said, he had always been opposed to the principle of flogging. He thought a more horrible and inhuman instance of the exercise of this practice had never occurred than that, which had recently taken place in St. George's Barracks, in the very heart of the metropolis. If the accounts which he had seen were true, before the offender had received twenty lashes he cried out most loudly for mercy, and his cries were of the most heart-rending description. It was said, the young man was a very old offender. So he might have been; but that very circumstance would have suggested the question, whether it would not have been advisable to take different steps. His opinion upon the principle was very well known; it had been recorded in the glorious minority upon the Motion of one of the present candidates for Nottingham, deprecating the barbarous practice. He sincerely hoped the electors of Nottingham would put this question to his right hon. friend, and he hoped his answer would be such as would secure to him his election and the confidence of the people on this important question. He perfectly concurred with the right hon. Secretary, that the march of public opinion had progressed to such a point, that something must be speedily done to satisfy the general wishes that were entertained on the subject. He was present on an occasion in Holland, where a British soldier was flogged in the presence of Dutch and French soldiers, and he never should forget the expressions of abhorrence used by the French soldiers at this disgusting practice. He considered the subject required the immediate interposition of the House, and that a single day ought not to be suffered to pass without some declaration against it. The right hon. Secretary had told them one-fifth of the British army had passed through the common gaols. He did not consider the declaration a very prudent one, but certainly a more lamentable proof of the state of the army could not have been given. But he would ask, whether this barbarous practice of corporal punishment was not the real cause, and whether it was not to be attributed to the same cause that no recruits could be obtained either in Ireland or Scotland? He hoped his hon. friend would submit a distinct Motion to the House on this case, for it was evident great blame must attach somewhere, and it was most desirable that the true facts of the case should be immediately laid before the public.

said, it was not his intention to have addressed the House on this subject, but owing to the absence of his right hon. friend the Secretary at War, he thought it was of the greatest consequence no time should be lost in making the public acquainted with the real facts of a case, which had been made the ground of accusations as calumnious, false, and libellous, as ever had been circulated against the gallant and high-minded officer, whose duty obliged him to superintend the punishment inflicted on the soldier in question. He would not condescend to notice the foul and slanderous attack that had been made in one of the lowest Sunday papers upon the character of his gallant relative; but he would content himself with simply laying before the House the facts of the case. In the first place, the sentence upon the individual in question was passed by a district court-martial, and not by a regimental court-martial; and every member who was connected with the service knew that it was not in the power of the commanding officer to correct or mitigate the sentence of a district court-martial, except under particular circumstances, such as the presence of the surgeon, and his stating that the individual was not capable of bearing further punishment. The sentence upon the individual in question was, that he should receive 300 lashes; and this punishment was ordered in consequence of his getting drunk when stationed as sentinel over the canteen. The House must at once see the danger of passing over such a crime in an individual, whose duty it was to prevent drunkenness amongst others. But this was not all; the individual had also been guilty of mutinous misconduct, in having attempted to strike his sergeant. This individual had already been punished forty times; he would not say, that he had been subjected to the lash forty times, but he had been tried that number of times for as many different offences; therefore the House must perceive that there was good reason for a district court-martial inflicting the severest punishment upon an individual who had been before so often tried and punished for military offences. He confined himself to the facts of the case, and trusted the public would judge of them as they deserved, for he pledged himself to the accuracy of every one of them. He denied, that the man was of a delicate frame of body; on the contrary, he possessed great muscular power, and it was with great difficulty the halberts to which he was tied could be supported. The House would observe, this was not from the effect of the punishment, for he nearly pulled down the triangles before a single lash was inflicted. He admitted that the man cried out for mercy after he had received about forty lashes, but it was not in the power of the commanding officer to mitigate the punishment, the surgeon not having declared the punishment to be greater than the man was able to endure. He recollected an instance, in which an officer had taken upon himself the responsibility to mitigate the punishment directed by the sentence of a district court-martial, and the consequence was, that he received a very severe reprimand from the Horse Guards. He begged to state, that, in this instance, the surgeon was present, and did not interfere by declaring the punishment more than could be borne. He denied the statement made in the petition, that the drums were specially directed to be beaten, in order to drown the man's cries, it being well known to every military man, that it was the custom for the drums to roll on every such occasion, and they were accordingly rolled on the present. He did not mean to uphold the system of flogging in the army—he merely rose to defend the character of a gallant officer which had been most unjustly aspersed. It was said, that several soldiers fainted; that was not true; one or two soldiers and one officer fell out of the ranks during the time that the sentence was read, not, therefore, on account of the punishment, but of their exposure to the sun. He stated these facts in justice to a most excellent and humane officer, who had been most unjustly accused of tyranny and oppression. The gallant officer felt as much pain as any man could do at the infliction of punishment, but he was bound to see such punishments carried into effect as a necessary part of his military duty. He regretted exceedingly that advantage should be taken of the privileges of the House to calumniate an individual, by ascribing to him cruelty and inhumanity, merely because he had performed a necessary, however painful duty. That gallant officer had done nothing more than he was obliged to do; and, however much inclined he might have been, it was not in his power to mitigate the sentence: his duty, and the only duty he could perform was, to see that the sentence was carried into execution. He could assure the House, that the performance of this duty excited feelings of the most painful and distressing kind in his gallant relative, Colonel Bowater; and he could not but deprecate the attacks which had been levelled at an individual, as honourable and humane as any Member of that House. If inquiry were instituted into the facts of the case, no person would be more ready to promote it than his gallant relative.

was not prepared to say whether all the facts contained in the petition were true or not, but he thought it was of great importance for the House to consider the result that was to be drawn from it—namely, that a commanding officer, by the rules of the army, did not possess the power, under any circumstances, in the presence of the surgeon, to remit any portion of the sentence passed by a court-martial. It was a principle which he thought should not be suffered to continue any longer. There could be no question but a surgeon should be always on the spot, and he could not suppose there was a surgeon in the British army who would suffer a single lash to be inflicted above what the offender was able to bear; but, nevertheless, he did not agree that the power to mitigate the punishment in every case should rest with them. The system of flogging tended much to the degradation of the British army. He had witnessed too often the execution of this barbarous practice with a great deal of pain, and no one was more sensible of its injurious effects than he was. He was of opinion, that the army would be as well disciplined, if, instead of resorting to flogging, the Horse Guards would allow bad men to be turned out of the army altogether. But what was the fact? He knew there were many bad men in the army, with whom none of the soldiers would assort, and yet the Horse Guards refused to turn them out. He felt convinced, if those persons in the army who committed a crime, by which they were subjected to flogging, were to be expelled, the army would soon have a sufficient number of good men, and thus the obnoxious and inhuman practice might be entirely done away with. He much regretted the absence of the right hon. Secretary at War, being convinced he was ready to do everything that lay in his power to accede to the general wishes of the country on this subject. He much regretted to say flogging had greatly increased in the marine service of late years, for he was informed, that, at Portsmouth alone, thirty-six persons had undergone the infliction of the lash in the course of the last year. He felt satisfied the character of the army would stand much higher in the estimation of the soldiers themselves, and those who might wish to enlist in it, by the practice of flogging being abolished; he, therefore, thought the sooner this end was effected the better.

confessed he did not think any blame attached to Colonel Bowater, or any of the officers in the regiment to which this man belonged. His opinion was, the blame rested entirely with that House, who had come to a decision, by a majority of 227 to 94, to give the Horse Guards the power to inflict the punishment. He would, on an early day in the next Session, renew the motion he had brought under the notice of the House during the present Session without success, for the entire abolition of flogging in the army.

observed, that the statement of the hon. Baronet opposite, that this man had been punished forty times, proved that the practice of flogging did not answer the end intended.

said, he stated the man had forty times suffered punishment; he did not say he had been flogged so often.

said, it was nevertheless very obvious that flogging had not produced the intended effect. He trusted the day was not far distant when it would be entirely done away with. He was glad to hear that a commission was about to be appointed, and that the right hon. Secretary was so far willing to meet the general wishes of the people.

remarked, that whatever might have been the influence of military flogging on the discipline of the army, there could be no doubt that it had produced a very powerful and general disgust in the public mind. It would be a much better plan to discharge incorrigible men from the service at once, than to resort to a system of torture and disgrace, which had evidently failed to produce the effect intended.

said, in the present state of the public mind on the question of military flogging, it required some degree of boldness for any Member of that House honestly to state the opinion he entertained, if it were not in strict accordance with popular feeling. He had, however, never been deterred from performing what he conceived to be his duty by any considerations of that kind, and he would fearlessly say, that it would be impossible to preserve the discipline of the British army without corporal punishment. Many Members opposed the practice altogether who were totally ignorant of the subject. It could not be supposed that lawyers had so much knowledge on this as men of military experience, any more than that he understood a question of law as well as some hon. and learned Members who had addressed the House; and he did not hesitate to say, that, with the exception of two or three military men who sat on that side of the House (the Opposition), it would be admitted by every other hon. and gallant Member, that corporal punishment was absolutely necessary to maintain the discipline and subordination of the army. He believed that corporal punishment was never dreamt of by a soldier when he enlisted in the army, and that was the reason so many bad men entered into it. What, he asked, would have been the consequence, if such an offence as this man had been guilty of had been committed in France? Why, he would have been instantly shot; and if such a course had been pursued in this country, let the House consider the effect that would have been produced upon the public mind. He was surprised to hear hon. Members suggest that such men should be discharged from the army instead of being flogged. If such a system were to prevail, a man dissatisfied with the army, or desirous to leave for any other reason would have only to commit a crime to procure his discharge. He must, in conclusion, express his full concurrence in what had been stated on behalf of Colonel Bowater.

said, whenever an instance of the infliction of military punishment was brought forward, it was very commonly supposed, that officers took a delight in witnessing it. Now, he would venture to say, there was no officer in the British army who did not perform this disagreeable duty with feelings both of pain and disgust. For his own part, he considered this the most revolting and unpleasant part of his duty. Painful, however, as that duty was, he never flinched from the discharge of it, not simply because it was his duty to the service, but because it was his duty to every officer in the ship. Hon. Members had recommended, that persons acting improperly should be expelled from the army, and an objection was taken that a man had only to commit some offence to procure his discharge; but it was forgotten that a discharge could not be obtained for a less sum than 20l. He was of opinion, that unless some equivalent punishment could be substituted, the discipline of the army would be destroyed if flogging were abolished. A great deal of deception existed on this subject, and a great deal of clamour had been raised; but he thought the House could not confer a greater benefit on officers whose duty it was to see the punishment carried into execution than to substitute some other punishment for one which was so universally obnoxious.

hoped the practice would soon be done away with. The practice was now reduced to a complete science, the first thing a drummer, bugler, or smith, was taught, being to practise flogging. He believed no imputation rested on the commanding officer in this instance.

denied, that Colonels and Admirals were the only persons capable of forming a correct opinion on this subject. It was the Common cause of humanity, and on that subject he supposed he was as capable of pronouncing as the hon. and gallant Colonel below him (Colonel Davies). He had a petition to present from a member of the University of Oxford, which was well worthy the consideration of the House. It complained, among other things, of the inequality of the punishments inflicted in the army, and observed, that while one class of persons were subject to be flogged, others were entirely exempted from it. This subject was well worth the hon. and gallant Colonel's (Davies) serious attention. He had never heard of a Colonel being flogged for drunkenness, but he had often heard of drunken Colonels. The hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir Edward Codrington) had argued as if no substitution could be found for the barbarous practice, but he forgot that there were such things as solitary confinement and hard labour, and stopping the pay of the offender. He had always protested against this barbarous practice, and would do so as long as he had a seat in that House.

regretted, that the right hon. Secretary at War was not in his place, but seeing one of his Majesty's Ministers present, he was desirous to know whether it was intended that every member of the proposed Commission should be a military officer of experience. He could assure the Government, if the Commission were composed entirely of military men, it would be very far from satisfactory to the country. He conceived the simple question before the House to be, whether what had taken place was in strict accordance with the circular issued from the Horse Guards last year. By that order, the public were led to believe the practice of flogging, if not entirely abolished, would be so mitigated as to render it quite unobjectionable, If the present instance was in strict accordance with that circular, it only showed that the order was a perfect farce, and the House was misled, and lulled into a sort of foolish confidence in the Government, when the right hon. Secretary at War called on them not to pass an opinion on the system itself. He trusted, however, it would be a lesson to the House not to place reliance on ambiguous pledges and circulars, but at once to come to a resolution to put an end to the practice. The House had been deluded in a similar manner on the subject of the impressment of seamen. The Motion of the hon. member for Sheffield was met by a request from the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) then First Lord of the Admiralty, that the House would suspend its judgment on the question, it being his intention to introduce a measure into the House for the registration of merchant seamen, which he trusted would get rid of the evil complained of. Since that period, the right hon. Baronet had seceded from the Ministry, and had been so occupied with the consideration of the Irish Church, that little time was left him to attend to any other subject. The question of impressment had, however, been completely got rid of for the present Session. He would remind the House that a majority of the members of the present Cabinet stood pledged by their recorded votes and opinions to oppose military flogging, and the House and the public had a right to call on them to give effect to those opinions by introducing a measure for its immediate abolition.

