presented a petition from Richmond, Yorkshire, very numerously and respectably signed, by landed proprietors and landholders connected with the Agricultural Society of the North Riding of Yorkshire. The petitioners expressed their discontent at the House not having taken into its consideration the distress under which the agricultural classes laboured. He gave his cordial concurrence to the prayer of the petition and, joined with the petitioners in expressing regret that their distressed state had not been taken into consideration. Year after year the agricultural classes had come forward with statements of their distress, with the view of obtaining some measures of relief. He had felt it his duty to give his vote in favour of the Motions that had been brought forward upon this subject during the present Session of Parliament. He had given his votes without any reference to party feeling. He had supported the Motion of the noble Marqess the Member for Buckinghamshire for the Repeal of the Malt-tax, because he believed that it would have been a boon not only to the agricultural classes, but also to those other classes that had been alluded to as partaking of that distress, namely, the labouring classes. He regretted that Members had been influenced by the fear of a Property-tax being imposed from voting for the Repeal of the Malt-tax, which would, in his mind, have essentially relieved the productive and industrious classes. He had also supported the Motion of the noble Lord for the revision of local and general taxation, and, lastly, he had supported the Motion of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Cayley) to inquire into the distress affecting the agricultural classes as connected with the present monetary system. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, but he trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his budget, he would not follow the example of the noble Lord his predecessor, who, on coming clown to that House with his financial statement, and in communicating his proposed measures of relief, had thought it consistent with his duty to pass over the agricultural interest, and relieve other classes which were represented to be in an unexampled state of prosperity. He did not grudge these other classes the relief that had been afforded them, but he thought it contrary to the principles of sound justice and fair dealing to pass over the agricultural interests and refuse to relieve them. He hoped hon. Members would not shut their eyes to the deplorable state of the agricultural classes, knowing how much the welfare of all the other classes depended upon them, and that the House would not refuse to lend its assistance in affording them that relief to which on every ground of fairness, sound policy, and justice, they were entitled.

as Deputy Comptroller of the Household, reported to the House that an Address having on the 19th May been agreed to by the House, praying his Majesty's interference with his allies for the prevention of the slave-trade, his Majesty had most graciously received the Address, and returned the following answer:—"I have received your dutiful Address, containing the expression of your wishes, that I should enter into negotiations with my allies, for the more effectual extinction of the traffic in slaves. You may be assured, that I fully share your regret at observing, that this nefarious traffic still continues to be carried, on extensively under the flags of Foreign Powers. Additional treaties, having for their object the extinction of the traffic in slaves, have recently been entered into between myself and some Foreign States, and I hope to be able to lay them before you at an early period. I am further engaged in negotiations with other Foreign States, on the principles recommended in your Address; and you may rely on my continual efforts to conclude with all my allies arrangements, calculated to put an end to this barbarous practice."

rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to present to the House a Petition which under any circumstances, would call for the serious attention of that House. The present times and the peculiar situation of Ireland rendered it, he must say, a duty incumbent on the part of that House to look at the expression of public feeling contained in this petition with earnest and grave attention; and however unwilling he was at any time, more especially on a hot day like that, to take up the time of the House, he feared he would not be discharging his duty if he did not trespass at some length upon their patience. The duty which he had undertaken was one of a most important nature, and never in his life had he experienced more pride than in being selected by so large a portion of his fellow-countrymen as the medium through which their opinions were to be conveyed to that House on a subject of such great importance as that to which the petition referred. The petition was from the county of Down on behalf of a meeting held in that county on the 30th of October last. The noble Lord said he wished to explain in the first instance why it was, that this petition had not been presented at an earlier opportunity. After it was adopted a dissolution of Parliament took place, and the new Parliament did not meet until February. It met, too, under circumstances very different from those under which the former Parliament sat, and which circumstances had excited the feelings and the fears of the promoters of this petition. The petitioners, at the time they assembled, felt that the Government of that day did not employ the power which it possessed to vindicate the law, or to protect the interests of the Church of Ireland. Under such circumstances the Protestants of Ireland hailed with joy and satisfaction the accession of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to power, and they found when he was removed that they had not vainly put their trust in him, for he had staked his station as Minister of the Crown for the preservation of their rights. This petition, therefore, would have been presented earlier in the Session, but that on consulting the leading persons engaged in getting it up, he found that it was their opinion that its presentation should be delayed, as at that time the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had sufficient difficulties to contend against without his Friends bringing forward anything that might embarrass him. The petitioners were strongly opposed to the Board of Education established in Ireland, to which he would venture to say that 19-20ths of the Protestants of Ireland were hostile. But when Parliament assembled in February last, they felt that that was not the time to urge their complaints, and that when matters of greater moment were in the balance, it was not their business to embarrass the King's Government. With respect to the petition itself, he would state that the requisition to the High Sheriff for calling the meeting contained eighty-four most respectable signatures. Among them were the names of seven Peers, thirteen Deputy Lieutenants, and twenty-five Magistrates. Among them were the names of the Marquess of Downshire, the Marquess of Donegal, Colonel Ford, and several Reformers; in fact, nearly the whole weight and respectability of the county, whether property or anything else were taken as the criterion, were attached to the requisition. As it was not his wish to cast any personal reflections upon any Member of the House, he would confine himself to stating, openly and fairly, the facts connected with the petition. The meeting was called on the 30th of October. He was himself present, as well as many worthy Friends whom he then saw in the House; the Resolutions were passed, on which the petition was founded; and he was only stating that which was the real fact when he observed that the Resolutions were passed, and the meeting closed without violence or breach of the peace, and not a single circumstance occurred that called for interference. If, at a time like that, and in a county so quiet and undisturbed as Down, it was thought right to come forward, and express to the House the distrust and dismay with which the petitioners viewed the measures that were being carried forward by the Government, he would only ask the House whether, at the present time, the reasons which called for the petition last year were not increased tenfold? The hon. and learned Member for Dublin cheered him. He did not wish to say anything that would be offensive to any man, but he thought that he had a right to consider the hon. and learned Member as one of the leading persons against whom the petition was directed, and against whom his Majesty had directed his Speech last year. The noble Lord then read the passage in the King's Speech of last year, which he thought alluded to Mr. O'Connell, and said, that Sir Robert Peel's Government was now at an end; and he saw the hon. and learned Member for Dublin cross the floor of that House for the support of a Government composed almost of the same men who counselled that Speech. They were placed upon the seats opposite by the hon. and learned Member, and they fought under his green banner. This circumstance had given great and just alarm to the loyal and well-disposed Protestant inhabitants of the north, as well as to those of other parts of Ireland. He felt satisfied that the noble Lord opposite would not rise in his place