smuggling Act Amendment Bill, which stood for that evening, he would then move, that it be read a second time.

said, he had an objection to the Bill. It was usual to allow Magistrates to send persons convicted of certain offences to serve on board King's ships, as a commutation of the sentence of imprisonment and hard labour. An objection was raised against the licence granted to Magistrates, on the ground that many convicts were thus forced into the naval service who were rather calculated to injure than promote it. There was some justice in that objection. But, then, the right hon. Baronet would extend his objection to all cases. He thought that was going too far, as thus the service would be deprived of an experienced and hardy class of men, the smugglers. He was of opinion, that a great good would arise by sending convicted smugglers into the navy. Smugglers would make most useful seamen. They were already inured to, and familiar with, the service. At Algiers they were so useful, and behaved so well, that Government discharged many of them. He had another objection, namely, that Magistrates would, in all likelihood, have a reluctance to convict if smugglers, whose guilt was, in very many cases, difficult to be established, were, of necessity, to be confined to hard labour. If smugglers were confined in a house of correction, there was a great chance that they left it more immoral and degraded than when they entered; whereas, if they were sent to sea, they would be of advantage to the country, and return better men.

said, that he could not, from his experience, concur with the hon Member. He should strongly object to making a man-of-war a common prison for felons. The naval service should not be made a punishment for crime. The great object should be to make it more comfortable than that of other employment; and was it the way to do that, to make our men-of-war a refuge for convicts? He did not wish to see the service thus degraded. It should be a voluntary service, and filled with men of good character; and that it could not be, if every flag ship were made a prison for convicts.

would wish to know if men-of-war were not made prisons for other purposes? He maintained, that convicted smugglers, if sent to serve on board King's ships, would return home better men, and be a service to their country; but, if sent to the treadmill, would go back worse members of society.

said, the policy of the Government was, to render the King's service as acceptable as possible. But he did not think that would be the case if smugglers were to be thrust upon it in the shape of convicts, to be confined in flagships, which were to be reduced to common gaols. Was it likely that independent and honourable men would be anxious to enter the service if the first object they saw on entering a ship was men in irons? The Government had only a choice of evils; and, after due consideration, they felt it their duty to balance the loss of smugglers, as seamen, against the moral example of making the ships-of-war common prisons.