remarked, that it was understood from the right hon. Secretary at War on Monday last, that the Commission about to be issued would not be composed entirely of military men.

observed, that he had not been induced to take up this question as a personal matter, but entirely on public grounds, nor did he impute the slightest blame to Colonel Bowater; on the contrary, he was much gratified at the high character which had been given to him for honour and humanity. He should be one of the last in that House to do anything that might have a tendency to decrease the good discipline of the army; but he felt that he should not discharge his duty if he did not denounce this horrible practice, and call upon the House to abolish it. Notwithstanding what had been said, it still appeared to him that the infliction of so severe a sentence was a great and unnecessary cruelty. If the man had committed forty different offences, and been as frequently punished, he thought the proper course to be pursued was, to eject him from the army, instead of awarding a punishment so unequal and so revolting to human nature. He believed, if the House suffered this punishment to continue harrowing the feelings of the people, it would create a great reaction in the army, subvert the discipline, and increase insubordination. He trusted the House would receive an assurance from his Majesty's Ministers, that the Commission should be speedily issued, and that it should not be exclusively composed of military men.

defended the conduct of Colonel Bowater, who, he said, was unable to interfere with the sentence of a district Court-martial, but was bound to see it carried into full effect.

said, it was not in his power to answer the question which had been put to him with regard to what was the general intention of the Ministry on this subject. He was unprepared to say exactly when the Commission would be issued, but he would say, that whatever his right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) had pledged himself to do, he would carry into effect to the utmost of his power, as speedily and impartially as possible; and as his right hon. friend had fully stated his sentiments on this subject to the House, it could not be expected that he (Mr. Grant) should offer any further explanation of the views and intentions of the Government. He could not, however, refrain from expressing the repugnance he felt at such a punishment, and his deepest regret that it should be suffered to continue. But he must nevertheless observe, that he had long felt the extreme difficulty which arose from appealing to that House upon every instance that occurred of the exercise of the practice. He believed no man in that House entertained a greater abhorrence of the practice than himself, and the only question that presented itself to him was, whether it could at once be abolished without a serious injury to the discipline of the army. The Commission would lead to the fullest investigation, and it would then be seen whether the continuance of the system was necessary to maintain the discipline of the army. He entertained the highest opinion of the character of Colonel Bowater, and considered him in no way connected with the transaction. He must however, admit, that no one could read the account of the case upon which the petition was founded without shuddering.

was anxious to know, whether the drummers were changed at every ten lashes, instead of the usual practice of changing them at every twenty-five. He contended, that a man who had shown himself so unfit for the public service ought to have been discharged, and never trusted with fire-arms in his hands.

trusted, that the hon. member for Lambeth would not suffer the House to separate without obtaining a resolution of the House, expressing its condemnation of the practice, and declaring that it should no longer continue, or at any rate that the Session should not close without an expression of the opinion of the House that the practice should be greatly restricted. He considered it a mere waste of time to appoint a Commission, every man's mind being made up with respect to the principle.

was not disposed to throw any impediment in the way of the Government, and as their opinions had been so strongly expressed against the practice, he did not think it necessary to carry the matter further; but if any delay occurred, he should feel it to be his duty to move an Address to the Crown.

said, that as Chairman of the Select Committee to inquire into the regulations of the Inns of Court it had devolved on him to lay before the House a first Report of the labours of that Committee as far as they had then gone. That Report was found to contain the particulars of a transaction involving one of the grossest charges of breach of privilege that had ever been brought under the notice of the House. He felt that he should not be discharging his duty if he did not call the attention of the House to the circumstances to which he alluded. The facts deposed to before the Committee were these—that a Gentleman who at the time referred to, held the situation of one of the Secretaries of the Treasury was written to by a Gentleman then interested in the election going on for the borough of Colchester, for the remittance of a sum for the purpose of supporting the cause of one of two Gentlemen then Candidates for that borough. He admitted, that controversy might exist as to which of those Candidates this money was destined to support, or whether it was for the benefit of both of them; but there was no pretence for disputing the fact, that 500l. was sent to Colchester from the then Secretary of the Treasury, and for the purpose of ensuring the return of one of the two Members elected for that borough. The house would see that whether one or both of those Members were supported in their election by the funds so supplied was a question utterly immaterial. Such being the facts of the case, it was equally unnecessary for him to use any arguments to prove, that a very gross breach of their privileges had been committed. He did not pretend to say, whether there had ever been a period in which such proceedings as those of which he now complained were considered justifiable; but, if ever there were, that time was gone by. He admitted, that the statement which had been made in that House by the right hon. Gentleman to whom he had referred, now the Secretary at War, in explanation of his conduct in this affair, was such as very materially to palliate the features of the case. That individual was one for whom in his individual capacity he entertained the highest respect, and to whose assertions he had every disposition to give implicit confidence. But it should be borne in mind, that the statement of that hon. Gentleman was merely a verbal one, unsupported by papers or records, or any testimony whatever, whilst the information on which the charge had been brought forward had been formally given in evidence by witnesses before a Committee of that House. As to the explanation itself, he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him when he declared his conviction that the right hon. Gentleman had been mistaken, not to use a harsher term, as to the grounds upon which he had rested that explanation. If, as that hon. Member had stated, the money in question had been supplied by the subscriptions of private individuals, no doubt there existed some list on record of the names of those individuals, and of the appropriation of the funds so subscribed—documents which there could be no difficulty in producing, if they really existed, to corroborate the hon. Member's statement. Indeed it appeared impossible to suppose that any body of men could be induced to subscribe their money for any particular object without some evidence of the kind that the amount had been applied to the object towards which they had supplied it. In the absence of all corroborative evidence of this kind, the House was called upon, for its own satisfaction, to put the explanation which had been advanced to the proof, and require a de- monstration of its correctness. After all there must always appear something very suspicious upon the face of such transactions, from the circumstance of the money passing through the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury at all. How very easy was it for such private monies to get mixed up with the public money, especially when it was recollected that a large sum was annually granted to Government for what was called the secret service. Under all these considerations he thought that the House was imperatively called upon to institute an inquiry into this matter. No doubt it would eventually turn out as had been stated, but the public would not be satisfied without a full and searching investigation. It was necessary for the character of the House—it was necessary for the character of the Government—it was necessary for the character of the individual, that the Motion he (Mr. O'Connell) was about to make should be complied with; that a Committee should be appointed to sift the whole of the proceedings and lay the facts clearly before the House. What was it that the people of England now dreaded, and what had they to appeal against? They were no longer oppressed by a proud aristocracy, for by the recent wise acts of legislation the power of the aristocracy had been almost entirely taken away. What then was it that the people of England had still to dread, violating their rights and liberties? What, but that which had already sapped the strength of many of our proudest institutions—that canker-worm of corruption which stooped to procuring the votes of freemen by purchase, and added to the disgrace of bribery the crime of perjury? If ever there was a period when such proceedings were doubly disgraceful, and called more loudly for visitation than at another, the present was that period. Let it not be said of a Reformed House of Parliament that they refused to inquire into such a cause. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving, that the first Report of the Select Committee on the Inns of Court be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee.

said, he had not been at all prepared for the part which the hon. and learned Member had taken on the present occasion. He must say, that he could not perceive that there existed any grounds to demand the appoint- ment of a Committee of Privileges. If any individual connected with the Government had given money out of the Treasury for the purpose of controlling an election, he would be acting not only in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution, but also in opposition to the express desire of his Majesty's Government. But was any Gentleman in the House prepared to say, that the Secretary of the Treasury had not in his individual (in contradistinction to his official) capacity as good a right to interfere in elections as any other Member of Parliament? His right hon. friend had made a statement to the House a few evenings since, in which he showed from letters that the money which he had advanced was not from the public coffers, but had been raised by public subscription, and had been intrusted to him for distribution. He did not then think it was a case that ought to be sent to a Committee. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had observed, that there should not now be any such thing as nomination of Members to that House. He perfectly coincided in the opinion, and he could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Member himself furnished one of the very few instances in which the power of nomination still actually existed. He thought his right hon. friend was entitled to the enjoyment of the same privileges which was possessed by every other Member in that House. The money which had been advanced was as already stated—a public subscription, and it was advanced for the purpose of defraying the legal expenses of the Colchester election.

coincided with the noble Lord, that a sufficient case to call for the appointment of a Committee had not been made out. He thought, in fact, that it would be impossible for the House to send the case to a Committee after the statement of the right hon. the Secretary at War, without, in point of fact, conveying an opinion that they discredited that statement. His hon. and learned friend had undoubtedly brought forward the question with much fairness. He refrained from stating any of the charges, and put to issue the simple question whether or not the money advanced had been advanced from the public funds? He was a member of the Committee sitting upon the Inns of Court, and he had no hesitation in stating, that no evidence had been givn before that Committee to justify the conclusion that it was public money. On the other hand, it had been stated by the right. hon. Gentleman opposite upon his honour, that it was not public money. He had in private urged the Secretary of the Treasury to give his explanation before the Committee; but so satisfied was the right hon. Gentleman of the rectitude of the course he had adopted, that he much preferred to have it mentioned in the house.

said, that it was precisely because he believed the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, that he thought a Committee ought to be appointed. There was in his judgment no other way of meeting the case so as to do justice to the character of that House. The information upon which his hon. and learned friend grounded his Motion was of such a nature as absolutely to require the appointment of a Committee. It was given by a noble Lord, a Member of the other House of Parliament, who, in his examination, had said, that money had been sent to Colchester from the Treasury—which he thought was sent to support Mr. Mayhew—and that he was returned. Now, after this statement of the noble Lord—that money was sent "from the Treasury" to defray the election expenses of a particular Candidate, who was eventually returned—could the House, in justice to its own character—could it, in justice to the character of the right hon. Secretary, refuse the appointment of a Committee? That right hon. Gentleman he knew was much interested in the elections of the period—and here was a charge that money came from the Treasury—not from private subscriptions—and how then could the House get rid of that charge except by appointing a Committee? He was well aware that his right hon. friend would be able fully and most completely to exculpate himself, and what objection could there then be to the appointment of a Committee? He recollected that on a former occasion the right hon. member for Ipswich stood up and challenged any individual in the House who had ever filled the office of Secretary to the Treasury to show that he had ever been concerned in transactions like the present on the part of Government. He certainly did not believe that such proceedings were attributable to Government. There was only one source from which money could be supplied for such purposes unknown to the public, namely, the secret service money, but that was generally distributed amongst low parties for other and miscellaneous services. However, as the case now stood before the public, he sincerely trusted that the House would not allow any public man to remain subject to the allegation which had been brought against him of having advanced money under circumstances like the present. He trusted, that upon those considerations the noble Lord would withdraw his opposition.

begged briefly to explain the grounds upon which he had felt called upon to oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He was quite prepared to admit, that if the only accounts before the House relative to this matter were the evidence before the Committee on the Inns of Court the case would be in a very different position to what it now assumed. The ground upon which he opposed the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin for a Committee of Inquiry was, that the statement which had been made by the right hon. Secretary at War in explanation of his conduct in this transaction had been corroborated by letters actually written between the parties at the time of the occurrence. These documents were amply sufficient to satisfy the House upon the merits of the case.

supported the Motion. Instead of the direct opposition which the Members on the Ministerial Bench seemed inclined to give it, he thought that at least they should propose, by way of amendment, some measure of less formality in accordance with the objects of the hon. and learned Mover.

said, he would meet the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member by proposing an Amendment to the Motion before the House. He could not help observing, that the present Motion came with a particularly bad grace from the hon. and learned Member, who, with other hon. Members in that House, were so much beholden for their political position to the right hon. Member the Secretary at War and his colleagues in office. The people of England would always feel grateful to that right hon. Gentleman for his exertions in their cause. And he sincerely hoped that the House would not allow a shadow to be cast over the reputation of individuals to whom the country was so deeply indebted. When Scipio Africanus was gravely accused of having raised an unjust tribute, which gave offence to the Roman people, instead of defending himself against the various charges with which he was assailed, he simply reminded the assembled multitudes that that very day was the anniversary of his great victory over Hannibal and the Carthaginians, and then called upon them to follow him to the temple and return thanks to the gods for the triumph of their arms. This they did, and prayed at the same time that all their future commanders might be like him. He did not know whether the House would be inclined to follow the right hon. Secretary at War to the temple and return thanks for their signal victory over the boroughmongers. But this he did say, that he hoped for the future they would always have Secretaries to the Treasury equal to that right hon. Gentleman. This was not his Amendment, however. The Amendment which he had to propose to the House was—"That the House, having heard the statement which had been made by the right hon. member for Coventry, relative to the transactions referred to in the evidence of the first Report of the Select Committee on the Inns of Court, considers that explanation satisfactory, and will proceed no further in the matter."

seconded this Amendment.