and declare, as a noble Lord in another place had declared, that the Government had no connexion with the hon. and learned Gentleman, for in his (Lord Castlereagh's) opinion the influence of that hon. and learned Gentleman was all in all in the Cabinet. He believed that that hon. Member's influence was paramount at the present moment in the Cabinet. The hon. and learned Member had himself a few weeks ago talked of the measure of Corporation Reform "which we shall propose." With regard to Ireland, all the Irish legal appointments were obviously his—his mark was there—his handwriting was upon the wall. Every thing was done by the Government to conciliate that hon. and learned Gentle- man, and conciliating him excited the fears of the Protestants of the north of Ireland, knowing as they did that nothing would come from him that would not be hostile to their dearest interests. Then, as to the disturbed state of Ireland, it was quite as great and as alarming as when this petition was adopted. It was but the other day that the reverend Mr. Dawson was murdered in Limerick, and indeed there was no opening a newspaper that did not contain accounts of some two or three murders in the south of Ireland. These things naturally filled the minds of the people of the north of Ireland with dismay and terror. Such feelings were not lessened by what occurred as to the procession which attended Lord Mulgrave into Dublin. There were green flags at that procession. There were flags (so he had heard) with "Repeal of the Union," "Daniel O'Connell for ever," inscribed upon them. There was a flag, too, with a harp without a Crown, the very flag under which the rebels marched to join the French in Bantry Bay. If there had been a procession of Orangemen on a similar occasion, with Orange flags inscribed with, "British connexion," "The Constitution for ever," &c., what loud outcries would have been raised against them. But because the procession to which he alluded had been got up and conducted under the auspices of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, the King's Government were as mute as mice. There had just been sent forth an enormous petard by Lord Melbourne against the Orangemen walking on the 12th of July. He believed the Orangemen of Ireland to be as devoted, loyal, and gallant a body of men as had ever proved their affection to their King and country, and if they did not walk on the 12th of July, it would not be in consequence of this intimidating menace of Lord Melbourne (which, by-the-bye, came too late after the green flag procession in Dublin), but in consequence of the advice of their best and wisest friends. He was sure that the Orangemen of Ireland would act as they had always done, as became faithful and loyal subjects of the King. The meeting at which the Resolutions were agreed to, had been called an Orange one. He admitted that many of the Orange party were present; but there were also many present who had never belonged to that society. Amongst others there was one name which he felt convinced would command the attention of the House—he meant Dr. Cooke, a most eminent man amongst the Presbyterians of the north. The noble Lord read an extract from the speech of the reverend Gentleman. The noble Lord, after repeating that the reasons which existed for the adoption of this petition in October last, had now multiplied tenfold, concluded by presenting the petition.

would for a moment request the attention of the House. The object of petitioning he had always understoood was either to express the opinion of the petitioners respecting some measure then under, or about to be under, the consideration of the House, or to convey to the House a complaint regarding some particular grievance. It had, therefore, been understood that general discussions should be avoided on the presentation of petitions. He did not particularly refer to the noble Lord, who was only following the example of others. If, however, on the presentation of a petition not only the subject matter of it but transactions that had occurred since its adoption should be gone into and a general debate should ensue, it would be quite impossible to get through the business before the House. At that moment he had on his list for that evening the names of thirty Gentlemen who had petitions to present. He could not interfere in the matter. It was for the House to decide what course should be pursued. He repeated, however, that if topics should be discussed on the presentation of petitions which would be more fitly discussed in some fixed debate, no time would be sufficient for the transaction of business.

said, he seldom addressed the House, and he would not have trespassed so long on its attention on this occasion, but that the petition was a very important one.

said, he had made no particular reference to the noble Lord, he had, on the contrary, said, the noble Lord was only following the example of others.

rose, but there being cries for

the noble Lord rose and said that he had only heard a portion of the noble Lord's speech, but that he was perfectly ready to answer the statements which the noble Lord made in his hearing respecting the Irish Government. He did certainly intend in the course of the discussion to make that reply, but in consequence of what had fallen from the Chair he was induced to defer it to the first fitting opportunity that should offer itself. If, however, it was the wish of the House, he would proceed now.

