had to present sixteen Petitions, praying that the House would address the Throne to remit the sentence passed oh the Dorchester labourers. Eight of these petitions were from Dorchester, from the friends and neighbours of those men who were transported, and the other eight were from Ipswich, Rochester, Norwich, and one from Stoke-upon-Trent signed by 13,448 of the inhabitants. The petitioners considered, in the first place, that these men were improperly prosecuted; and, in the second place, that, if the prosecutions were just, the sentence was most severe and uncalled for. Considering all the circumstances of the case, he must say that these unfortunate men had been convicted under a law of which they were entirely ignorant, and that they merely followed the example set in London and other places, viz., of combining together for the purpose of obtaining such wages as would enable them to support themselves, their wives, and families. The relatives of these men, thus, if not illegally, certainly cruelly, punished, had been pursued by the same feelings of ill-will and oppression. One of them was a woman who had amongst those who were transported, two brothers, a husband, and a son. After these men left England she applied to the overseers for relief. The overseers said "No; we will give you no relief. You have another son left, and he has six shillings a week, which is quite sufficient for his and your support." He hoped the House would be induced to exercise its privilege of addressing the Crown upon this case. The proceedings against these men had caused the greatest uneasiness and agitation amongst the labouring classes. They felt that if these persons were not relieved by being brought back to England, they could not expect protection under the existing law, as they believed that they were not represented in that House, the elective franchise being confined to householders. He considered it the duty of that House to interpose for the purpose of bringing the men back to England. Till then the working classes would not be satisfied, nor could the law be vindicated in the eyes of the people. He was sure that, when he brought the case fully before the House, he should be able to convince them that the whole proceeding was illegal. He, however, hoped that he should not be placed under the necessity of bringing the subject before the House on the 25th of June, but that his Majesty's Ministers would be induced to take the case under consideration, as he was satisfied, from their feelings of justice and humanity, that they would not allow these unfortunate men to suffer the penalties of a crime, of which, if guilty at all, they were unintentionally guilty.

had several petitions to present in reference to the Established Church, and the danger to which the Protestant religion was at the present crisis exposed in Ireland. He held in his hand one signed by upwards of 1,500 Protestants residing in the county of Louth; others from the Bishop and Clergy of the dioceses of Leighlin and Ferns, and of Killaloe and Kilfenora; all earnestly protesting against the principle of appropriating Church-property to secular purposes, and praying protection for the Protestant religion and Church in Ireland as established by law and guaranteed by the act of union. The petitioners expressed their alarm and dismay at the prospect of the principle of proportion which it is threatened to apply to Protestantism in Ireland, as a mockery of all legislative engagements, and a flagrant violation of the most solemn national contract. The Protestants in Ireland justly regarded it as a premium on their extirpation, and the petitioners respectfully but firmly expressed their opinion, that if that principle were carried into effect, the chief bond of union between Great Britain and Ireland would be dissolved, and that the overthrow of all English interests in Ireland, and the final separation of the countries, would follow as an inevitable consequence. He did not desire to provoke a general discussion of the question on the presentation of these petitions, but hoped the House would allow him to correct some misstatements on mere questions of fact which had been made on the subject to which they related, and he would do so by reading the answers in the words of those from whom he received them, at the same time bearing testimony to the high respectability of the writers—for he made it an invariable rule never to bring forward a fact, or to rely on a document in that House, without being fully assured of the respectability and genuineness of the authority from whence they came. The first statement to which he would allude was one made by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department (Lord John Russell), in his opening speech on the question of the surplus revenue (as the noble Lord called it) of the Irish Church. The statement of the noble Lord was, that there were but two thousand Protestants in the diocess of Killaloe. He (Mr. Shaw) would read the answer to that statement from the letter of the vicar-general of the diocess, who, with himself (Mr. Shaw), only imputed to the noble Lord that he was misinformed. It was in these words:—"I have made the closest inquiry into the actual number, and instead of 2,000, I can state them officially to be 18,265." The next was the case of Tullamore, in the King's county, and referred to a statement of the same noble Lord.

was surprised at the interruption: strictly speaking it certainly was irregular for any persons out of that House to quote the words of an hon. Member used in debate, for the purpose of reasoning upon them, as indeed reporting them at all was in strictness out of order; but he had never before heard an objection made in that House to a correction of the misstatement of a fact. If he was driven to it on a point of mere technicality, he might give the facts as a speech of his own, but he much preferred giving them on the authority and in the words of those who could speak to them of their own personal knowledge. Well, then, with the leave of the House, he would read an extract from a letter written to him by the resident rector of Tullamore, in reference to the statement of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), as to that parish; it was as follows;—"His Lordship is reported to have made use of as a fact upon which he built his theory of the state of the Irish branch of the Established Church, the parish of Tullamore, which he sets down as by composition at 470l. per annum, and containing 120 Protestants; now the sworn return delivered in to the Commissioners of Inquiry for 1831 rates the churchmen at 1,254; and I regret to say, that my income has been equally mistaken, though the exaggeration lies on the other side, it being little more than one-fourth of the sum set down to me." The third case was that of a statement made by the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. O'Connor), and since quoted by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in a speech at Exeter. He would read the statement from the report sent him:—"The hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) adverted to the non-residence of the Irish Protestant clergy, and declared that the rector of his own parish he had never seen. The curate lived out of the parish, the clerk resided at a distance of fourteen miles from the church, and the sexton sold spirits without a licence in the churchyard." The answer of the Rev. Mr. Hall, the curate, was as follows; "For seven years last past I have been curate of, and constantly residing in, the parish, with the exception of four months, during which I left a substitute perfectly approved of by the Bishop; and until last year, Mr. Laird, the senior curate of the parish, was boarded and lodged during those years by different members of Mr. O'Connor's own family. With respect to the clerk, he has been nearly six years appointed, has resided in the parish all that time, and performed the duties of parish schoolmaster in the most efficient and exemplary manner. And the sexton is a pious, honest, and industrious man, who neither during the six years that he has been appointed, nor at any period of his life, ever sold spirits with or without a licence." Surely the House must desire to have such misrepresentations, though made in error, corrected as speedily as possible. Much mischief, however, was done by their circulation in the mean time, and by hon. Members making such statements calculated to influence the public mind on light grounds. With regard to the question of residence to which the last case had reference, he (Mr. Shaw) was as anxious for the enforcement of residence and the removal of every real abuse in the Established Church as any man could be; but he regarded the Resolution of that House, which the petitioners so strongly deprecated, not as intended to improve or reform the Irish Church, but as having the mixed object to overthrow the late Government on the part of many who voted for it, and of the great majority of the remainder, to take the first step in a principle which would tend to the destruction of all union between Church and State in both countries.