said, that if they were now to decide that the denial of a fact by a Secretary of the Treasury was, in consequence of his high character, to overbear evidence and silence inquiry, it would establish a precedent mischievous in the extreme. Hereafter, if they were to institute any inquiry after a Secretary of the Treasury had uttered a denial of the charge, whatever it might be, it would be fairly considered as an insult to that Gentleman. The evidence was to the effect, that Lord Western, when a commoner, had applied to the Treasury for money for election purposes, and that money was accordingly supplied for these purposes on his application by the Treasury. These, he maintained, were sufficient grounds for instituting the inquiry which was demanded. It had been contended, that there was no difference between the testimony of Lord Western, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but there was: and that difference was obvious. Lord Western was not the defendant. He had not made a statement to exculpate himself; he had simply given evidence on a question in which he had no personal interest. He begged to call the attention of the House to one of its Resolutions, which bore directly upon the question before it:—The House had resolved, "That it is highly criminal in any Minister or Ministers, or other servants of the Crown of Great Britain, directly or indirectly, to use the powers of office in the election of Representatives to serve in Parliament; and an attempt at such influence will at all times be resented by this House, as aimed at its own honour, dignity, and independence, as an infringement of the dearest rights of every subject throughout the empire, and tending to sap the basis of this free and happy Constitution." In 1807, the conduct of Mr. Freemantle, one of the Secretaries of the Treasury, became the subject of animadversion in that House. Mr. Freemantle was a landed proprietor in Hampshire, and of course entitled to a vote for the county, and he wrote a letter requesting votes in favour of a particular candidate. From the contents of that letter nothing whatever could be inferred of Mr. Freemantle's connexion with the Government, and the complaint turned altogether upon the fact of the letter having been dated from the Treasury instead of the writer's private residence. On that simple fact it was contended, that Mr. Freemantle had used the influence of Government in the election. No Member in the course of the debate which took place upon that occasion, disputed Mr. Freemantle's right to take part in the election as a voter or canvasser in his private character. The objection was simply to his having interfered in his official character Now, what was the case with respect to the right hon. Secretary-at-War? He had interfered in the election of Colchester, not as a private individual, but as a Secretary for the Treasury. It was the more necessary to examine scrupulously the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Secretary for the Treasury was the only officer intrusted with Secret Service money, who was not sworn under Mr. Burke's Act, with respect to its distribution. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was, under that Act, obliged to swear that the money received by him on account of Foreign Secret Service had been bonâ fide expended. The Secretary of State for the Home Department also swore, that the money received by him for Secret Service, was expended in the detection and defeat of treason, and other dangerous conspiracies. The only limitation however, which the Act imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury was, that he should not draw on account of Secret Service a larger sum than 10,000l. in any one year, and the only check upon the expenditure was, that the names of the persons who received Secret Service money, together with the sums paid them, should be entered in a book, to be produced in either House of Parliament, if required. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him, that the Secretary of the Treasury was the most improper person in the whole kingdom to be employed in the distribution of money subscribed for the purpose of carrying on elections. Taking the fact to be as the right hon. Gentleman had himself stated it, was it a matter of no importance that such a sum of money should be placed at the disposal of the Secretary of the Treasury? He appealed to the common sense of the House upon this point. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he had issued similar sums of money for ten or twelve other elections. Was not this a source of dangerous and unconstitutional influence? How could independent Members who had no funds but their own to apply to compete with candidates who were backed with such powerful means? But it was said, that all this money had been expended in the cause of Reform. Now, let the House recollect what definition of the cause of Reform had been given in those walls. The cause of Reform had been defined by the hon. member for Middlesex to be voting that black was white upon the question of the Russian-Dutch loan. The hon. Member said, that he did so to promote the cause of Reform, and that the end justified the means. Was it not possible that Members who owed their seats to the money issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, might consider themselves under an obligation to vote with the Treasury, not only upon the question of Reform, but upon other matters? In the next place, it was said, that the money was appropriated to defray legal expenses, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke of its being applied to carrying out-voters to Colchester. Now, he felt justified in stating, that such an expenditure of money on the part of any persons but candidates themselves had always been considered by Committees of that House as coming within the Treating Act. The House would, upon the present occasion, have to decide, whether they would place such confidence in the assertion of a person accused, as to allow it to be a complete bar to any inquiry. Unreformed Parliaments had always exhibited extreme jealousy rather than confidence with respect to questions of breach of privilege. The Reformed Parliament, however, it would appear, was about to show confidence in, instead of jealousy of, a Minister charged with a grave offence.

said, that if the case stood as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had put it, he should not, perhaps, dissent from the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not brought before the House the real state of the case, an omission which he would supply, and then leave them, acting judicially, to determine, whether it was a case which would justify the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. He would not contend, that this was a question which ought to be decided upon a principle of confidence in the present Ministry. He would argue the case as he would if he had no confidence in the Ministry whatever. He undoubtedly had confidence in the individual accused, and his personal character was sufficient to convince him at once, that the statement which had been made respecting him was incorrect. The right hon. member for Montgomeryshire attempted to draw a distinction between the testimony of Lord Western and the Secretary-at-War, by observing, that the former was entirely disinterested, whilst the latter had a distinct personal interest in the matter. Observe to what a conclusion that observation would lead. If the evidence of his right hon. friend was to be considered that of an interested party, it would be necessary to exclude it altogether, although the decision of the question must principally depend upon his explanation of what he did and said in the transaction. Undoubtedly, the statement made by a Member in his place in that House was always considered entitled to great weight. The principle which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, if carried out to the full extent, would admit the evidence of Lord Western as a disinterested party, and reject that of his right hon. friend. Supposing a Committee should be appointed, would not his right hon. friend be examined before it? [Mr. Wynn: He would.] His right hon. friend's statement then must either be received as evidence or rejected altogether. He did not mean that it was to be received as conclusive evidence, but only as part of the materials on which the House was to form its judgment. He asked the House, what was the import of the evidence at present before it? In the first place, he must state, that there was no contradiction between the evidence given by Lord Western, and that of his right hon. friend. And here he might derive some aid from the transaction which occurred in 1807, and which the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire had alluded to. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that misconduct was attempted to be attributed to Mr. Freemantle by connecting his official power and influence with his interference at an election, and the proof was, that he had dated a letter from the Treasury instead of his private residence. If Lord Western's evidence were fairly examined, it would not appear there-from that his right hon. friend had acted in his official capacity in the transaction with respect to the Colchester election. He was aware, that the answers of Lord Western would bear that construction, but the House was aware in how loose a manner questions were put to witnesses before Committees. The questions put to Lord Western, were all leading ones. Taking the answers by themselves, there was nothing in them to criminate his right hon. friend. The right hon. member for Montgomeryshire had argued as if his right hon. friend's statement was the only evidence before the House; but that was not the case. The transaction occurred in May, 1831, and yet, after an interval of three years, his right hon. friend had by a singular, and fortunate coincidence, been able to produce two letters in corroboration of his statement, having on them the post-mark of the day on which they were written. [Mr. Wynn had not seen the letters.] Then, he had a right to complain of want of candour on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He came down to the House to argue a question involving personal considerations, affecting individual feel- ings, and yet he had not taken the trouble to peruse the letters, which had not only been read in Parliament, but published in every newspaper in the kingdom. These letters, be it observed, did not come out of the possession of his right hon. friend, but from an unsuspected quarter. The right hon. member for Montgomeryshire said, that it would be easy for a Secretary of the Treasury, under such circumstances as those alleged against his right hon. friend, to produce a letter to give a colour to the transaction. Now, if the letters which had been produced upon this occasion were of a colourable nature, it was not a little extraordinary that his right hon. friend had not preserved the letters or even a copy of them. His right hon. friend, however, was not aware that these letters were in existence until they were handed to him by an hon. Member, who, though not much in the habit of supporting the Government, or passing encomiums upon its members, yet who, much to his honour, came forward upon this occasion, because he considered it essential to the ends of justice. Those letters corroborated the testimony of his right hon. friend. The evidence of his right hon. friend was, as he had before said, not inconsistent with that of Lord Western. His right hon. friend stated, that at the period referred to, a large subscription had been entered into by the friends of a particular political opinion. He would not now stop to inquire, whether subscriptions had been raised in other quarters; he would be satisfied with forgetting for the present that Charles-street was in existence. It was notorious that at the period alluded to, subscriptions were opened for the purpose of aiding the great cause of Reform. Deputations came up from Birmingham and the other unrepresented towns, stating, that as the battle was to be fought in their behalf, they would contribute their share of the expense. Perhaps the right hon. Member was of opinion, that the people of England ought upon that occasion to have stood still, and have made no effort to attain the object which they so ardently desired; but he rejoiced that they had come forward; the poor manufacturers in the unrepresented districts and the inhabitants of boroughs eagerly contributing their money to assist the great cause in which their hopes were embarked. Let it not be supposed that, because he approved of the constitutional effort which the people made upon that occasion, he meant to argue, that it would have been justifiable to make an improper application of the money subscribed. With respect to the necessity of appointing a Committee, how stood the case? If Lord Western's evidence had been given, not incidentally, but before a Committee of Privilege, and thereupon the Committee had called his right hon. friend before them, and he had stated, as he did in the House, that it was true he had sent the money as was stated, but that no portion of it came from the public purse, would not the Committee have resolved immediately, that it was unnecessary to proceed further in the matter? If his right hon. friend would have stood in that situation before a Committee of Privileges, he ought to stand in the same position before the House. The House would not give the subject the go-by if, after having heard the charge and his right hon. friend's defence corroborated by contemporaneous letters, it should determine, that it was unnecessary to proceed further in the business. Under these circumstances, he would give his support to the Amendment which had been proposed.

said, in explanation, that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have misunderstood what had fallen from him. He never proposed that the House should proceed against the Secretary at War without hearing him in his defence. If a Committee should be appointed, they would doubtless hear the right hon. Secretary's statement, and examine any evidence which he might bring forward. He could not consider the letters which the right hon. Secretary had read as part of his speech evidence, unless they should be laid upon the Table. The noble Lord opposite would recollect, that Mr. Canning, when Secretary of State, proposed to read a letter in his speech in defence of the conduct of Government, but he was informed, that it could only be received as part of his speech, unless it were laid upon the Table. He really had not seen the letters in the newspapers, but be their contents what they might, it was desirable, for the sake of the right hon. Secretary's character, that, as the charge had been put upon record, his defence should be put on record also.

said, that he believed this to be a wheel put into motion in order to crush the most insignificant butterfly of a case which had ever been brought before them. What they had to consider was simply whether the statement made before the Committee, or that made by his right hon. friend, was the more satisfactory. It seemed to him, that the object intended by the appointment of a Committee, was not to offer censure, but to vindicate the character of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, suppose the case of a person brought before a Justice of the Peace accused of an offence—upon the principle of this Motion, the Magistrate might say to the accused, "Oh, you are the most innocent person in the world; but you must go before the Judges to stand your trial." For his own part, he had every confidence in the House, and could trust that its decision upon this occasion would be correct.