being now called for, rose and said, that though this petition had been presented to the House as expressing the sentiments of the Protestants of the county of Down, he would venture to assert that it did not emanate from the Protestants of Down, nor express their sentiments. This same petition had been presented to the House of Lords as coming from 20,000 persons, and it now appeared that it only bore the signature of the High Sheriff. As seven months had elapsed since its adoption, surely more signatures might have been obtained for it, if it really expressed the sentiments of the great body of the Protestants and Presbyterians of Down. He was ready to accord to it all the weight and authority of the High Sheriff, whose name was affixed to it, but nothing more. This meeting was held at Hillsborough, on the verge of two other counties, Antrim and Armagh, and the place was obviously fixed on as being convenient for gathering together the Orangemen of those two counties, as well as the Orangemen of Down. If the meeting was intended to convey a fair expression of the feelings and opinions of the people of Down, why was it not held in the centre of the county, in the county town, where the county meetings were usually held? Two requisitions had been issued for calling tit is meeting—one came from the High Sheriff, the other from the grand dignitaries of the Orange lodges. The High Sheriff issued a requisition in the first place calling a meeting of Protestants. The Grand Orange Lodge of the county of Down at a meeting on the 6th of October passed a Resolution calling on all their brethren to attend the said meeting. Such being the avowed nature of the meeting, and such the requisitions calling it a large body of respectable Protestants in the county of Down, amounting to upwards of 200, and including ten Magistrates, published a protest assigning their reasons for not attending it. In that document they truly stated that it was highly unconstitutional on the part of a public officer, like a High Sheriff, to summon a meeting of any one portion of the inhabitants of his bailiwick, as distinguished by their religious opinions from another, and that such a proceeding was in direct opposition to those wise and benevolent measures passed by the Legislature for doing away with religious differences and distinctions as regarded civil rights. They also alluded to the Orange requisition, as stamping a character on the meeting that alone would prevent them from attending it. He was ready to admit the great respectability of many persons who attended that meeting; but he would contend that the great mass of the respectable inhabitants of Down were absent from it. The authority of Dr. Cooke had been referred to, but Dr. Cooke, it was well known, did not speak the sentiments of the Presbyterian body. At this meeting Dr. Cooke, in his speech, talked of a marriage between the Protestant Episcopalian and the Presbyterian Churches. The Presbyterians repudiated such an idea. From Dr. Cooke's own parish of Killileagh he had presented a petition, signed by a large number of Presbyterians, repudiating such a principle, and calling also for the abolition of tithes. The hon. Member having referred to the proceedings that took place at this meeting, and the heavy charges perferred at it against the Members of Lord Melbourne's then Government, asked, if such charges were well founded, why were they not brought forward in that House? If the noble Lord, believed them to be true, it would be a more manly course on his part—indeed, it was his bounden duty, to rise in his place in that House, and have the Ministers who were accused of such things called to the Bar of Parliament to answer for their conduct. That was the proper course for a loyal subject to pursue, instead of scattering such violent charges before a popular assembly. It was said that one of the objects of this party was to oppose the Repeal of the Union. He denied it. He would assert that the Orangemen had shown their readiness to raise that cry, but not on the honourable principles of the learned Member for Dublin. They had threatened Lord's Grey's Government with it, and several of them had been known in public to express their determination to repeal the Union by force, unless their objects were carried. The hon. Member read an extract from a speech of the reverend Mr. Martin, deli- vered, he said, at an Orange-Tory meeting in Dublin, in which the Speaker declared the Union had been fundamentally violated, and that it was at an end through the conduct of the Whig Government; that the authority of the United Parliament was virtually nonexistent—that there was an end to the authority of the laws, to the authority of tax-gatherers, &c. Were these men to oppose the Repeal of the Union.