presented petitions from Salford and Manchester, signed by 10,500 persons, expressing their alarm at the present situation of the Irish Church, their regret that the measures proposed by the late Government had not been carried into effect, and praying the House for protection to the Church Establishment. The petition was signed by many respectable Dissenters, and also a Roman Catholic gentleman named Travers.

felt it necessary to offer a few observations upon the petition which had just been presented by the noble Lord, more especially as the House would be shortly called upon to carry into effect the resolution that had been agreed to relative to the appropriation of the surplus revenue of the Irish Church. He knew not what exertions might have been made to obtain signatures to the petition in question, nor did he mean to call in question its authenticity in any way; but this he would say, that the signatures bore a very small proportion to the population of the town from which it came. He was glad to find there was so small a number representing such sentiments as were contained in that petition. He would beg leave to refer the House to the opinion expressed by his right hon. Colleague who had since accepted the office of President of the Board of Trade. At the late election, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his opinions pretty freely, and he would say that the result of that election spoke the deliberate conviction on the minds of the population of Manchester upon this subject. Allusions had been made to one gentleman who had signed it, who was a Roman Catholic and a large landed proprietor. He did not mean to cast any imputation upon that gentleman, or any other; but he believed he was the owner of considerable Church-property—and if he was the owner of Church-property, and he considered it in danger, he should certainly feel it his duty to enter his protest against any measure which he thought calculated to produce that effect. The circumstances attending the getting up of the petition were such as that it could not be considered a petition from the town, and he (Mr. M. Philips) would enter his protest against its being received as expressing the sentiments of the people of Manchester.

as a Roman Catholic, would enter his protest against the assertion that the Roman Catholic Members of that House had violated their oaths. The petitioners called upon the House to frame an oath to prevent the Roman Catholics from interfering with Church-property; but if they (the Catholics) were not to be believed upon their oaths, what was the use of making forms to bind them. Were there ever such stupid, such sottish propositions submitted to the House? What had kept the Roman Catholics out of that House for 140 years but their sacred reverence for the obligation of an oath? This was a fact which all the illiberality, cant, hypocrisy, and spirit of plunder which had prevailed in Ireland had never been able to refute or disprove. He challenged hon. Members to produce the same regard for the obligations of an oath among the various sects of England. He would state one fact to the House bearing upon the subject—a Protestant Gentleman, the Member for Ennis, when he had come to that Table to be sworn, had revolted from the oaths about to be administered to him as a Protestant Member, and took the oaths as a Roman Catholic. He, (Mr. Finn) would not for the first position which fortune, station, or empire could confer on him, take the oaths which the Protestant Members of that House were called on to take, and in which their Roman Catholic brethren were stigmatized as idolators. He believed that those persons who assailed his religion were a disgrace to the name of Protestant or any other religion. They reviled the religion of their neighbours, forgetting that pure principle of charity without which there was not, nor could be, any religion. He spurned the base attempt of the petitioners to obtain the opinion of that House upon the Roman Catholic oath, or to induce it to frame another. The question had been a fruitful one for every bigotted individual to pour out his rancour against the Roman Catholics—it had formed a subject for every vile renegade print, for every apostate and unblushing print, which, the more broadly and universally the seal of public reprobation was stamped upon it, the more liberally did it pour out its rancour and malignity against his religion. There was a deep feeling of conviction amongst the peasantry of Ireland, that the injus- tice, the miseries which they suffered, arose from the parsons. There were, he knew, many men of great worth amongst them, but there were others who made it their sole business to diffuse bad feeling, and to excite discord, amongst the people of Ireland. Look at the Dean of St. Patrick for instance, a man who received 2,500l. a-year from his benefice. He had read a speech, an authenticated speech, of that Rev. Gentleman, in which he denounced the Roman Catholics of Ireland as heretics, murderers, and persons utterly incapable of faith or truth. And this was the manner in which this rev. recipient of 2,500l. a-year abused the people from whom he derived his income. Was it surprising, then, that the people of Ireland should feel a sense of injustice at supporting a Church, the Ministers of which thus slandered and insulted them, and that they should feel a deep attachment to their own clergymen, their friends in the hour of need, and their faithful counsellors in the hour of distress? He despised, from his soul, the cant—he was afraid of giving expression to his feelings; but when language of this kind was held in that House, he could not contain them. He called upon the right hon. and learned Recorder to bring forward a distinct resolution upon the subject. When he brought forward in that House a Motion that in every parish where 500l. a-year was the amount of the benefice, the Protestant working clergyman should get 100l. a-year, how many supported that Motion?—thirty-three. And of those who were now anxious to retain the superfluities of the Church, not one of those zealous Friends of the Church supported his motion. He could inform the right hon. Gentleman, that the Churchwas as likely to suffer from its over-zealous Friends as from its bitterest enemies.

had said that a great many had joined in that vote for the purpose of overturning the Church. Many had said, at least some hon. Members had said, had professed, that their object was to overturn the Church. Many, no doubt, differed from this, But he considered that the great majority had joined in that resolution in order to destroy the connexion between the Church and state in both countries.