said, that Parliament should not allow itself to be diverted from its duty by any special pleading or rhetoric on the opposite side. It should look to such conduct as that of the right hon. Secretary, not with confidence, as was claimed for it, but with vigilance and jealousy. The right hon. Gentleman had the secret service money in his hand, and could dispose of it without responsibility or check. He gave a sum of money to meet the election expenses of an avowed supporter of the Government; and though he said that sum was drawn from a private fund, yet what could prevent the public from supposing, that it was given by Government for the purpose of promoting its own interested views? The fact of an application of a sum of money by the Secretary of the Treasury for securing the return of a friend to Government, was proved by Lord Western, and was admitted by the Secretary himself. The gravamen of the whole charge rested on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman—for, by his own showing, he was guilty of a gross breach of privilege, and the House would grossly neglect its duty if it overlooked such a case. In what situation would the House be placed if it followed the advice of those hon. Gentlemen who were friends to Government, and rested satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Secretary? He was astonished that Ministers should so far trifle with the privileges of Parliament, and Whig Ministers too, as to advise such a course. How did the facts stand? Supposing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, to be perfectly and strictly true, the affair at present was in this position:— A Secretary of the Treasury, an officer connected with the Government in a peculiar way, for there were two Secretaries of the Treasury, the one having to attend to matters properly belonging to the finances of the country, and the other having to do the jobbing, in fact the dirty work of the Government. Such was the fact, and it was notorious. He made not the remark as applicable only to the present Government, but to all Governments which had hitherto been, and he feared would be until human nature was altered, notwithstanding all the reforms which had been, and could be, introduced by the Ministers. Well, the person holding that office, upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, was selected to work the elections throughout the country, through the medium of a subscription raised out of private funds. But the noble Lord (Lord Western) whose evidence had led to the special Report from the Committee distinctly stated, that he had applied to the right hon. Gentleman, not because of any private intimacy subsisting between them, but because he was Secretary to the Treasury, and it was to the Secretary of the Treasury as such that the application was made. It was to the Treasury the letter was sent, and did the Treasury answer it? Yes.—The money was furnished. Then would that House do its duty, if it expressed itself content to leave the Report without further notice? Assuredly not. What was the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman to the statement? He said he did send the 500l. to Colchester and to a dozen other places. He managed a private subscription, and he had so used it. And upon that statement, his right hon. friend (Mr. Rice) asked if the House could entertain the thought of further proceeding. The House could not, consistently with the maintenance of its character, pass by such a matter without full investigation; and when he saw his noble friend (Lord Althorp), in whose integrity and nice sense of honour he had the most perfect reliance, countenancing a different course, he could not but express his astonishment at the monstrous lengths to which honourable public men might be driven by the violence of party feelings.—The question was not merely whether or not the public money had been used—that supposition, the statement of the Secretary at War had in his mind set at rest—but here was a Secretary of the Treasury, an officer of the Crown, and whose interference with elections had been declared a high breach of the privileges of that House, receiving and answering applications for money to carry on elections at the Treasury. And when the case was brought forward the explanation was, that he had sent money to a dozen other places for a similar purpose. Some hon. Members had treated the Motion before the House as if it had come from his right hon. friend (Mr. Wynn); but it came from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, who could not perhaps be accused of enmity to the present Government, and still less to the Secretary at War—and who had doubtless brought it forward because he felt that a matter of so much importance and affecting so deeply the privileges of that House, and the character of Government, could not be passed over without strict and full inquiry. One word as to precedents. It had been said, that the transactions occurred at a particular period, when men's minds were strongly excited. That surely was no ground for passing it by without investigation; and he entreated the House to be slow in establishing a precedent which might be quoted for dangerous and destructive purposes. In justification of the transaction, it had been urged that similar funds were raised by the opponents of the conduct pursued by the party with whom the right hon. Gentleman acted. He did not understand that any one objected or could object to private subscriptions for the purpose of legally carrying on elections. They had heard, for instance, of a fund at the Crown and Anchor Tavern; and to that he did not know that any objection could be taken. It had also been stated, that there was a fund of the same description collected in Charles-street. All that he could say upon that point was, that, although he had been in the habit of meeting many gentlemen in that place, he had never been applied to to contribute to any such subscription, and upon his honour he knew of no such subscription.—Such was the fact; but whether there had been such a fund or not was a matter of no consequence, and had nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. To one other point only he would allude, and that but for a moment. An hon. Member (Mr. Peter), in his great indignation at interference in elections, had had on the books ever since the commencement of the Session a notice of Motion for an Address to the Crown, to pray the Crown to remove the Earl of Warwick from the office of Lord-lieutenant of a county, because it had been proved before a Committee of that House, that the noble Lord had been guilty of lending his brother a sum of money which had been used for electioneering purposes.—Such was the height of the indignation of the hon. Gentleman, that time could not allay it—that the universally-admitted amiable character, retired habits, and freedom from strong political bias in the Earl of Warwick could not induce him to abandon his notice, for however much longer the Motion might be postponed. Then he would suggest, if his noble friend (Lord Althorp) still resisted inquiry in this case of the Secretary of the Treasury, that the hon. Member should extend his protective care of the privileges of that House; and, while he provided for the reprobation of a Lord-lieutenant of a county for lending money to a brother, he should at least address the Crown also to deprecate a Secretary of the Treasury working in the Treasury a dozen elections.

considered the present Motion more as one of censure than of inquiry; because the hon. Gentleman had declared, that the facts, as they were admitted to stand, called for the reprehension of the House. He had the honour of having been a Member of that House when the case of Mr. Freemantle, alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn), was discussed in 1807; and speaking from his recollection of what had passed on that occasion, he must say, it had been admitted by all, that the Secretary of the Treasury had as much right to interfere, as a private individual, with an election, as any other person in the country. The right hon. Gentleman placed the case not at all on the ground on which it had been originally discussed; in fact, he seemed to treat it as if the question had depended on the circumstance whether the letter had been dated from the Treasury-chambers, or from Mr. Freemantle's own private residence. But the question was altogether different. Mr. Assheton Smith, who had introduced the subject upon a petition, to the notice of the House, stated the charge in these words:—"The Petition, it would be recollected, charged that hon. gentleman (Mr. Freemantle) with having written to the barrack-master-general, directing hint to use the whole extensive influence of the barrack department, in order to promote the election of the candidates recommended by the Ministers for the representation of the county of Southampton." And the answer which Mr. Freemantle gave was, that "he only recommended the candidates whom he wished to succeed to the favourable influence of the Barrack-master-general, and requested of him to recommend them to the other gentlemen in that department." And even Mr. Canning, who spoke in favour of the Motion for referring the petition to a committee of privileges, admitted, that "nothing was more true than that the persons composing a government were not disqualified from exerting their rights as individuals, in common with every other subject; but they should exert them with caution, so that it should always appear to be the individual right they exerted, and not the power and influence of the Government. The hon. Gentleman might have written to his private connexions and dependents with all possible zeal and ardour to exert themselves to promote the election of his friends; but the ground of complaint was, that the letter was addressed, not by Mr. Freemantle, a gentleman of property and a freeholder of Hampshire, to General Hewitt, a person of private connexion in that county, but from Mr. Freemantle, Secretary of the Treasury, to General Hewitt, head of the Barrack-department, claiming the exertion of his influence through all the ramifications, connexions, and dependencies of that department." Now, surely it would not be contended that his right hon. friend the Secretary at War stood in those circumstances. Having alluded to the case of Mr. Freemantle, he must be allowed to say, that those who sat on the Opposition side of the House did not hold doctrines similar to those which had been stated by the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Baring), because when that hon. gentleman (Mr. Freemantle) complained that he was placed in a situation of great difficulty, from having taken office immediately before a general election, Mr. Rose got up and said, he could not conceive how that circumstance could at all increase the exertions of a Secretary of the Treasury. As to the question now before them, undoubtedly a subscription had been raised, of which his right hon. friend in his character as an individual, not as a Secretary of the Treasury, had been appointed manager, and in that character he had advanced money to persons who were engaged on the same side of the political question which he supported. It was by no means the fact that the case rested entirely on his right hon. friend's own evidence, because the hon. member for Colchester had put into his hands the letters which had been written on the occasion, and of the existence of which his right hon. friend had been altogether ignorant, which gave to his statement an entire confirmation, and distinctly proved that the money had been raised by private subscription. With respect to the funds which had been collected, no one could object to their application towards defraying the legal expenses of elections in support of that cause which the subscribing parties espoused. Even the hon. member for Middlesex could not possibly object to that proposition; that hon. Gentleman had too constitutional a feeling against spending any money of his own in election contests to object to it; because, when he was first elected for Middlesex there was no contest, and the expense of the hustings even had been paid by subscription. The question now simply was, whether his right hon. friend should be censured, and to refer the matter to a committee of inquiry would amount to a censure, because he had been selected by the subscribers to take the management of their funds. Notwithstanding the personal appeal which had been made to him, he must oppose the Motion.

felt it his duty to support the Motion. He should do so, not from at all doubting the statement of the Secretary at War, in whose integrity he had the most perfect confidence, but because he thought the people had a right to be convinced as well as that House, and that inquiry would lead to a conclusion triumphant to the character of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Secretary of the Colonies (Mr. Rice) had said, there was no precedent for calling for an inquiry when a Member had pledged his word and honour to a statement; but he was prepared to show that that was a mistake. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the member for Tipperary) had pledged his honour on a late occasion, and a right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had contended that that very fact made inquiry necessary, and a Committee was appointed. He contended, that the honour of the Government required investigation, and, therefore, he should support the Motion.

said, he believed that was the first time in which a Committee had been required in a case in which both parties admitted that they heard the truth. Before any Committee could be necessary, it would be right to show that the money was given for illegal purposes.

thought the Motion entirely unnecessary.

said, he was so perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, that he should vote against the Motion for further inquiry.

would intrude on the House only for a very few minutes. He very rarely troubled the House, and never, he trusted, abused its indulgence. He was not one of those who had had the advantage of fully hearing the explanation of the Secretary at War. It was said, that explanation had been perfectly satisfactory; but when it was made, the charge was not formally before the House. It was true the Report had been brought up, and he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman who had presented it had expressed his intention to move that it should be printed; but, before that was done, the right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to make his explanations. Now, by that proceeding those who happened not to be in the House were surely not to be precluded from inquiry? [Cries of "Divide."] Some hon. Members seemed extremely anxious to divide, and perhaps they had some good reasons for such conduct. Lord Western had been asked a question as to whether he wrote to Mr. Ellice for the money, and his answer was "No." If hon. Members would hear a little further, they would find they had not cheered in the right place. The answer was to the effect, that he wrote for the money for the purpose of carrying on the election of Mr. Mayhew, that he wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury, and that the money was paid from the Treasury. In a case of such delicacy he could not understand how the Government could refuse inquiry. In the case of Mr. Windham Quin, which arose out of circumstances somewhat similar, Lord Castlereagh expressed an opinion that that hon. Gentleman had completely refuted the charge which was brought against him; but nevertheless he voted in favour of a Committee of Inquiry, because that noble Lord considered it essential, that a charge of that nature against a public man should be thoroughly investigated. If Ministers supposed that the country would rest satisfied with the bare explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, they were very much mistaken. He had no doubt of the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman; but he did not hesitate to say, that in the opinion of those who did not hear his statement, and in the opinion of the people of England, he was not cleared from the charge which had been brought against him.

did not think, that a sufficient case had been made out for further inquiry. If any Gentleman would state, on his honour, that he was prepared to bring forward any evidence on the subject, he would vote for further inquiry; but that not being the case, he should oppose it.

must support the Amendment; but he wished that his hon. and learned friend would withdraw his Motion, and not force on a division.

said, he wished to adopt the advice given him, and withdraw his Motion. He could, however, do no such thing. He spoke not merely upon his sense of duty as chairman of the Committee making the Report; but also as a Member of that House bound to consider the matter. It appeared to him to involve a plain Breach of Privilege. The Committee appointed to investigate the case of the hon. member for Colchester had no authority to demand a copy of the correspondence of Lord Western. If they had they would have insisted on its production. The answers of the Secretary at War to that correspondence slid not satisfy him of the innocence of the right hon. Gentleman, nor did he believe they would satisfy the public. Certain documents which were calculated to throw light on the matter, were admitted to exist, and without their production he did not think it would be possible altogether to acquit the Government of all participation in the charge brought against them in the person of the right hon. Secretary of War. The House was told they would be establishing a bad precedent in acceding to the Motion. In his humble opinion they would be adopting a much worse precedent in refusing it. In more points than one they would be adopting a bad precedent in refusing the Committee for which they sought. It was said, that if an hon. Member on being accused of improper conduct, was able to make a defence resting altogether on mere verbal allegation, the House could not grant a Committee of Inquiry into the matter without treating the party so accused as a liar, and one altogether unworthy of belief. Surely a worse precedent than that could not be established. It was at all events a precedent which he implored the House, as they valued their character in the country, not to sanction. In his opinion, nothing was more calculated to render the present case one of frightful enormity, than the opposition which the Government had offered to his Motion for an investigation. An hon. member (Mr. C. Buller), had committed an outrage on those splendidly imaginative faculties with which bountiful nature endowed him, in attempting to prove an identity of conduct between the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, and Scipio Africanus; but he put it to the House to say if the speech of that hon. Member, or the speeches of those who took a similar view of the subject, with his, were at all calculated to satisfy the public mind that the public money had not been showered forth, in God alone knew how many places, by the Treasury, for the purpose of seeming the return of their immediate partisans. What had been the conduct of an unreformed Parliament upon an occasion in every respect similar to the present? An accusation was brought against Mr. Windham Quin, an individual whose character at the time the accusation was preferred stood in the public estimation, at all events as high as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War; and although he offered a defence which in the opinion of a great portion of the House, was deemed satisfactory, a Committee of Inquiry having been moved for, it was granted, and in the result evidence was adduced which brought home the charge to that person, and in the end was the means of putting a stop to his political career. And even the Reform Parliament—that Parliament so much vaunted as the palla- dium of the people's liberty,—that Parliament to which the people were told to look for redress and support—was the Reformed Parliament he asked, prepared to resist an inquiry into a matter so deeply affecting the constitutional rights of the people, that even a borough-mongering Parliament could not, had it been proposed to them, refuse it? The affair was called "a butterfly." "I'd be a butterfly born in a Committee-room," he supposed, and was melodiously warbled forth with every possible variation by the hon. Member the inventor of the Scipio Africanus imagery and his friends; but was this, he asked, the way a question of such magnitude and importance ought to be treated? Ought such a question, he submitted to the House, be treated with a degree almost, if not altogether, amounting to indecorum? The Government sought to smother the subject by the exercise of the influence they possessed in that House; but he could assure them the time was passed when they could expect to carry everything by influence, unless indeed it was the influence of public opinion. Let the Government not outrage that opinion. It had been with them for some time past; let them take care how they hazarded it. The public attention was narrowly directed to their conduct, and one false step—a step of the character they were about to take—might sink them irrevocably in the abyss of unpopularity. It had been asked in the course of the then discussion, "If it be enough to be accused, who will be innocent?" But might not he (Mr. O'Connell) with much more reason ask, "If it be enough to deny, who will be guilty?" Let the Reform Parliament, he again said, take care how they refused the Inquiry. The Reformed people expected it; let not their Representatives disappoint that expectation. Great indeed was his supprise, and great indeed, he doubted not, would be the surprise of the country, when it was ascertained that the foremost in opposition to his Motion for inquiry was the great patriot of Reform, the noble Lord, the member for Devonshire. The hon. member near him (Mr. Charles Buller)—the hon. Member whom he would henceforth dub with the title of "Scipio Africanus"—had spoken of an appeal to the gods, and he was bound to say the appeal had been promptly responded to. No sooner was it made than up started the noble Lord, the god of Reform idolatry, who, parmulâ non relictâ, threw over his right hon. friend the broad shield with which his former valiant deeds in the cause of the people armed him. He besought the Government to recollect they were opposed by two parties in that House—firstly, by that which was accused of going too far; and secondly, by that which was said not to go far enough. Let it not, under such circumstances, go forth to the public that the Motion was supported by those who were deemed inimical to public liberty, and supported by that party to whom they looked up as their friends. Satisfied at all events he was it would be said that the sole motive which could actuate the Government in resisting the Motion was a fear that the result would prove unfortunate; and if there was no reason for entertaining such a fear,—and he would go so far as to say he believed there was not,—he earnestly and solemnly implored the noble Lord and his colleagues to accede to his Motion, and grant the investigation prayed for.

rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for an Address to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to pardon Mr. Patrick Grant and Mr. John Bell, editors of the True Sun newspaper, now confined in the King's Bench prison; he said he was desirous most earnestly of pressing upon the House the adoption of the motion with which he intended to conclude, for clemency and mercy were amongst the best prerogatives of the Crown. The hon. Member then proceeded to read extracts from the Standard, the Albion, the Guardian and Public Ledger, Blackwood's Magazine, the Examiner, the John Bull, the Morning Post, The Times, the Manchester Advertiser, the Dublin Freeman's Journal, Cobbett's Register, &c., &c., censuring the severity of the proceedings against Messrs. Grant and Bell, observing, that however opposed in politics these several publications were to the True Sun, they all agreed in reprobating the conduct of the Government towards the editors of that paper. They all agreed that it was ill-timed, oppressive, and totally unjustifiable. He begged to call the attention of the House to the opinion pronounced by the present Lord Chancellor when examined before the Committee now silting on the subject of the Law of Libel. That great law authority had stated, that he would not punish for a political libel. He had been present in the Court of King's Bench when the Attorney-General addressed that Court in aggravation of punishment, and in the course of that speech, he admitted that he would not plead for punishment for speeches delivered at elections or after dinners. If he would not prosecute the speakers, why prosecute the publishers? If one man might innocently utter such language, so might another. Why make a distinction between Lord Milton and Mr. Grant? Lord Milton and Mr. Brougham might be permitted to pass, and so might The Times newspaper, for then the hon. Gentleman needed its support, but he did not fear to attack the True Sun. There was scarcely a man in the country ignorant of the fact, that the party of the present Ministers were, when out of power, most strenuous advocates for the liberty of the Press; the country had now a specimen of the manner in which their professions were acted on. It would be recollected that last year the House of Commons rescinded a vote to which it had previously come respecting the Malt-tax, and on the day following there appeared an article in the True Sun advising the people to resist the payment of taxes, in the hope that the imposition of a Property-tax, in lieu of the existing taxes, would thereby be rendered necessary. This article was published, be it remembered, at a period of great excitement; and if it was thought deserving of prosecution, why was it that The Times escaped prosecution? The reason was, because that paper had a party in the House ready to defend it. When this prosecution was first commenced, the proprietors of the True Sun were informed, that if they apologized, or made any concession, the judgment of the court would be asked for merely as a matter of form. This they very properly refused to do; and they were punished therefore, not for having made a flagitious publication, but because they had the manliness to refrain from doing an act which they considered would have disgraced them. As the law of libel now stood, the public derived no benefit from it; and in his conscience he believed that, in the case to which he was now drawing the attention of the House, it had been perverted to suit the wishes of the Government. He regarded the course pursued by the Government towards the True Sun as most impolitic; and instead of endeavouring to stifle public opinion, he would recommend them to depend upon it as their best support. The present Ministers had been fortunate enough to have several votes of confidence passed in their favour; but if they continued to prosecute the Press, could they fancy that those votes would be repeated, or if repeated, that they would be sincere? He contended, that too much freedom could not be allowed to the public Press of this country; for, taken on the whole, a purer or more honourable Press did not exist in the world. He appealed, then, to the hon. and learned Gentleman's mercy and sense of justice. He appealed to his common sense. It surely could not be the intention of the Government to crush this paper. The proprietors were men of family and respectability: one of them was connected with two Cabinet Ministers. They had expended a large amount of money on the paper, which was conducted with great talent and honesty; and he really thought, that as the law was satisfied by the verdict which had been given against them, the Government could not do better than release them from a tedious imprisonment. The hon. Member con- cluded by making the Motion above stated, as an Amendment to the Order of the Day.

seconded the Amendment, and said, that he was at a loss to understand how it was, that in the prosecution of the True Sun, his Majesty's Ministers had acted so contrary to the principles they had always professed, and to the recently expressed opinion of the Lord Chancellor, who had openly declared, that he disapproved of prosecutions for offences like that of which the proprietors of the True Sun had been accused. He therefore asked not for mercy, but for justice, on behalf of the proprietors of that newspaper; being entirely of the same opinion as the Lord Chancellor, that that man was oppressed who was prosecuted for expressing his opinions on any subject. He believed, that the hon. and learned Attorney General contended, that it was illegal for one person to advise another not to pay taxes, but he (Mr. Hume) had always understood, that occasions might arise when resistance to Government would become a virtue. There could be no doubt that if the principles on which the prosecution of the True Sun was founded were acted on to their full extent, the consequence must be, that all discussion respecting the conduct of Government would be stifled in this country.