had been personally assailed, or at all events, alluded to, by the noble Lord who presented the Petition, and begged leave to make a few remarks on it. The noble Lord after having abused the late Whig Ministry himself, had charged him with having done the same. He did not dispute the goodness of his Lordship's taste in this respect; and a right lion. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had commenced the Session by reading a letter from him (Mr. O'Connell) in which he had stated that they had forfeited his confidence. Yet the noble Lord contended that the present Government, which was little more than a re-appointment, was under his (Mr. O'Connell's) control. This was a little too much; first, for party purposes, it was urged that the present Ministers were unworthy of his (Mr. O'Connell's) confidence; and next, for the same party purposes it was insisted that being appointed by himself, they had his fullest confidence. Such arguments (continued the hon. and learned Member) are both foolish and absurd; I do not mean any personal disrespect when I say so, but they are unbecoming the character of a Legislator, and, Heaven bless the mark! of a Statesman, which is the rank to which the noble Lord aspires. Then it is said, that all the recent appointments have been madeby me. The late Secretary for the Ordnance (Colonel Perceval) cheers me: I am sure I had as much to do with the recent appointments as I had with his appointment. He throws up his head at that: I am certainly very glad that he has ceased to fill that office, not from any personal dislike, but because it is symptomatic of a change of party. I deny that any office in the present Ministry, or connected with it, was filled at my instance or at my suggestion, or that I had the slightest influence in the matter. I am sorry that I had not: I think that some of the places would have been better filled if I had: at all events there would have been a difference, though I do not mean to quarrel with what has been done. With respect to the late Solicitor-General, for instance, I think he had a fair claim to have been made Attorney-General, but the Government decided otherwise, and I acquiesced. I acquiesced precisely as the late Secretary for the Ordnance acquiesced in his own dismissal—he could not help it. He submitted with all due humility and walked out of his office; he was, no doubt, the best of all possible secretaries, could he but have persuaded people to take his word for it; but as they would not, he took up his hat and walked out. After all, nothing can be so disreputable to party, as an indulgence in this sort of idle ribaldry. Let those who say the appointments were at my instance show me a bad appointment. Look at the Irish Law Officers of the Crown: is the appointment of the Attorney-General a bad appointment? Was he not at the head of his profession before he had any connexion with Government? Did he ever distinguish himself by partisanship? Did he ever do more in that way than putting his hand to a petition that the people of Ireland might all be on an equality? He was no agitator—no public declaimer: he maintained the integrity of his own opinions, and year after year felt the weight of exclusion: he ought to have been Attorney-General long since; and I will add, that he would be an ornament to the highest dignity in the profession. What objection can be made to the Solicitor-General? Is he not qualified? Has he not risen to the first business, though belonging to a proscribed class? He has risen by the force of his own talents; and the amiability of his disposition has compelled men of all parties to feel a regard for him in private life. Not being able to impeach the appointments, they throw me upon them; but, as I before said, this is too bad, coming from the noble Lord. He comes here with a deplorable lamentation about national education in Ireland—it is daily destroying Protestantism, and is calculated to annihilate it. If he now feels so anxiously about it, what has his conscience been doing ever since the 30th of October last? Did not the Government of the right hon. Member for Tamworth adopt that very system of national education? Yet then the noble Lord felt not the least alarm, The right hon. Baronet was the foster-father of the system; but then the child had not cut its teeth; and now the noble Lord comes forward, with all the dignified gravity belonging to his character, and declares that Protestantism will be annihilated by the right hon. Member for Tarn-worth's system of national education. All this is really very edifying; but there is something not at all edifying. Are the people of Ireland not to be allowed to meet and greet the Representative of their King, that Representative having been no partisan? Had there been a banner in the procession with "No Protestantism" inscribed upon it, then, indeed, there would have been ground for indignation—for impeachment of the Lord-lieutenant, for allowing it to be displayed. Yet I can prove that in the presence of the late Lord-lieutenant, a black banner, inscribed "No Popery," was exhibited. Had it been shown openly in Dublin, the party would perhaps have been roughly handled, for there the Catholics are about in proportion lo the Protestants in London; but it was in the theatre, and there this "No Popery" banner