A petition had been presented from the place which he represented, and he begged leave to offer a few words. It was not his intention to disprove the respectability of the parishioners, but he must say that the number of signatures to the petition out of so large a constituency was not a Very great portion. It appeared to him that this was not a question of religious principle; but simply a question bf money. If the established religion were the Christian religion.—a religion founded on justice, seeking to procure peace and good will, it was a bad compliment, at the best, to that religion, to say that it would be overturned unless it were supported by the money of the country. He must say, that in voting for the resolution proposed by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, he (Mr. Brotherton) did not vote with a view to put down the established Church, or to do anything having a tendency to weaken the religious feelings of the country. His object was to promote peace and tranquillity in Ireland, to do justice to those who had too often suffered great injustice, and to promote the interests of this country, by endeavouring to promote good order in that part of the empire, and also to prove his respect for religion by standing up on the behalf of justice and humanity, rather than by exciting improper and acrimonious feelings amongst the people of Ireland.

was surprised at the pertinacity with which these petitions were presented. He had some hope that the noble Lord (Egerton) who had presented one of these petitions would have had the delicacy of not pressing it upon the House, as a more unjust, audacious, and slanderous petition he had never read. They were told that some respectable names were attached to the petition, and that one of them was that of a gentleman of great respectability. If such a person's name was attached to the petition, it disgraced him as a gentleman and a man. They were told, as an excuse, that this gentleman derived his income from Church-property.

The name of the gentleman to whom the hon. Member alluded was not attached to the petition in question.

If there were any Other Gentleman of respectability amongst these petitioners, he would say that he had disgraced himself both as a citizen and a private gentleman. Such a petition ought not to be allowed to lie on the Table. The language of petitions to that House ought to be clear, distinct, and not liable to be misunderstood. They ought to know what the petitions applied for. It was not to be tolerated that Members of that House should be spoken of in such language as that used in the present petition. What did the petitioners mean by Irish agitators? That House should not allow petitions containing such vague charges to be presented in this manner. It was a practice that was too often resorted to, and was only calculated to create ill-feeling among the Members Of that House, and the people at large. He would state with respect to the assertions of the right hon. Member, that they were not applicable to him, and they were not founded in truth. The petition which had been read conveyed enough to show how suspiciously all such documents ought to be considered. It contained language which ought not to be countenanced by the House, and he trusted, therefore, it would not be received.

said, that he was not one of those who conceived it his duty to look very scrupulously at the language contained in petitions—he was anxious to throw the door as widely open as possible to the right of petitioning. He was not, therefore, for rejecting these petitions, though certainly they were couched in very unjustifiable language—he alluded especially to the petitions from South Lancashire and Durham. If he was not mistaken, one of those petitions charged a portion of that House with perjury, and the other charged the majority of the House with high treason. Did it mean to charge His Majesty's Ministers, and those who supported the course they had adopted, with that offence? If it did not distinctly convey a charge of that nature, the petition was a most senseless one.

was understood to say, that no charge of high treason was preferred in the petition referred to, that from South Lancashire. The petition was most respectably signed by members of the established Church and by Dissenters, and it had been got tip without any undue exertions.

said, that he had always looked upon it as a principle adopted by that House to allow the greatest possible latitude to petitioners. There must be very strong reasons to justify the rejection of a petition, such as that it contained calumny or slander against an individual, or that it was contrary to the forms of the House. He would beg to say, that if any portion of the petition contained a charge of high treason against anybody, much more against that House, he would not present it. But he thought a forced construction had been put upon the charge contained in it. It was, certainly, couched in strong language. He understood it to designate the measure as an act of treason against the King and Constitution of the country. But that did not mean treason in the legal sense of the word—namely, levying war against the King; it was merely a figurative expression. It was not language, perhaps, that he would have used had he drawn up this petition, but he felt it did not exceed the language used in other petitions to that House, and that he was bound in duty to his constituents to lay their sentiments before Parliament.

would only make one observation on the subject. Much was frequently said by gentlemen opposite as to the ferocious language employed by Radicals and the working classes. That reproach was often cast at the supporters of the popular side. He would defy, however, any Member opposite to point out a petition coming from those parties which abounded in such calumnious assertions, and that imputed the very worst possible motives to others, as this petition from the Conservatives of South Lancashire did, and also the petition from Durham. It was true great latitude should be allowed in petitioning, but it was right that the same character should be applied to violent language, whether it came from the ultra-Pious or the ultra-Radical.

would not have pre- sented the petition from Durham if it was open to the charge brought against it by the hon. Member. It was true it contained strong language, but it referred to a subject of solemn and sacred importance, and the petitioners had a right to employ language as strong as the rules of society would admit in characterizing the measure in question. They heard much of the persecution of the Catholics; was there no persecution against the Protestants? The proposed measure was a direct invasion of their property. He had several other petitions to present from the county of Durham on the same subject, but as he had not read them; he could hot say whether they were couched in the same language as that in the petition he had just presented. As he did not, however, see the hon. Member for that county present, who differed from him (Mr. Trevor) on this subject, he would abstain from presenting them now. He hoped that the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Finn) would believe that he did not wish to cast the imputations which he conceived were contained in the petition on the Catholic members. He was not responsible for the language of the petition, although he concurred in the sentiments of the petitioners, as to what they conceived the measure contemplated by the noble Lord would be, and he fully agreed with them in regarding it as an act of sacrilegious robbery and spoliation.

said, that, most assuredly, no one could describe the petition as not going far enough in its language. Indeed, the expressions made use of appeared to him to be outrageously violent, calumnious, unfounded in truth, and uncalled for. Yet, though possessing all these unprepossessing qualifications, he was, by no means, prepared to say that its language was altogether unparliamentary. Though many Members of that House were therein grossly attacked with calumnious insinuations, yet, as the petition did not exactly describe the persons whom it vilified as Members of Parliament, it was hardly competent in the House to object to it as a matter of form. It would be best to treat it with the compassion of contempt, and at once allow it to be received. It was at least worthy of notice as a rich specimen of the extent to which bad taste and lying might be carried; and Heaven forbid that the freemen of South Lancashire should be deprived of their right of lying, though they certainly seemed to exercise the privilege to a most outrageous extent. He would at once say, let their lies and the petition which contained them lie quiet on the Table. It was satisfactory, however, to find that the hon. Member who introduced the petition did not coincide with its subscribers in the charges which it contained.