said, as he had been so pointedly alluded to, both by the hon. mover and the hon. seconder of the Motion, he hoped for the indulgence of the House, whilst he defended himself from the attack which had been made upon him. It might be enough to state, that this exofficio information was filed by his hon. and learned predecessor, with the full concurrence of every member of his Majesty's Government, including the Lord Chancellor. From the mere accident of his hon. and learned friend being indisposed and confined to his bed, he conducted the prosecution in court, with which otherwise he should have had nothing more to do than to call a witness from the Stamp-office to prove that Messrs. Bell and Grant had made an affidavit, that they were the proprietors of the True Sun. But he did not by that observation seek to shelter himself from the responsibility which was sought to be cast upon him. He was willing to acknowledge, although then he held only the office of Solicitor General, that he entirely concurred in that prosecu- tion, and thought that his Majesty's Government, and the law-officers of the Crown, would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty had it not been instituted. With regard to the present Motion, he believed, that it was the first instance of an attempt being made, under such circumstances, to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. Hitherto, if a harsh sentence had been passed, or circumstances, after the passing of a just sentence, had occurred, to give the party a claim to have it mitigated, the Crown had been applied to for the indulgence. But if the Motion were to be carried, the House would supersede the prerogative of the Crown, and with all deference for the House, he must say, that the prerogative of mercy was better vested in the Crown than in any popular assembly. Let the responsible advisers of the Crown be answerable for not giving proper advice as to the exercise of this prerogative, but let not the House take the exercise into its own hands. There was another objection to the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Cork. The hon. Member had not moved to have the record of the proceedings laid before the House, and he called upon the House, in entire ignorance of the nature of the prosecution and of the offence for which the sentence of the Court of King's Bench was passed, to address the Crown to set it aside. The hon. Member had not, in fact, told the House what the charge and the sentence were in the course of his long and eloquent speech. The hon. member for Middlesex, who seconded the Motion, evidently had not even read the publication. With his usual candour, the hon. Member assented to the truth of the observation. The hon. Member said, that it was for abuse of his Majesty's Ministers. It was not for any abuse of his Majesty's Ministers that the prosecution was instituted. As long as he held the situation that he had now the honour to fill, he should never sanction any prosecution for mere abuse of the existing Government, or for mere vituperation of a public man. He was willing that there should be the most ample discussion of all political subjects—he was willing that every opinion, that every sentiment that might be entertained respecting the Government, or any member of the Government, should be fairly and fully expressed. If those sentiments or opinions were true, they ought to be expressed, and to be acted upon; if they were false, they might be safely despised. He disapproved of the present Law of Libel; there were several parts of it which were a reproach to English jurisprudence. He was of opinion, that proof of the truth of the libel should be admitted in evidence—not necessarily to justify the libel, but to go to the Jury, in order that they might judge whether the publication was malicious or not. There was another material Amendment of the Law of Libel, which he wished to be carried into effect. At present, if an action were brought for a libel, even a farthing damages carried costs, and the defendant was generally obliged to pay the costs of both parties. The consequence was, that the most scandalous pettifogging actions were brought, without the hope of obtaining substantial damages; but merely for the sake of the Attorney's costs. But there was no Amendment of the Law of Libel which, in his humble judgment, could ever render innocent a publication such as was the subject of prosecution in the case of the True Sun. Although opinions might be published with impunity, the laws must be respected; and when a publication openly incited to a violation of the duty which every citizen owed to the State, and to a breach of the public peace, it became imperatively necessary that the authority of the laws must be vindicated. The hon. member for Middlesex smiled, and seemed to think, that there ought to be no punishment for any publication whatever; but that must depend on the nature of the publication, and the circumstances under which it was ushered to the would. Suppose, for instance, that a man should publish as his opinion, that the houses, or stacks, or barns of certain individuals should be burnt, would the hon. Member regard that as the expression of an innocent opinion, unworthy of the notice of the law? He agreed with the hon. Member, that the expression of opinion upon political topics ought to be free; but when advice was given, which, if acted on, must necessarily lead to a violation of the law—to disturbance of the public peace—to insurrection—to bloodshed—to treason—then it was indispensably necessary that the law should interpose; and no Government, whatever the form of it might be, could possibly be sustained whilst such publications were allowed. Although he was far from defending the Law of Libel as it at present stood, he must nevertheless observe, that much undeserved obloquy had been thrown upon it by the absurd attempts to define a libel. It had been said, that anything was a libel by which the feelings of another might be hurt. He spurned such a definition. It was like Shylock being allowed his pound of flesh, but "not one drop of blood." It would be almost impossible, in political discussion, to avoid saying something by which the feelings of others might be hurt. In all cases, the intention of the writer ought to be regarded; the necessary tendency of what he wrote should be canvassed; the question should be put—"Is this fair discussion?"—and the Jury should determine whether it was for the general good that the publication complained of should be permitted or punished. What was it, however, for which the prosecution in the present case was instituted? It was not for abuse of the Government or of any Minister of the Crown, or of either House of Parliament,—for if such things were made the subjects of prosecution, prosecutions must be instituted every day; and they might be passed over without danger to the safety of the State; but while he held office, he would not, be the consequences what they might to himself, allow writings which incited to a direct violation of the law to pass with impunity. He would inform the House what the nature of this publication was. The first part of the publication of which he complained declared, that the House of Commons—the Reformed House of Commons, too—ought to be entirely pulled down, and that some other ruling authority should be established in its stead. Speaking of the House of Commons, the writer said:—'It stands in all its unseemliness before us, right in our path, shocking us with its disgusting and loathsome brutality of aspect, and resolved not to crawl an inch out of our way. We must make it. It must move forward. The hideous thing cannot be suffered to squat where it does. If we cannot stir it, we must leap over it at all hazards. We cannot stand looking at it day after day; the sight is too sickening—the creature is too venomous—its attitude is too revoltingly ugly. Neither call we descend the precipice which we have scaled, and sink again into the slough of despond. No, we must go on at any rate, or be starved. Well, then, we have tried all ordinary means. We have soothed and implored—we must employ threats, as we have done before with success; and if threats operate no better than smiles and fair words, we must put these same threats into force. In another passage were these words:—Those who are suffering under wrongs must petition Heaven, and not the House of Commons. They are past mans help. In another passage it was said:—It (the House of Commons) has decided, that the amount which every man is called upon to pay to Government, shall not be regulated according to his property. What, then, remains to be done? The House has rescinded its own Resolution of Friday,—the people must rescind the Resolution of the House of Tuesday. They must refuse to pay what they can only pay at the expense of their common ruin.' He contended, that such remarks were not simply an expression of an opinion; but it was stating broadly, that the House of Commons had so conducted itself, that it ought to be superseded, and that the payment of all taxes which might be imposed ought to be resisted. One of the defendants, in fact, did not disguise the obvious meaning of the article, for he boldly stated on his trial, that the actual state of the country was worse than any anarchy which could arise. The article in which it was thus laid down, that the House of Commons ought to be superseded, and that the people should take the Government into their own hands, appeared in the True Sun on the 1st of May, 1833; and on the following day, a letter appeared in the same paper, pointing out how this should be done. The editor said,—'We select the following from the numerous letters which we have received 'upon the subject;'—and that subject was the non-payment of taxes. Then came the letter, in which were the following passages:—'As defiance has been offered to 'the wishes of the people by the non-representative Parliament, defiance must be the remedy on the part of the people. Since petitioning is evidently useless, and since it is the will of the majority of the householders, that the Assessed-taxes should be removed, they must take this branch of political affairs into their own hands; and, with a view to that end, I propose that associations should be formed for mutual aid and advice, for the resistance of these odious and unpopular taxes.' There was first the article of the editor himself, in which he said, that the House of Commons must be superseded; and then, on the following day, some person, who had read that article, wrote the letter which he had just quoted, pointing out the manner in which the suggestion of the editor might be most completely and most speedily carried into effect. Was it possible, he asked, that any Government whatever could possibly stand, if such publications as these were suffered to pass without notice? Allusion had been made to the evidence given before the Libel Committee by the Lord Chancellor, in which it was said, that that noble and learned Lord expressed his disapprobation of prosecutions of this kind. Any opinions given before that Committee could not be quoted, because the Committee had not yet made its Report, and because no member of it could divulge the evidence taken before it without a gross breach of confidence. The evidence, it was true, had been printed and circulated for the use of the members of the Committee; but, with the express caution, that it was not to be divulged to any person not on the Committee. If the Lord Chancellor, in giving his evidence before that Committee, intimated any such opinion as that attributed to him by the hon. and learned member for Cork, he begged leave to say, that be entirely dissented from it. To say, that it would be time enough to prosecute associations for resisting the payment of taxes when they were actually formed, but that we ought not to prosecute those who had advised and promoted the formation of them, was to lay down a principle in which he could never concur; for he held, that if any act, when done, was criminal, and a fit subject for prosecution and punishment, those who had encouraged and incited others to the commission of that act of criminality were themselves amenable to punishment, and fit objects of prosecution. With respect to the expediency of instituting this prosecution, if the House considered what was the state of the public mind at the time, it might judge how much publications of this kind, from their mischievous tendency, required to be suppressed. Associations were forming on the advice given—for the purpose of refusing to pay taxes. Many did refuse to pay, and attempts were made to rescue the goods seized in consequence of that refusal. It was necessary to show the public, by instituting this prosecution, that the law would not tolerate such proceedings. In the debates on the Irish Coercion Bill, the Government had been taunted with not resorting in proper time to the remedies given by the Common Law, for preserving the public peace, and upholding the institutions of the country. Had this prosecution not been instituted—had the system of passive resistance been adopted and established in England—who could tell whether the melancholy necessity might not have arisen of proposing a suspension of the Constitution, or some temporary encroachment upon the liberties of the people. Let him now ask, had there been the smallest complaint as to the manner in which the prosecution was conducted? Would the hon. and learned member for Cork, who, he believed, was present upon the occasion, say, that the defendants had not a fair trial? The Jury were indifferently chosen, and showed the greatest impartiality; no improper topic had been addressed to them by the Counsel for the Crown, and to the charge of the Judge no exception could be taken by any one who admitted that a publication might be criminal. The Counsel for the defendants—nay, the defendants themselves admitted, that the trial was fairly conducted, and that they could not complain of the verdict. After trial and conviction, it was of course necessary that the defendants should be brought up for judgment. If they had made any concession, he should have prayed for a mitigation of the punishment, or even for a nominal judgment. He had no personal feeling whatever on the subject. He believed, that the defendants were respectable in private life; but if the public safety required that the prosecution should he instituted, the private character of the individuals could not be taken into consideration. The sentence of three months' imprisonment, he believed, was milder than had been before passed on any similar occasion. Even when they came up to receive the judgment of the Court, Mr. Bell still adhered to the doctrine laid down at the trial, that the then existing state of society in this country was worse than any anarchy that could arise in consequence of any publication of his. It had been said, that he spoke in aggravation of the sentence. That was not the fact. On the contrary, he called upon the Court to inflict the mildest punishment that it should deem consistent with the extent of the offence. That was an outline of the whole matter. How, then, were the Government or the law-officers of the Government to blame? Reference had been made to other articles published in other journals, which it was said were fully as deserving of prosecution. He knew of no such articles. Reference had also been made to certain expressions said to have been made use of with respect to resistance to taxes by a noble Lord (now a Member of the Upper House). The learned Judge who tried the defendants very properly observed, that these expressions could not be made the subject of a prosecution, and when these expressions were mentioned in this House, his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had strongly condemned them. Reference had likewise been made to certain language said to have been used by an hon. Member of this House in addressing his constituents. He did not see how evidence of the use of such expressions could be obtained so as to make them subjects of prosecution, unless the Government were to adopt a system of spies and informers. Besides, he thought that a very great latitude ought to be allowed to a Member in addressing his constituents. Allusion had also been made to words said to have been spoken in this House. Hon. Members who used that argument ought to know that words spoken in this House were sacred. When published by others, they might in strictness be prosecuted, but, God forbid, that he for one, should ever sanction the principle of prosecuting parties for publishing bonâ fide reports either of what took place in that House, or at public meetings, or in the Courts of Law. But, then, the hon. member for Middlesex, feeling, as he apprehended, that he had no real ground of accusation against the Government, or any member of the Government, for the course taken upon this particular occasion, exclaimed, "Oh! you are general persecutors of the Press,—you are attempting to put down the liberty of the Press,—you will not allow the free expression of opinion." He denied the charge in the broadest and most positive terms. There had been only one ex-officio information filed since Earl Grey came into office. It was well known, that former Governments were not so sparing of this power of the law; and it was a fact that Sir Vicary Gibbs filed twenty ex-officio informations in one single morning. But the present was the only ex-officio information which had been filed within the last three years and a-half. It was submitted to a jury, and the jury, after a patient and most impartial investigation, found the parties guilty. Allusion had been made on a former occasion, in his absence, by the hon. member for Bath, to a prosecution which that hon. Gentleman blamed the Government for having instituted. As he was not present upon that occasion, and consequently had no opportunity of de- fending the conduct of the Government, he trusted he should be allowed to say one or two words upon that subject now. The prosecution to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was instituted against an individual for having distributed a handbill, containing the grossest abuse of his present Majesty,—abuse expressed in terms the most revolting, and which, out of respect to the House, he would not venture to repeat. ["Read! Read!" "No! No!"] If it were called for, to gratify the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would read the paper, though it would be with repugnance. It began, "Poor William Guelph."—["No, no!"] He certainly thought, that the dignity of the House would be best consulted, if he abstained from reading such a foul and slanderous libel upon the Sovereign, and he was glad, that the good feeling of so many hon. Gentlemen interposed to prevent him. But, passing over that part of the hand-bill which referred to the King, he might state what was the general character of the rest. It began by asserting, that every man had a right to vote in the election of those who were to assist in making the laws which he was required to obey—that if that right were denied him, he was absolved from all obligation to obey the law, and the people were justified in taking the government into their own hands. "If," said the hand-bill, "this right be denied you, stand forward boldly, manfully, and at once; there never was a more favourable opportunity for a simultaneous movement than the present. If you wish to know how the people who are not represented are to obtain representation—here is the secret—represent yourselves." The hand-bill then went on to point out how this could be done, which was, by electing delegates from the different towns and boroughs in the country; and that nothing would be more easy than for the real to turn out the mock delegates, who were, in fact, only waiting for a "notice to quit." He understood it was argued, on the occasion to which he referred, that the party who was prosecuted for the sale of these hand-bills was totally ignorant of their contents. But he could prove, that the defendant had a large bag full of them at Covent Garden, and that he announced his knowledge of their contents, by calling, "Here, for a penny, you have a remedy for all your evils—a national convention." The hon. member for Middlesex laughed at that; but let him remember that the following up of the ad- vice given in this very hand-bill subsequently led to the shedding of blood. A meeting was held some time after in Calthorpe-street for the purpose recommended by this hand-bill. Many of the persons attending it were armed; some of the police were stabbed by them, and one man lost his life. He was aware that opinions were different as to the conduct of the police on that occasion; but a Committee of the House, after a full investigation of all the facts, acquitted them of any blame. Whether they were to blame or not, he would contend, that this hand-bill was one which any Government must prosecute, or submit to the charge of being accessaries to all the mischief it might occasion. For his own part, he must say, notwithstanding the obloquy which the hon. member for Middlesex had attempted to cast upon him, that he should again take a similar course, under similar circumstances. He would, on all occasions, do his duty. Notwithstanding what had been said, and what had been done by the hon. member for Middlesex, he felt pride in stating the fact, that since the occurrence of these events, a large, and most respectable, and most intelligent body of constituents—the electors of the city of Edinburgh—had returned him to Parliament as their representative. The hon. member for Middlesex interfered to prevent his election. The hon. Member sent a letter to the electors of Edinburgh, advising them by no means to return Sir John Campbell, because he was connected with Ministers who had broken their pledges by refusing an extension of suffrage and vote by ballot. But the hon. Member had much better mind his own affairs, and not attempt to dictate to others. If blame were cast upon the right hon. Gentleman, the former Secretary to the Treasury, for interfering in the return of a Member—if this could not be tolerated in a Secretary to the Treasury—it was still less becoming, still less justifiable, in the hon. member for Middlesex, to take upon himself to nominate candidates to represent different places throughout the country. Notwithstanding the exertions of the hon. member for Middlesex, he gloried in the result, that the metropolis of his native country had approved of his public conduct, by returning him as one of its Representatives to Parliament; and he was not afraid that, by continuing to discharge his public duty as he had hitherto done, his character would suffer in the estimation of his countrymen. He should continue to do all in his power to defend the just prerogative of the Crown, and to maintain the rights and privileges of the people.

begged leave to explain. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the letter which he wrote to Edinburgh on the subject of the late election there. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought, in candour, to have mentioned also the letter which he (Mr. Hume) wrote in his behalf to the electors of Dudley, when he contested that borough some time since. The allusion of the hon. and learned Gentleman to a letter addressed to a private party, and not intended for publication, was not quite fair. The Edinburgh letter was written in reply to a gentleman of that city, who applied to him upon the subject of the late election; and as the matter had been mentioned, he had no hesitation in saying, that he expressed an opinion, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, from his situation in connexion with the Government, was not the independent man whom he thought it would be desirable for the electors of Edinburgh to choose as their Representative.

The hon. Member no doubt had told the truth, but not the whole truth. There was a great difference between the letter to Edinburgh and the letter to Dudley. In this, which was strictly a private one, the hon. Member said, he would not give his advice unless it were asked; but the letter which he wrote to Edinburgh was read from the hustings, and placarded over the whole town, which he was sure would not have been done by the respectable individual to whom it was addressed if he had not had the hon. Member's consent.

said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would produce the letter which he (Mr. Hume) had written to Mr. Cooke, in answer to one from that Gentleman, it would not bear out the construction which the hon. and learned Gentleman had put upon it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not produce it, he (Mr. Hume) would.

did not rise to take any part in the dispute between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. member for Middlesex. Leaving that, he would beg to offer a few words on the question now before the House. He did not think that the defendants in the case of the True Sun had, from the nature of the charge brought against them, any claims to the interference of that House, but he agreed that there were some grounds for interference on their behalf in the facts, that the hon. and learned member for South wark, and a noble Lord now a Member of the other House had used worse language than that imputed to the defendants, and had been allowed to escape with impunity. He thought it too bad that the two individuals—one the brother of die Lord Chancellor, and the other a noble Lord of high rank—should have received, not punishment, but honour and emolument, while the editor of the True Sun, who occupied a comparatively humble station in life, should be punished for an offence which in the other instances had been followed by reward. The editor of the True Sun, seeing others promoted after having used nearly the same language, might not unnaturally have thought that some emolument would also have followed in his case. When he saw a noble Lord (the member for Devonshire) receive a vote of thanks from the Birmingham Union, which Union the Lord Chancellor had pronounced little short of treason, and yet found that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had acknowledged with thanks the honour conferred on him—he repeated, when he saw this, and when he saw a noble Lord and a Master in Chancery escaping with impunity for words nearly similar to those charged against the editor of the True Sun, he did think there was some ground for interference on behalf of the latter to obtain the clemency of the Crown. When he said this, he was far from agreeing in the opinion that it was cruel to punish an expression of opinion, however honestly meant. If a man spoke treason, it would not be said that, however honest he was in his expression of his opinion, he ought not to be punished for it. He was not surprised that impressions should gain ground that a man was not answerable for opinions honestly expressed when he heard the Lord Chief Justice of England clothed in the authority of his previous official character, say that that was the happiest moment of his life in which the punishment of a party whom he had convicted was remitted, for that as long as a writer only gave expression to his sincere and honest opinion, he ought to have no torturer behind to punish him for the imputed offence. He would ask, when such opinions came from such a quarter, how was it possible for the editor of a paper to avoid offending against the Law of Libel? When a Master in Chancery, an Attorney General, and a noble Lord uttered such opinions without being reproved by any Minister of the Crown, he thought it was but common justice for the House to interpose to relieve parties of lesser note from the penalties which they might have incurred by following the example of impunity held out in higher stations. He concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the propriety of a Law Officer of the Crown discharging his duty in not letting gross cases of libel escape, but he thought it hard to punish one man for that which in others had been passed over with impunity. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that parties ought not to be prosecuted for libels against the Houses of Lords and Commons, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he looked back, would find that a very different practice prevailed in the time of "the pure old Whigs." The hon. and learned Gentleman had also said, that he would not prosecute for a bona fide publication of words spoken at a public meeting, for that such could not be well prosecuted unless by the employment of spies and informers; but surely if seditious or treasonable words were spoken, and they could not reach the utterer, they could come at the editor, or reporter, or publisher. Yet he must admit, that it would be unjust to prosecute the editor for such words spoken, while the party speaking them was suffered to escape. He agreed with the sentiments which his Majesty's Attorney General had that night expressed, though they were undoubtedly opposed to those which he had expressed last night upon the Irish Coercion Bill. He had said last night, that those who excited to sedition must be punished; and yet, by consenting to take out of the Coercion Bill the three clauses against public meetings, he had acted directly in the teeth of that proposition, and done exactly what he ought not to have done. From what he had heard that evening, he thought that a case had been made out for Ministers to interpose in favour of men who had been misled by the example of persons in higher situations than themselves, and those, too, connected with his Majesty's Government.

rose in explanation. The right hon. Baronet had misunderstood him in supposing that he had stated, that he never would prosecute a libel, however gross, on either House of Parliament. The sentiment which he had expressed was this—that he should be reluctant to prosecute for anything said by constituents of their Representatives, for, in his opinion, they ought to have free opportunity to discuss the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. With regard to the occurrence of public meetings, he had said, that no account of what took place there could be procured for the Government except through the agency of spies and informers, whom he should be sorry to employ, and that great latitude ought to be given to the speakers who took part in them; but to say that he never would prosecute a man for seditious words used at a public meeting, would be to hold language which would be very unbecoming in him, considering the situation which he had the honour to hold. He had never used the language imputed to him by the right hon. Baronet.