was waved before the eyes of the late Lord-lieutenant. This, however, was only the expression of loyalty; but when the next Lord-lieutenant is received by 100,000 persons, this loyalty is instantly converted into disaffection. I remember the story of a man who was knocked down for singing "God save the King," and when he ventured to ask the reason, his assailant coolly answered, that "he liked no party tunes." "God save the King" is a party tune with the opponents of the present Ministers. But it seems there were banners—and why not? Is there any law against them? As a lawyer I utterly deny it. Banners, as the emblems of religious and political parties, are prohibited, but not when they are used to display allegiance to the Sovereign and respect for his Representative. If any offence was committed, surely the Dublin police would have been sufficient—the magistrates and barristers would have been sufficient. There would have been sufficient loyalty in a Dublin grand jury, appointed by those admirable loyalists the sheriffs, and sufficient loyalty in a Dublin special jury to have punished the criminals. Why, then, were not the offenders prosecuted? The truth is, that the different Trades' Unions carried their appropriate banners, and one of these happening to be green, excited the special indignation of party. The noble Lord had mentioned Bantry-bay, and talked of the Irish going to join the French there, when, had he known anything of the history of his own country, he would have been aware that not a man of the peasantry joined the French. A gentleman, a landed proprietor in the neighbourhood, of the name of O'Sullivan, and my nearest relation, at considerable risk and cost, made the only French prisoners, and the entire of the peasantry were against them. There were then no Orange Lodges in Munster; the people preserved their fidelity to the Crown until Orange Lodges began to be established; and as they increased, attachment to the Throne diminished, and to such a state of ferment would the people have been worked by them, had the late Ministers remained in office, that in nine months, I will venture to say, we should have had a sanguinary insurrection. If I am asked why I give my humble support to the present Government, I say it is not for their measures—for their measures they had my support before—but because they come in as a barrier against a faction, and give the people of Ireland a chance of justice; a chance that all Irishmen will be considered on the same footing, without leaving one party to the tender mercies of another. Their interposition has saved us. As to the meeting, nothing could be more improper; it was called by Lord Hillsborough, the High-Sheriff of the county, but he had no right to summon any particular sect. If he calls the Protestants to-day, he may call the Catholics to-morrow, and the Presbyterians and Seceders the next day. He constituted himself, not the sheriff of a county but the sheriff of a party, a partisan sheriff. And, sacred Heaven! let it never be forgotten, that this man has the nomination of the grand juries—that he makes out the panel of the petty juries; and are not the complaints of the Roman Catholics well-founded, when they say, that with such a sheriff, and such magistrates, they have not a chance of justice—that their lives will be the sport of their enemies—that their properties will be at the mercy of partisans? If the effect do not follow, does not the sense of insecurity, the fear that the temple of justice will be polluted—that the scales will not be held with an even hand—that one party will be made to outweigh the other, produce a constant feeling of irritation and discontent? The Roman Catholics are warranted in these fears when the High Sheriff summons one portion of the population of his bailiwick, to the total exclusion of the rest. That is the Sheriff's notion of loyalty; people are loyal as long as they support a certain party in their undue ascendancy—as long as they are allowed to raise one class and to crush another. The noble Lord has talked of outrages—of a gentleman who was shot, but we hear nothing of outrages on the other side; a relation of mine was shot at next to me, but we hear nothing of that, nor of the fourteen houses burnt by Orangemen in Armagh, or of the proceedings two years ago. In the county of Armagh, a Roman Catholic committed some assault upon an Orangeman; he was tried, convicted, and punished; but after fourteen houses had been burnt in the same county, there was no inquiry—nobody was arrested—nobody prosecuted, and the Roman Catholics saw their property destroyed with impunity. The evidence is before the House. Another instance:—A woman sheltered an Orangeman, who had been desperately beaten; she took him into her cabin. What has become of the cabin? Have the Protestants visited the woman in gratitude? No! in vengeance: her cabin was set on fire; but they did allow her to save her aged father, and to set him upon a dunghill, whence he was removed, and shortly afterwards died. What has been done with those who committed this offence? They are at large and secure—no magistrate finds them out, and no informer brings them to justice. Yet this is the party claiming exclusive loyalty, and to whom the noble Lord ludicrously attributes every other species of excellence.