begged to say, that he had only expressed himself as not participating in the charge of perjury which it had been alleged that the petition set forth, though for his own part he had been unable to discover any such charge.

said, that if certain Members of the House were not directly charged with perjury by the petitioners, there was, at any rate, set forth a very unequivocal sort of insinuation to that purpose; and he would put it to the hon. Gentleman's good taste and judgment whether this latter method of attacking those Members was not ten times more base and cowardly than a direct charge? There was a method of meeting a direct charge put in an honest and manly way, but there was none of answering a charge when made in the contemptible shape of an insinuation. If any hon. Members agreed with the petitioners in their sentiments on this subject, he wished they would get up and make a decided and positive charge, instead of leaving the matter to be brought forward in the shape of these contemptible and cowardly insinuations, fit only to form part of the ribaldry of certain newspapers. In reference to one subject alluded to by the petitioners, he would observe, that he should be most glad if some hon. Member would bring forward the subject of the Catholic Oath in the practical shape of moving that it be abolished. For his own part, though, of course, he had taken the oath, there was one part of it which he did not like—he referred to the words "Protestant Government." He could not understand what was meant by calling this Government a Protestant Government, when, in fact, there were only three offices to which Roman Catholics were not eligible. He had concluded, however, that it meant the "existing Government," and in this sense he had taken it; and he had more than once explained to the House that this was his construction of the words, and had called upon any hon. Member who could prove him to be wrong in it, to move his expulsion. In the course of last Session, the "existing Government" had expressed their entire concurrence in the meaning he had adopted, and no hon. Member had had the courage to take up the challenge he had thrown out. As to the Motion of the noble Secretary for the Home Department, he saw nothing in the oath he had taken which should prevent his voting for it, for he saw nothing in it to injure the Protestant Church; on the contrary, the measure proposed appeared to him eminently calculated to preserve that Establishment. He should have voted precisely the same way if it had been the Catholic Church which was in possession of revenues so disproportioned as the revenues now in question were to the extent of the recipients of its spiritual instruction. He would have done so from a conviction that the scandalous robbery, the gross peculation, and disgraceful love of the mammon of the world, which necessarily arose out of such a state of things, would inevitably infringe upon, and destroy all respect for, true religion, and its ministers, feeding, fattening, gorged, on the plunder of Protestants, who, under the supposed circumstances, would constitute the overwhelming majority. He would have done so as a Catholic anxious to remove the causes which he should hold as tending to prevent Protestants from considering the truths and embracing the principles of the Catholic faith. Why should not the Protestant Members look at the question in a similar point of view? To what did they attribute the fact, that during all the past ages Protestantism had made so little way in Ireland, believing, as they did, that faith to be the true one, and knowing, as they did, that truth in almost all cases was omnipotent? Must they not consider that their religion has not had fair play? Must they not feel that a very natural prejudice had been created and continued against it by the excessive and overgrown wealth of its clergy, and the nature of that wealth, and by the injustice and oppression which the Irish nation suffered in their political degradation. If other reasons could be assigned why the Catholics did not become Protestants, they were, probably, "prejudice or ignorance." Now, in the first place, that people knew that the whole of the Church-property in Ireland had been originally given for Catholic purposes, such as the education of Catholics, the maintenance of the Catholic clergy, the celebration of mass, prayers for the dead, releasing souls from purgatory. ["No, no!"] Surely the hon. Member who cried "No, no!" could not be so totally ignorant of history as not to know that such was the nature of the original endowments? At any rate, the Irish people knew it, and this knowledge in no slight degree aggravated their sense of the injustice under which they suffered. It might, perhaps, be said, too, that the Catholics did not become Protestants because of their ignorance. Now, what was the object of the noble Lord's proposed Bill? First, of course, that the spiritual wants of the Protestants in Ireland should be fully taken care of. Surely this was all that was necessary for them! Oh no: it was not the actual spiritual wants of the Protestants there that the opponents of the Bill confined their aspirations to;—what they wanted was the pounds, shillings, and pence of the establishment. Oh shame! he would exclaim, upon those who looked upon religion, not as a pure feeling between man and his Creator, but as a mere vehicle for realizing paltry pelf, and enriching themselves with the mammon of the world. But, admitting that it was the ignorance of the Catholics which kept them from becoming Protestants, surely no hon. Member could conceive a more advantageous or glorious mode of bestowing the surplus of the Church of Ireland's revenues than in freeing the Catholics from the deplorable ignorance described, and thus enabling them to appreciate the superior claims of the Protestant faith. All he asked was, that, after educating the Catholics, they would give both religions a clear stage and no favour, and God defend the right. It had been said as much as that the oaths of the Roman Catholic Members were of no force as regarded the approaching subject, for that there were decrees of the Popes against taking oaths prejudicial to the interests of the Church, and absolving Members from perjury who forswore them. But this point had been misrepresented. The decrees in question did not acquit a man of perjury who had made oaths and violated them, but declared the perjury to consist in the taking of oaths prejudicial to the interests of the Church—not in breaking them. In the Catechism which he had learnt from, perjury was defined the breaking of a lawful oath, and the making an unlawful one. The same authority which forbade the one, had a right to prohibit the other. That the Roman Catholics abhorred the taking an oath against their consciences, was put beyond the doubt of all but the most unblushing calumniators, by the fact, that for so many years they had been kept out of Parliament solely from their conscientious feeling in this respect. In conclusion, he hoped the hon. Member for Durham would before long make some Motion on the subject of this oath. As to the ribaldry of South Lancashire, or the lies of Durham, they excited nothing but his contemptuous compassion.