I took down the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I understood him to say, "I never will file an ex-officio information so long as I have the honour to hold my present office, for a libel, however gross it may be, either on the House of Lords, or on the House of Commons." It is sufficient for me to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say what he has said, to convince me that I must have been wrong.

thought, that the silence of the gallant Officer who had sat down was much to be deplored. He did wish that the gallant Officer had found it convenient to record his opinions on the Law of Libel, if it was only for the sake of reference in future debates. Certainly the vote of the gallant Officer, if considered abstractedly, was in favour of free discussion and the liberty of the Press; but if the vote were taken in relation with the speech, he should regard the proceeding altogether as one directed against free discussion. In a word, the right hon. and gallant Officer voted for the pardon of Mr. Bell and Mr. Grant, because Lord Milton and Mr. Brougham had not been prosecuted; but if the four individuals had been prosecuted and convicted, the hon. and gallant Officer would then maintain the propriety of their imprisonment. For himself, he was in favour of the Motion, and was opposed to the prosecution. He thought it an unwise and unworthy prosecution; and he had heard nothing from his Majesty's Attorney-General to alter his opinion. The hon. and learned Attorney-General had said, that he would not prosecute speeches made at a public meeting of constituents, who met to convey their opinions to their representatives. Well, then, where was the difference? What was allowable in a public speech could not be improper in an editorial article; and, if Mr. Bell and Mr. Grant might have been permitted to make violent speeches in their individual capacity of electors, there was nothing very aggravating in the altered circumstances of the case, which substituted the use of the imperial "we" for the first person singular. But what was this libel? It was talk—mere talk. Would such articles stir up a mutiny? He thought not. It had been said—falsely said, he believed—that in another country a paragraph might produce a crisis; but the immobility of the English character was not easily acted upon, and the effect of editorial stimulants amongst Englishmen exhibited itself in larger potations of stout, and more extensive consumption of tobacco. If, indeed, the Attorney-General could have connected any overt act of crime with the incitement of the alleged libel, there would be a justification for the prosecution; but there was no result of crime—this vehement address produced no harm to the State. These gentlemen, too, had been convicted previously of another libel, and the Attorney-General had thought it becoming to demand that they, then suffering, should receive an accumulation of punishment. For these reasons, he thought that these gentlemen were fit objects for the royal mercy, and he should support the Motion. He should thus have the honor of dividing with the gallant officer who had spoken before him. He would claim the benefit of his vote, but, in conclusion, he protested against his reasoning.

also expressed his intention to support the Motion; for he thought, that what was sauce for the goose ought also to be sauce for the gander. In supporting the Motion, he did not mean to say, that the prosecution was improperly instituted, but he recollected the example which had been set by others, and also the great excitement which prevailed at the time of the publication of the libel respecting these taxes. He could see no reason why the Government had determined to repeal the assessed taxes, rather than give relief to the distressed agriculturist, except that the Yorkshire Stingo was nearer Downing-street than either Buckingham or Chester.

, referring to the observation of the Attorney-General, that he had not undertaken the prosecution of this paper without the concurrence of the Administration, admitted the correctness of that statement in the fullest sense. He could not say, that it was in consequence of this libel that resistance to the law took place, but, certainly, resistance did take place upon the very grounds stated in this paper. Though he was not anxious to prosecute the Press, and though he was anxious for the most free expression of public opinion on the conduct of public men, yet he could not see how the Government could have been justified in forbearing to prosecute papers which excited to a positive breach of the law. This paper had excited the people to a breach of the law, and it therefore became the duty of the Government to interfere.

admitted, that it was impossible to take out of the hands of the Government the power of prosecuting libels which excited men to a breach of the peace. He acknowledged that this libel advised resistance to the law; but then the House ought to consider the excitement which prevailed on the subject of these taxes, and that individuals in high station, and connected with office, had unthinkingly given similar advice on a former occasion. His impression respecting this libel was, that it recommended passive resistance to these taxes, in the hope that the people would thereby obtain what the editors of the True Sun thought very desirable—a more equitable distribution of the pressure of taxation. He knew that similar advice had been given by some Members to their constituents; but he had never employed such language, either in that House or out of it, to his constituents. He suggested the propriety of not coming to a vote upon this proposition, as in that case he thought that the noble Lord might be induced to extend pardon to these individuals.

said, that if this proposition were pressed to a division, he should certainly feel it to be his duty to vote against the Motion of the hon. member for Cork. At the same time, he did not see any reason why the True Sun, the only journal which defended the rights of the unrepresented, should on that account be visited with extraordinary severity. Rather than come to a division, he hoped that the hon. member for Cork would hold his Motion suspended over the head of the Government. He was sure that his Majesty's Ministers must feel the arguments which had been addressed to them on this subject, and that they must be glad to have an opportunity for showing mercy to these unfortunate individuals. If they did not show that mercy, he should, on a future occasion, most certainly give his vote in favour of the proposition of the hon. member for Cork.

said, that there were many parts of our code of law which were disgraceful to the country; but there was none so outrageously disgraceful, none so thoroughly disgusting, as our law of libel. According to that law, the distinct avowal of the most undeniable truth for an honest purpose was criminal. He had brought in a Bill at the early part of this Session to remedy many of the faults of that law; but the wet blanket of a committee had been thrown over that Bill; it had been suffocated by that proceeding; and whether it would ever be suffered to revive again was more than he could pretend to prophesy. The Attorney-General had treated with great contempt the doctrine, that anything which was calculated to offend the feelings of another was a libel; but by whom had that doctrine been held and maintained? By no less an authority than Lord Ellenborough, who had laid it down very distinctly in the case of "The King v. Cobbett." This it was, that had rendered it libelous to call Lord Hardwicke "a Cambridgeshire sheep-feeder," though he unquestionably did feed sheep in Cambridgeshire, and to call Lord Redesdale "a stout-built special pleader," though every body knew that he had been a special pleader, and was at the time of the publication stout-built. He admitted, that, as far as England was concerned, the present Government had been cautious in meddling with libels. Indeed, libels of an atrocious nature passed every day with impunity, owing to the feeling that nothing was so disgusting as to meddle with them. In reference to the observations which had been made upon the impropriety of alluding to the evi- dence taken before the committee on the Law of Libel, he contended, that as the committee was not a secret but an open committee, at which every Member had a right to be present, and which all the public might have attended, had the room been sufficiently large to comprehend such numbers, it was perfectly competent for any Member to quote the evidence which had been given before it. The caution on the back of the printed evidence, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded, merely stated that the minutes were printed for the use of the committee, and were not to be communicated further; but there was no objection to any Member's availing himself at any time of his recollection of what that evidence was. It was not true, that the Attorney-General was in the chair when the Lord Chancellor was examined. It was the Solicitor-General who was in the chair; and on that occasion the Lord Chancellor did, in the most emphatic terms, condemn all these public prosecutions for libel; and what was more, he condemned them in such general terms, that the Attorney-General felt very uneasy about his prosecution of the True Sun. That prosecution was certainly condemned by the denunciation of the Lord Chancellor; and so strongly did the Attorney-General feel it, that the Lord Chancellor was immediately asked, "Do you condemn the prosecution of the True Sun?" "Oh, no," said the learned Lord, "that was a very good prosecution," and the Attorney-General got off under shelter of the Lord Chancellor, just like a rat under the corner of a cloak. The only thing which palliated that prosecution was the recommendation of resistance to the payment of taxes contained in the libel. Now, upon that libel two questions arose. The first was, whether it was wise to prosecute at all; and to show that it was wise, the Attorney-General, with that tact which had raised him to his present high station in his profession, had thrown in the actual resistance which he said had been made in consequence of it to the payment of the Assessed Taxes. Now, that resistance took place six weeks before this article was written, and therefore could not be a consequence from it.

said, that it was written before the resistance was made, and referred to dates, to prove his assertion.

said, that he wished he had a jury to try that point with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but let that pass for the present, and let the House consider what that resistance was. Some old women rescued from a broker certain property that had been seized; and the next day the police were called in, and all the property was recovered. It was not that poor resistance which had terrified the Government into the repeal of part of the assessed taxes, any more than the remonstrances of the farmer had terrified it into giving that relief to the agricultural interest which was so much wanted. It had been said, that his Majesty's Government had censured Sir Thomas Denman in private, for the opinion which he had given in public in that House, on the justification which a libel received from the honesty of intention of the author. He could not bring himself to believe, that such had been the case: but even if it had, the censure must have been light, and must have soon blown over, as the Government had now placed him on the bench as the head of the common law. He did not think that, on the present occasion, either his hon. friend, the member for Cork, who was so zealous an advocate, or the right hon. Baronet, who was so good an officer, had shown much adroitness as tacticians. They had accused men of high station, of recommending similar resistance to that recommended by the True Sun, and had blamed the Government for patronising parties who had given such recommendation. Now, such accusations almost prevented the Government from acceding to the proposition for mercy; for it might be conceived, that in acceding to it, they were tacitly condemning themselves. The course pursued by the right hon. Baronet on this occasion was a good party tactic, but it was a bad expedient for obtaining mercy. It was a good smouch at the Government, but poor Bell and Grant would not be a whit the better for it. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord opposite, yielding to the well-known generosity of his disposition, would overlook these party tactics, and would say, "There is no resistance now, and there can be no resistance in future, to the payment of these taxes. These poor men are counting their continuance in prison, not by days, but by hours; they are struggling for existence,—they have families to support,—their offence has ceased, and therefore their punishment shall cease also." He appealed to the noble Lord opposite, whether there was not an entire cessation of their offence at present, and would it not, therefore, produce a more powerful impression in favour of Ministers on the public mind to remit the sentence awarded to these offenders, than to force them to endure it in all its original severity? He suggested to his hon. friend, the member for Cork, the propriety of not pressing this Motion to a division, lest there should appear an awkward contrast between the conduct of Government in promoting the hon. and learned member for Southwark to a high judicial situation, and its conduct in sending Messrs. Bell and Grant to prison for recommending exactly the same advice to the people. He thought it would be much better to withdraw this proposition for the present, placing confidence in the Government—that as they knew that the suffering of the offenders must continue, although the offence had ceased to exist, they would remit the rest of the sentence which these parties had to suffer. This was the last and only prosecution for libel in England during this Administration. Oh, that such were the case in his unfortunate country! But he would check his feelings: this motion was for mercy, and he would not introduce any topic that was likely to embitter the discussion, or to irritate a single individual.

said, that he was not in the habit of forestalling confidence, especially when that confidence was to be placed in Ministers. If the noble Lord would give him any promise— ["No, no," "Withdraw the Motion."] He could not do that. In justice to the interests of the parties connected with the True Sun, he could not consent to withdraw this Motion. With respect to the libel, against the prosecution of which the hon. and learned member for Bath had expressed himself so strongly, he had only to say, that it had been as strongly denounced by the True Sun as by any other of the public journals.

proposed the omission of such portions of the 28th and 31st clauses as, in point of fact, suspended the Habeas Corpus Bill all over Ireland; for the effect of the enactment was, that any person who happened to be arrested could be kept in gaol without bail or mainprize, though the offence of which he was accused should be bailable. There was nothing in the state of Ireland to justify this, and he therefore trusted that there would be no objection to expunge those two clauses from the act. He should bring up the following clause:—"Be it enacted, that all such provisions of the Act as make it a good and sufficient return to a writ of Habeas Corpus, that the party in question is detained by virtue of the powers conferred under the Disturbances Suppression (Ireland) Bill, are hereby repealed."