opposed the second reading of the Bill, on the ground, that it was intended to amalgamate the several distinct Boards of the parish into one Board, and thereby to saddle the exorbitant debts of some of the districts upon the rest. The parish was divided into nineteen districts, but so much opposition was anticipated from two of them, that the promoters of the Bill had thought proper to omit them. He concluded by moving, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."

having opposed the Bill during the last Session, he now saw no reason to alter his opinion. The public would gain nothing from the proposed change, for the power of the Committee would fall into the hands of the Vestry, very few of whom attended. He had presented several petitions from inhabitants, and more had been presented from bond-holders, who were of opinion, that their claims would be prejudiced, by having a fluctuating body like the Vestry substituted for the respectable trustees. He, therefore, with pleasure seconded the Motion of the noble Lord.

would ask, whether it was fit that seventeen Boards should exist with 500 members, while the parish had a respectable Vestry of 100 individuals elected by open poll? It would give a greater security to the bond-holders than they had now. He trusted that the House would let the Bill pass the second reading, and in the Committee every disposition would be shown to afford the best security to every individual.

said, that, though at the risk of the censure of his hon. Friend, he was Prepared to give a vote against the Bill, as he had done Before, and he trusted that the House would, as they had done before, throw out the Bill. Parliament had no fight to abolish the security of any individual who had lent his money upon the full security of the rates, bridges, &c., which they now had.

said, that by the Bill, the Vestry were enjoined to raise a particular rate for the payment of the interest and capital of the debt, so that the House would see at once, that the security was not in the least impaired. The last Bill was thrown out because it was opposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), who said, "except the Foundling Estates, and I will vote for the second reading," they had now excepted those estates, in justice, not to him only, but to the case itself, for they were situated in two different parishes.

said, the case was not one of party politics at all, and he trusted that the day would never come when local Bills would be so decided. Though St. Pancras Was called a parish, it was not to be confounded with those small parishes common in other parts. It covered a very large extent of ground, and contained both town and country parts—then was it fair that those country parts should be under the same regulation as the town ones. He trusted that the Bill would be thrown out by as large a majority as had taken that course last year.

hoped the Bill would pass. He would vote for the second reading, on account of his abhorrence of any public business being done by self-elected bodies.

would vote for the second reading, as he thought it would be much to the advantage of the parish, by abolishing a great number of useless Boards.

begged leave to direct the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the county of Kildare, with reference to this measure.

rose to oppose it. He did so, first, because it gave an undue power to the Privy Council of Ireland. And, secondly, because the Bill did not represent the people of Ireland generally. He would let the House into the circumstances of the case. Some years ago the assizes had been removed to the city of Waterford, and the people of Dungarvon (the town which the right hon. Solicitor-General represented) had resolved to support no candidate who did not pledge himself to support the removal Bill. There had been meetings held, and petitions got up, it was true: but where were the meetings held? In the town of Dungarvon, and no person dated to oppose the measure there, for fear he should be beaten out of the town. But meetings were held in other parts of the county, and directly contrary petitions were adopted. He Would admit the town of Dungarvon was best situated of the two, in regard to the gentry of the county, the Members Of the Privy Council, and such persons: but this town, so much applauded for its "centrical situation," was actually situated at the corner of the county on the sea coast. He maintained, therefore, that though the Bill might be beneficial to the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, it was not so to the great body of the people of Ireland; and he should therefore move as an amendment, "That this Bill be read a second time this day six months."

rose to second the amendment. Most of the towns of Ireland were situated at a considerable distance from the extreme parts of the county; take, for instance, the towns of Wexford, Cork, Limerick, and many others, and did the fight hon. Gentleman propose to remove the assizes in these cases in the same way as in that of Waterford? And then, where was local taxation to end? One tax after another was thrown upon the counties of Ireland; the county cess, for instance, produced nearly 900,000l., almost one-fourth of the whole taxation of that amount the city of Waterford contributed, from nineteen to twenty thousand pounds; in addition to that they were burdened with a very considerable sum for the lunatic asylum, and other charities; and still with that vast taxation it was proposed to saddle them with the necessity of paying for new gaols and workhouses, which would be the immediate result of the Bill. Another point to be considered was, that the County Assizes were transferred from the city to Dungarvon (he took these merely as illustrations). Now, there were institutions in which the county and city of Waterford necessarily combined, which were supported by the Grand Juries of the county and of the city. What inconvenience must result from adding to the Grand Jury of the city and the Grand Jury of the county, that of Dungarvon, when their aim should be to consolidate the institutions of the kingdom as much as possible. But the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would find the opposition to his Bill extended to other counties besides that of Waterford. There was a general feeling of hostility to the Privy Council jurisdiction. He (Mr. Wyse) was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would think it better that the House should be umpire upon these occasions, instead of giving such a power to individuals whom the nation would not trust, and thus open a door to litigation in the several counties of Ireland, dividing one part of the council against another, and thus defeat the very object they had in view. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw, upon further consideration, his Bill for the present. They were burdened with numbers of public duties of far greater importance; and as for a local Bill of that kind, it was not at such a moment that it should be introduced; or, if introduced, persisted in. The hon. Member concluded by seconding the amendment.

hoped the learned Solicitor-General would withdraw his Motion, till there was a general call upon him for it. It was mischievous, at such a period, to introduce such a Bill.

said, he could not see why a measure, which had proved advantageous for England, should not prove equally so for Ireland. He thought the question of removals could be discussed before as disinterested a tribunal in the Privy Council as before that House. It had been urged that the hon. and learned Solicitor General might have been biassed by the peculiar circumstances and interests of his constituents. He (Lord Morpeth) did not believe that. But what he rose to suggest to the House was, that hon. Members who might be opposed to the measure would suffer it to be read a second time, on his undertaking, not only that it should not be pressed further till the hon. and learned Attorney-General for Ireland was in his place, but till they had had the opportunity of consulting the representatives of all parts of Ireland.