said, that if the provisions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman objected were omitted under the clause now brought up, the effect would be not to mitigate, but aggravate, the severity of the Act. The hon. Member proposed to expunge a provision which prevented any person from being kept in prison for a longer period than three months without trial, and the result would be, that prisoners might be detained six or nine months waiting for the assizes. The power of keeping parties in custody for three months without bail was more necessary since the omission of the courtsmartial clauses. It was wrong to call this a general suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, because the provision applied only to disturbed districts.

said, that he meant his clause to apply only to bailable offences.

expressed his surprise that the House should consent to discuss a Bill of such importance without having a copy of it before them. He defied any one to follow or understand the discussion under existing circumstances. The House ought not to renew a Bill of which so much was altered and repealed, without having the measure distinctly before them in the shape in which it was now proposed to be enacted. What objection could there be to placing the Bill on the Table in such a form as to be intelligible to Members, to the Magistrates who were to administer it, and to the people who were to obey it? It was a mockery of legislation to tell the people of Ireland that they were bound to obey the law, and then refer them for its provisions to the statute of 1833 in the first instance, and afterwards to this Bill, telling them to pick out the meaning of both, and conjecture the object and intent of the Legislature as well as they could from a comparison of the two statutes. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to be exceedingly enamoured with a short bill; but there was no advantage in brevity that could compensate for the absence of clearness and perspicuity.

said, that the House was in precisely the same situation now as on former occasions, when it had been proposed to continue Acts of Parliament, repealing certain clauses. The statutes which were known so generally, and so creditably to the right hon. Baronet, under the title of "Peel's Acts," repealed some statutes entirely, and repealed others partially, leaving the remainder of the latter in force; but this was never considered any objection to them on the score of want of perspicuity. He admitted, that hon. Members could not well understand the discussion, if they had not the original Bill before them; but every Member had been furnished with a copy, and ought to be able to refer to it.

said, that if the debate of the former night were compared to the Bill which was not before them, it would be seen that the whole of that debate was thrown away, as no one last night thought, that the only tribunal persons oppressed could appeal to was a military one. He hoped that the whole Bill would be printed and submitted to the House, so that any person of ordinary intelligence might know what the proposed measure was to be. The Bill had been so much altered that it was impossible for any one to form a correct opinion of the new law.

objected to the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, since by it innocent persons might be taken up, and, as they would not be allowed to put in bail, the consequence was, that they would be kept in prison until the time of their trials.

began to address himself to the conduct of the police towards his tenantry at Monaghan, when

rose to order, and put it to his hon. friend whether there was not enough in the question itself to occupy the House, without introducing extrinsic matter.

would go into the case on the Report.

contended, that under the circumstances, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, would be unprecedented. It was uncalled for, and unnecessary. He, last year, called upon his Majesty's Ministers to state a single reason to justify the suspension of this sacred right of the people. No answer was then given to him. He now repeated the same question, and he did expect some cause to be assigned before the House would consent to this direct infringement of the liberty of the subject, this gross violation of the Constitution. It was contended last year, that there was political agitation in Ireland, which ought to be put down, and to justify that assertion, his Majesty's Ministers referred to the meetings then held in Ireland, and the political associations then existing in that country. It was stated, that there was predial agitation in Ireland which ought be repressed. But to justify this suspension, there was not even an attempt made in the way of argument or reason. He opposed the clause last year, and he would now oppose it. If they referred to history, they would not find any analogy between the present and any other case in which the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in this coun- try. The first suspension took place in 1689. Ireland was then in a state of actual war. War was likewise declared against France, in consequence of her assistance to the deposed King; and in Scotland, persons were apprehended actually assisting to aid his pretensions. Again, in 1699, besides the great activity of the exiled monarch to recover the throne he had lost, there were very great exertions on the part of the Scotch nation, who were still desirous of bringing back the dethroned monarch. In 1715, this country was threatened with an invasion from France, for the purpose of recovering the Throne for the Pretender, and at that time, a state of actual rebellion existed at home. In 1722, a conspiracy was discovered against the life of the King, and plots and deep-laid schemes on behalf of the Pretender. In 1744, besides internal rebellion, there was a threatened invasion from France; and in 1746, when a suspension took place, the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, on the ground that there was actual rebellion existing. In 1794, dangerous communications were held with France, and we were then at war with that country. Another suspension took place in 1798, upon the ground that revolutionary France, in the plenitude of her success, was exerting all her powers against us, and at the same time there existed disturbances in both countries. The next suspension was in 1801, at which period we were not only at war with France, but threatened by invasion, and the greatest possible distress existed, of which the disaffected took advantage, and buoyed up by the hopes of foreign aid, were, by a sudden explosion, to carry into execution the most fatal and dangerous designs. In 1803, there was a suspension, but under what circumstances? War and threatened invasion, and an actual insurrection in Ireland. What was the inference from those several instances to which he had adverted. Was it not, that recourse was never had to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act but when there was either war with a foreign power, or a rebellion existing in the country, or a threatened invasion or a competition for the Throne. He said they had a legislative declaration in effect, that the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland should not be suspended except in cases of invasion or actual rebellion. He appealed to the Act of the 21st and 22nd George 3rd, chap. 11, the Habeas Corpus Act of Ireland, and whereby power was given to the Lord-lieutenant to suspend the operation of the Act in cases of actual rebellion or invasion. This, he said, was most important, not only as a legislative declaration that, in these instances only, a suspension should take place, but this being a law now in force, the House must infer there was no actual rebellion, otherwise his Majesty's Ministers would have put the law in force, and have suspended the Habeas Corpus Act without any application to Parliament. He (Mr. Lynch) contended, that not one of the cases which could be brought forward was a case analogous to the present. Let it not be said, indeed it was not said, that there was disaffection to his Majesty's person or Government. There was, however, another instance of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in this country, and which it was not his intention to overlook. He alluded to 1817. He admitted we were not then at war—no threatened invasion—no Pretender; but there was a pretext, or at least an attempt to prove, that a most traitorous conspiracy existed for overturning, by means of a general insurrection, the government and the laws, which was not confined to the metropolis alone, but extended to all the manufacturing and populous towns. There were also threats of firing towns and assailing the soldiery. He asked, would any Member of his Majesty's Government pretend, that there was any analogy between that case and the present? He asked was there any evidence of a traitorous conspiracy existing in Ireland, or of any disaffection to his Majesty's Government? Could not every outrage stated be traced to the opposition given to tithes, to the dispossession of tenantry, the competition for land, and the starvation and poverty of the people. If there were any affinity between the two cases, he could not bring himself to believe that his Majesty's Ministers would cite the authority of what took place in 1817. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on that occasion said, that confidence was no argument when the question was the safeguard of the Constitution. The Lord Chancellor said, that the suspension only proved, that the Constitution was of no use, and the liberties of Englishmen were of no value. In the year 1819, the most inflammatory publications were circulated—military training—no warrants capable of being executed—the orders of the Magistrates disregarded—the Government threatened with the non-payment of taxes, and the landlords with a cessation of rents. Was suspension then resorted to? No. Supposing everything stated in that House, and everything stated in the other House, did not rest on mere allegation, but was actually proved, where was the distinction between the year 1819, and the year 1834 in Ireland? Were not the disturbances in 1819 in England much more alarming than those in Ireland of 1834? Did not they border much more closely on disaffection and rebellion? What were the measures then adopted in England? Was there a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? No. Then why should the Constitution be violated in Ireland, and the rights of the people suspended? The Attorney General insinuated, that the cause for this suspension was the intimidation of witnesses and Juries. He (Mr. Lynch) denied, that any such intimidation existed; and he appealed to the several convictions at the different Assizes in Ireland. He appealed to the several charges of the Judges made at those Assizes, and he asked was not the withdrawal of the Courtmartial clauses an admission on the part of Government that no such intimidation existed. On these grounds he would vote for the Motion of the hon. member for Dublin, and again appeal to the justice of the House.

called upon the Government to bring forward the Bill with the clauses in it, so that the House might have an opportunity of discussing its provisions in detail, and not be called upon to enact them in the mass, as was proposed. He contended, that it was against the law to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act beyond the time at which parties had a right to claim their trial before the Judges. He gave notice that he should move on the report, that the Government be called on to re-enact the Coercion Bill clause by clause.

opposed the insertion of the clause, as it was calculated to defeat one of the leading features of the measure, and thereby make it inefficient.

remarked, that no hardship to innocent parties could ensue from the re-enactment of the original clause, as it would be necessary to satisfy a Jury that fires were lighted and other signals made for the purpose of giving signals of an illegal Act before any conviction could take place.

remarked that parties who joined in the customary celebration of St. John's Eve, and other anniversaries, might be liable to punishment under the original clause, and he should therefore support the Amendment.

objected to proceeding with this Bill at so late an hour (2 o'clock). He should move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

explained that the object of the Bill was, to introduce a better principle of colonization into our system, which, if successful, as he hoped it would prove, must be of great benefit to our colonial possessions, as well as to England and Ireland. The present Bill would greatly serve Australia, as it would encourage the emigration there of able-bodied labourers.

should oppose the Bill on the hon. Member's own showing, for there was a want of able-bodied labourers in Ireland and in other parts of the empire.

said, that he very seldom differed from his hon. friend (Mr. O'Connor), but it really appeared to him very much like a paradox when he heard him objecting to any means of getting rid of a superabundant population. In his own parish there were upwards of 200 persons every week who said, "Give us food, or give us work," while it was not always possible to give them food, and impossible to give them work. As the plan had received the disinterested sanction of his Majesty's Government, he thought it deserved consideration as a question of philanthropy and of national usefulness.

felt himself called on to state, on the behalf of the Government, that in the sanction which Ministers had afforded to the introduction of the Bill, they had not given it any undue encouragement. Not only had the authors of the measure made out a strong primâ facie case for the introduction of the Bill, but they had also given such an explanation of the principles on which the colonization was to be conducted as induced him to hope that the plan would have a successful issue. A very heavy responsibility had rested on him personally in steering the middle course, between refusing encouragement and giving too decided a sanction to the measure, and he had suggested some alterations in the Bill which he thought necessary to secure its efficiency. There was one to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the House and that of the framers of the Bill, as some alteration in it would be required; namely, that some engagements should be entered into, and some sums be deposited, for the purpose of securing the State against any charges for Government appearing in the miscellaneous estimates. In order to effect this object, he had suggested, that there should be covenants, and a certain sum put down as a guarantee; and in accordance with this suggestion, it had been arranged that 20,000l. should be placed by the authors of the project in the hands of the Treasury. A slight alteration was, however, required to make this sum available for the purposes of Government, as under the Bill, as it stood at present, the sum could not be touched. He hoped that the House would allow the second reading, and that an early day might be appointed for the Committee, that the Bill might pass into a law this Session.

said, that it was absurd to expect that the House should jump to a conclusion in an hour on a subject which had occupied the framers of the measure nine or ten months, before it was brought to any thing like maturity. Now, what did the preamble of the Bill contain? It declared it was intended to occupy waste and unoccupied lands. The hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Torrens) might laugh; but if report said true, instead of laughing, he ought to explain, for no one was more interested in the explanation. He repeated, waste and unoccupied land, which were supposed to be fit for colonization. Which were supposed! And was the House to desire the labouring population to expatriate themselves on such grounds as these? That House ought to be a conservative body, and not to sanction any such plan, without being fully convinced of its succeeding. On these grounds, although he was not disposed to move, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, yet, in order to give time for the due consideration of the Bill, he should move that it be read a second time this day week.

declared himself at a loss to understand how the hon. member for Oxford could object to the colonization of unoccupied lands. Would he have occupied lands colonized?

was anxious to state briefly his reasons for supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend, the member for Oxford. At the hour in the morning at which the House had arrived, it was impossible that a proper degree of discussion could be given to a scheme of colonization which differed from all former schemes. He understood the principle of this method to be, that large capitalists should purchase land, and that those emigrating as labourers were not to hold land. ["No, no."] Well, then, if that were not so, he so understood the Bill, and he furnished in his own person a proof how necessary it was, to give more time for the consideration of the subject; he had the Bill put into his hands for the first time only a few hours ago, and this appeared to him to be its distinguishing principle. He wanted to know how, if this scheme should fail, these poor labourers were to be reconveyed home. Seeing, as he did, that there was a great disposition to divide and none to discuss the principle of the measure, he should certainly support the Motion of the hon. member for Oxford.

expressed a hope, that if the opponents of the measure withdrew any further opposition to the second reading, time would be allowed for the discussion of the principle in the Committee.

said, that there was every wish on the part of the supporters of the measure to afford time not only to discuss the principle, but every point of detail in the Committee.

wished to put a question respecting the mode in which the children of those who were to be deportated to Australia were to be provided for. He wanted to know whether they were to be sent out with their parents; and he put this question, that it might not go abroad, that so monstrous a proposition as leaving them to shift for themselves in this country had ever been entertained by the promoters of the Bill.

was surprised at the hon. and learned Member's using the word "transportation." [Mr. Sheil: I said deportated.] It was proposed to send able-bodied labourers of both sexes to the colony, at the expense of the shareholders, but it was not intended to send out those who had children, unless they would themselves, or through their friends, undertake to pay for the passage of their children.