thought they should assimilate, as far as possible, the law of England and Ireland. But as to the Privy Council of Ireland no body could deny that they were tinctured, deeply tinctured, with intolerance. Now if they were satisfied that the Liberal Government would continue always, he, for one, would not object to giving the Privy Council the power proposed to be given them. But they knew that Government could change, and it might change still; he hoped while they continued true to their principles they would not change: but still they might. Now the Bill gave a power to the Privy Council of Ireland, which was not given to that of England, and therefore he denied that it was assimilating the law of the two countries. It had been said, "there was the control of the Grand Juries." But the Grand Juries were exactly constituted as the Privy Council. He defied any man to point out one liberal man among them. And who appointed the Petty Juries? who the Orange Sheriffs? Now, if the hon. Gentleman wished to assimilate, why did he not assimilate the Grand Juries, and the Petty Juries, and the Privy Councils of the two countries? The Bill was introduced merely for the sake of the electors Of Dungarvon, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Bill.

said, the Bill was a copy of one which he had introduced for England, which had passed without opposition, and proved very beneficial. He hoped there would be no opposition, at least to the second reading.

could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General had been dealt with rather harshly. Any one who knew him would be convinced that his motives were pure and disinterested. There could be no doubt that the Bill would be advantageous, particularly in such cases as the county of Cork, where there were parts of the county 70 or 80 miles from the assize town. He acquiesced entirely in the suggestion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, but would beg leave to propose, that when a removal was contemplated, notice should be given, that on a certain day the Privy Council would entertain the question; and that any party might by counsel, or in person, appear before it, and show cause for or against the proposed removal.

was willing to allow that the matter was pressed on Mr. O'Loghlen by his constituents, and by reason of his connection with the town he could not avoid taking such a part in the question. However, if the House were willing that the Bill be read a second time, he was satisfied.

was astonished at the nature of the opposition to the Bill, for there was no real foundation for such opposition. He heard two objections stated—one on the ground of Mr. O'Loghlen's connexion with the town, the other lay to the interference of the Privy Council in Ireland. Now he would distinctly aver that Mr. O'Loghlen did not deserve the unhandsome imputations cast upon the integrity of his motives. His character was far above them. The Bill was a very good one, and of great convenience to the inhabitants of the county. The assizes being held in certain county towns caused great inconvenience and loss to the people. Appeals from the Civil Bill Courts lay to the Judges of Assize. In these the poor were chiefly concerned, the sums under dispute varying from ten shillings to ten pounds. The expense to the poor, who in many cases had to go a distance of seventy Irish miles to the assizes, was attended with great hardship and expense. The attack in the Privy Council was equally unfair and untrue, for a more honourable body of men did not exist, either in Ireland or England. It consisted of men of all shades of politics and degrees of liberality, as it was called. Were the. Duke of Leinster and Lord Cloncurry men opposed to the popular interest? Was the Earl of Kenmare hostile to the interests of the Catholic party? In Ireland any member might attend a meeting of the Council without a summons. He believed it was usual in England that the members should be summoned. So that the decisions of the Privy Council might be considered as fair and impartial. He would support the second reading, as he was convinced that the Bill ought to pass.

was an impartial witness on the occasion, although he had the honour to represent a town in which assizes were held; for that town was a county of itself, which necessarily caused the assizes to be holden there, and it was in the centre of the county in which it was situated—therefore there could be no fear in respect to Galway. He knew nothing of the disputes between Dungarvon and the city of Waterford, nor did he care for them; but he was convinced that the motives of his hon. and learned Friend in introducing the Bill were pure, and for what he conceived to be the public good; and this was the first time he heard it stated as an objection to an hon. Gentleman's bringing forward a measure, that in so doing he consulted the wishes of his constituents. It was with considerable pain he differed from his hon. and learned Friend, but he objected to the Bill, and to the tribunal to whose decision the Bill referred such important matter—for although he did entertain, with many other hon. Members, great respect for several individuals, Members of the Irish Privy Council, the question was, "had the people of Ireland confidence in that tribunal?" He had no hesitation in saying they had not. The case of England did not apply; the people of England might have confidence in their Privy Council—it was differently constituted, and there were not the same party and religious views. He was in favour of assimilating the laws of the two countries, as insisted upon by his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney General, but he would commence the assimilation by giving to Ireland a good Reform Bill, a good Registration Bill, and a good Municipal Reform Bill, but he would not commence by any measure which would throw such increased power into the hands of Government. Could he be always certain that the country would possess, as at present, a liberal Government, these objections would, in a great measure, be removed. But another and a great difficulty would still remain—the increased taxation of the country—for, as admitted by his hon. and learned Friend, it would be necessary to erect new jails, and new court-houses. How could the country, in its present distressed and impoverished condition, bear increased taxation? This taxation, rendered necessary by the Bill, afforded the only check upon the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council; and he did not think that the people of Ireland had sufficient confidence in the Grand Juries of many counties in that kingdom to induce them to look upon their sanction as a sufficient safeguard. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, assured the House, that this Bill would not be pressed forward, if read a second time, until the sentiments of the people of Ireland were ascertained. He saw no difference between that and postponing the second reading, to which he prayed his hon. and learned Friend to consent. If particular circumstances called for interference, an Act of Parliament might be obtained, as in the case of Tullamore.

said, he had an instinctive distrust of the Privy Council, whose powers the Irish people would diminish as much as they could.

remarked on the unusual want of harmony between the self-styled Liberals on the other side. Even on a question of liberality they could not agree, each individual claiming the palm of liberality and integrity to himself. But he (Sir R. Bateson) could not concede that those who assumed so much liberality were in truth liberal. It was by acts and not by professions, or assumptions, that liberality should be tested. The hon. Member for Wexford said there was no liberality in the Privy Council or Grand Juries. But could it be said that it was to be found among those who had so presumptuously arrogated it to themselves? He had been attending Grand Juries for thirty years, and he could declare that a more upright, liberal, and honourable body of men could not be found than those who were so foully, wantonly, and factiously maligned. In the Acts of Grand Juries there was certainly more liberality than in those of their accusers. He should, perhaps, have better consulted the dignity of Grand Jurors by treating the attacks upon them with silent indifference. As to the Question before the House, he thought the assizes should be held in a central town in every county. In the county of Antrim, for instance, the assizes were held in a corner of the county, and it was a great hardship on witnesses and jurors to attend them. So great was the inconvenience felt that most of the Gentlemen wished for a change. The conjoint approbation of the Grand Jury and Privy Council should be attended to.

said, the majority of the Irish Members were opposed to the Bill; and a public meeting, convened by the Lord Lieutenant, and several Magistrates condemned its provisions.

vindicated the character of the Privy Council and Grand Juries. The Privy Council did not in the present case sit in open court, as they did when they sat judicially, but merely attended as a mere matter of form to give a sanction to the Act of the Government. The Act complained of was the Act of the Government, and the attacks on the Privy Council could only have proceeded from the grossest ignorance. He lamented that a simple Bill, having for its object the speedy and cheap administration of justice, should be thus made a Question of party. He would support the Bill.

suggested, that absence from the vessel twenty-four hours before the ship sailed should be visited by the deprivation of a week's pay, instead of two days.

said, that undoubtedly, where the interests of the owners were most deeply embarked, and exposed to the most risk, it would be right that the danger of desertion should be met by a very heavy penalty.

remarked, that in order to bring the Question to a definitive conclusion, he would submit as an Amendment, that after the words "period of time," in the twenty-first line, the following words should be inserted:—" or that the master shall be at liberty to hire two other men, and to deduct wages for the persons hired from the wages of the person so absenting himself."

remarked, that the sailors would not mind sacrificing one day's pay to have their twenty-four hours on shore before the vessel sailed. If three days were inserted instead of two, it would satisfy him.

would remind the hon. Member what the state of the law on this point was at the present time. If a seaman absented himself for one day while the vessel was loading or unloading, he forfeited the whole of his wages, whereas, as the clause would stand, he could only lose 10s. As the clause stood, it would be very prejudicial to the interests of the shipowners.

was understood to deny, that under the present law seamen were liable to the forfeiture of the whole of their wages under the present circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member.

remarked, that though the law might not possibly enjoin it, it permitted this forfeiture to be exacted, and it was the universal practice in ships' articles to put in a clause stipulating that twenty-four hours' absence from the ship, while loading or unloading, should be considered as desertion, and be punished by the forfeiture of the whole of the absentee's wages.

thought that the check to be imposed on seamen's quitting the vessel ought to be as small as was consistent with the safety of the owners. He did consider that the loss of two days' wages was sufficient to prevent absence. Eventually, it was agreed that words should be added to the clause enabling the owner to make the sailor re-imburse any expense occasioned by his absence.

moved as an Amendment, that the word "ten" should be left out, and the word "three" substituted in its place, whereby seamen would have a right to demand the full arrear of payment due to them within three days after their arrival at home, instead of within ten days, as was proposed by the original clause. The hon. Member considered that the evil of allowing sailors to wander up and down the streets for ten days after their arrival in England, exposed to all the temptations that beset them, before they could go to their friends in the country with their wages, or send their money to their friends, would be, in a great measure, avoided by this Amendment.

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it was impossible for the captain to know for what embezzlement sailors might have to be answerable until after the cargo was discharged, and it was only in very rare instances that the cargo could be discharged within three days after arrival.

said, this clause had been originally framed so as to prevent the evil effects which too frequently resulted from the sailor having the whole of his pay the moment he got on shore. Unused as he had been to all indulgence during a long voyage, the sailor joined often the first idle person he met, displayed his money, and became a dupe to persons who were always, of course, lying in wait for such inconsiderate persons. As to the danger there might arise to the captain who was answerable for everything on board to his owners, and whose best security against embezzlement by the sailors arose out of the sailor having to wait some time before his wages were handed over to him, which afforded time to investigate whether any embezzlement had taken place, he assured the hon. Member there would be found sufficient security in another clause in the Bill to which their attention would be subsequently directed.

observed, that last year he had entertained, in common with the right hon. Baronet, the desire of seeing a system of nominal registration, or registration by name, established; but the present clause simply proposed a registring of the classes and numbers of the seamen. He (Mr. Buckingham) was anxious to see a system of nominal registration in operation, because it would form the basis of a system of ballot and do away with impressment.

was most anxious to see a system of nominal registration. If adopted, he thought it would be successful, but, at the same time, what he now proposed would effect a most material object, by enabling the Government to ascertain the precise state of the maritime population, while it would be a step towards that more perfect system which would accomplish the important national object which he, with the hon. Member for Sheffield, had anxiously in view—the speedy and total abolition of impressment in the navy.

observed, that he felt obliged, at the risk of disturbing the unanimity which prevailed in the Committee on the provision of the Bill, to object to the clause which had just been proposed. It appeared to be directed to the accomplishment of two objects; first, to oblige the owners and masters of vessels to employ a certain number of apprentices, with a prospective view of rendering them available, if required, for the public service. So far as the clause was meant to answer that purpose, he had no objection whatever to it; but the part of the proposed clause which he was opposed to was, where it gave to parish officers the power of applying to the Magistrates for an injunction to make it compulsory upon masters of vessels to take into their service parish apprentices, when they did not appear to have on board the number of apprentices provided by this Act. He considered such an interference with the right of the master to choose any apprentice he pleased to be altogether unjustifiable, and particularly when it was employed for the purpose of forcing him to receive into his service a class of persons whom it was most improbable that he would select if the matter were left to his own choice.

replied that the hon. Gentleman who had objected to this clause seemed to think that it contained an innovation in the laws respecting the appointment of parish apprentices to serve in merchant vessels; but the fact was, that the principle was adopted in all Acts relative to this subject since the time of Queen Anne. By the 3rd of Anne it was provided that every master of a vessel of twenty tons burthen should be liable to take parish apprentices; and in case of his not complying with this provision he was liable to a fine of 10l. The clause which he (Sir James Graham) had introduced, only revived the principle of the Act of Queen Anne, and differed from it only in these respects, that it altered the liability of vessels from twenty to eighty tons, and directed that the amount of 10l. only should be levied on the master in case of his refusing to receive the apprentice selected by the parish; though from the change in the value of money since the time of Queen Anne, he should be justified in naming as high a sum as 18l. or 20l. The House could not, then, fail to observe, that instead of any infliction being imposed on the masters of vessels, they must derive considerable advantage from the measure which he had brought forward.

was of opinion that this clause was calculated to operate most injuriously, inasmuch as it forced on the adoption of masters of vessels parish apprentices, who were a class of persons whom the masters must be very unwilling to receive into their employment, when they could easily procure others of a much superior class, and more likely to give them satisfaction.

protested against the supposition of this clause being considered compulsory on the masters of vessels with respect to the reception of parish apprentices into their service. They need not take those persons into their employment if they were willing to pay to the parish the sum of 10l. And if in this respect they could be said to suffer any hardship, they suffered in common with every Gentleman in England, who was liable to be called upon to receive parish apprentices into his service. The policy of England had been, since the time of Queen Anne, to encourage the employment of her seaport population in merchant vessels.

observed, that the only just ground upon which any alteration ought to be made in the old laws was, that they contained provisions which were not reconcilable to expediency and justice. He certainly considered that the clause in question was one which interfered with the free choice of the masters of vessels in a manner that was indefensible.

remarked, that the master of a vessel was placed, by this Act, on a superior footing to the country gentleman or shopkeeper; for the latter were subject to have parish apprentices forced upon them by the parish authorities whenever a vacancy occurred in their service; but the masters of vessels were exempted from the operation of the clause, in case their vessels had the number of apprentices required by the Act.

re-called the attention of the Committee to the fourth clause, by which it was provided, that persons above the age of thirteen, and under the age of twenty-one, who should be found chargeable to the parish, or whose parents should beg, should be taken up and sent to sea. This clause applied, of course, to the United Kingdom; and was one, he thought, of great hardship.

said, that such had been the law in England for above a century, but there had been no instance of any grievous application of it.

did not see why they should not get rid of a bad regulation, if it were one.

observed that if parish apprentices were to be forced upon the owners of ships in the way contemplated by the Bill, those owners would never be able to get respectable apprentices again.

supported the clause. In an attempt to get rid of a great evil, a smaller one might well be endured.

stated that the ship-owners, especially of Sunderland, objected to the description of apprentices which the Bill would compel them to take. They frequently sent their own sons to sea as apprentices, and would not like to have for associates such boys as those contemplated by the Bill. It was said, indeed, that the shipowner could get rid of the compulsion by the payment of 10l. But was not such an option destructive of the professed object in view, namely, to create a nursery for seamen? Why should the shipowner be prevented from selecting boys most fit for the service.

had no objection to withdraw the 29th and 30th clauses, if it were understood that no objection would be made to the 51st, which was the most stringent one, as enabling authorized persons to go aboard vessels and see if they had a proper number of apprentices.

thought that the shorter way would be to provide that the owners should show the indentures of their apprentices at the Custom-house, before the vessels were allowed to clear out.

said, that he could not help expressing his most decided objection to the clause. It involved the infraction of one of the first principles of justice, and tended to the demoralization of the seamen, whom it encouraged, after they entered into a solemn agreement with the shipowners to serve for a stipulated time, to break through their compact and volunteer into the Kind's service. He would divide the Committee on the clause.

thought that the seamen should have the right of changing from the Merchants' to the King's service if they chose, or saw any advantage in so doing. As they entered voluntarily into the merchant service, they ought to have the power of quitting it when they pleased for the King's service. He called upon the House not to reject the clause, and stop the only avenue through which, on foreign stations, the King's navy could be manned. It was impossible to overrate the advantages of this clause, and he would rather renounce the Bill altogether than give up the clause.

was sorry to disagree in opinion with the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth. It certainly was a hardship on shipowners, that sailors should have the power of quitting their service, and entering the Royal navy, before the voyage which they agreed to perform was finished. Though he was a shipwowner, he would allow the clause to pass in consideration of the great question of public policy it involved.

stated, it had often occurred to him to have a great portion of his crew, as many as thirty at a time, leave him in foreign ports, just at the time he most required their labour, and go on board the King's ships, induced to do so, by being told they would have less to do, and better recompensed. He thought the clause, if it passed, should be so framed as to compel sailors to finish their work on board merchant vessels, before they were allowed to engage in the Royal navy.

expressed his approbation of the Clause.

opposed it, as calculated to demoralize the British seamen. He should wish, at least, to have it applied only in time of war.

opposed the clause, and again called on the Government to give some pledge from the Government against the impressment of seamen.

said, that the only argument he had heard against the clause was, that it tended to the immorality of inducing breaches of contract. It should, however, not be forgotten that if the clause passed, it would be known to all parties, and it would be competent to them to frame their contracts accordingly.

supported the clause, as being calculated not only to do away with the necessity of impressment, but also to make the King's service more attractive to seamen.

said, that if the clause was given up, the Bill would entirely fail in one of its principal objects.

thought that some provision ought to be made, limiting the extent to which volunteers should be allowed to go away from a merchant ship into the King's service.

said, that the Bill contained such a provision of limitation. According to the instructions of the Board of Admiralty, no officer could unnecessarily take men out of merchant ships.

corroborated the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and added, that a proof was afforded that a preventive existed in the fact that Admiral Sir C. Paget had been proceeded against for taking men out of an East Indiaman, and had been cast in the costs of the trial besides damages.

said, that were he the commanding officer, of an officer who had distressed a merchant ship by taking an improper number of men, he should direct them to be restored, and at least reprimand the officer.

suggested that the clause might limit the number to be taken, to all over three men to every 100 tons, which, as four men were counted the proper complement, would be allowing a deduction of 25 per cent.

said, that he would not do the naval officers of the country the injustice of supposing, that they would act improperly, but the House ought not by such a clause as this to place temptation in the way of seamen, to break through their engagements.