said, as it was now impossible to stop the discussion, notwithstanding the laudable attempt of the Speaker, he would venture to make a few remarks, called for by what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for Down. Looking at the notice on the paper, he had concluded that the noble Lord would present the petition agreed to on the 30th of last October; but beyond giving his attendance from respect to an Irish subject, he (Lord Morpeth) had not expected that he should be required, in his official capacity, to take any part in the discussion. Nine months had passed since the meeting; and the petition was not directed against the present, nor the last, but against the antepenultimate go- vernment. The noble Lord had grounded his previous suspension and his present reproduction of the petition upon the change of circumstances; but, as had been already hinted, if the Protestants of the north of Ireland so heartily reprobated and viewed with such universal abhorrence, the system of national education, as fraught with ruin to their cause, it was strange that the noble Lord should so long have deferred it. It was certainly not easy to explain how he could reconcile to himself the postponement of the expression of this strong conviction while the late government was in office, which declared that it did not mean to disturb that system. He would leave all remarks upon the meeting in the county of Down to those who had more local knowledge; but he would say a few words on the procession of the Lord-lieutenant into Dublin, which had so much excited the animosity of the noble Lord. The thunders on the other side of the House having slept so long, was an indication that the noble Lord and his party did not think they could manufacture much of a storm. They did not rely much on the case they could establish, and a little delay might have supplied the means of exaggeration. The more he heard of the procession, the more he was convinced that there was nothing in it which brought it within the purview of the act passed against such as had a religious or political tendency. It could only be called a greeting given by the different trades of the metropolis of Ireland to the representative of their sovereign, who, they thought, was disposed to act upon principles that would benefit their common country. If, as was possible, there were some matters of difference—if one or two objectionable emblems or banners were displayed, some persons asserting that they saw them, and others that they did not—he was confident that they never attracted the attention nor met the eye of the Lord-lieutenant. Sure he was that nothing was intended on any side which could produce a line of demarcation between different religious denominations, but merely to add to the gaiety and glitter of the show. The noble Lord had expressed his hope and belief that the Orange lodges would not meet and walk in procession on the 12th of July; but laying as much stress as he did upon the loyalty of those bodies, it would have been more consistent if he had attributed their abstinence to a wish to obey the law, than to a disposition to take a hint or adopt advice. He (Lord Morpeth) was, however, too grateful for the result to quarrel with the motives from which it proceeded. The noble Lord had made an attack upon Ministers on the ground that the appointments, particularly the legal appointments of Ireland, had proceeded from the immediate inspiration of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. That point had been already touched on by the hon. and learned Member, and he believed that what the hon. and learned Member had said had commended itself to the approbation of the House. On the fitness of those appointments he was always ready to bear his share of the responsibility. On the general question he had no hesitation in saying that this Government, like every other intrusted with the conduct of human affairs, did not repudiate any support constitutionally, fairly, and openly given; on the other hand, it courted no aid excepting on the ground that its measures were calculated to promote the happiness and welfare of the country. No improper measure and no unworthy concession should ever be produced or made by Ministers for the sake of gaining a temporary advantage. Their object would be to administer the law in a kindly spirit, but above all to administer it impartially.

said, that as having been one of those who had signed one of the requisitions to which allusion had been made, and as possessing a very considerable property in the country from which this petition emanated, he hoped the House would indulge him with their attention whilst he made a few observations: The cause of the meeting in question was simply this—that a great many of the Protestants of the county (and by the word Protestant he did not confine himself to those persons who professed to be members of the Established Church merely), a great many Protestants who protested against the fallacy of the Church of Rome, felt themselves aggrieved; they felt that even-handed justice was not dealt out to them—that their enemies were promoted before them—that their liberties and constitutional freedom were at stake, and they met constitutionally to protect themselves. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. S. Crawford), who had ad- dressed the House, he begged, with all deference, to differ from him. That hon. Gentleman had stated in the first place that the petition was not that of the Protestants of Down, as it was only signed by the High Sheriff. He then asked why that petition was not signed by all the parties present at the meeting? Now his (Sir Robert Bateson's) answer was, and the fact must be obvious to the House, that as the meeting was composed of 50,000 persons, it was impossible, in the month of October, at the conclusion of the business of the day, and when men had come, many of them twenty miles, to attend the meeting, to effect this. It was therefore agreed upon as the opinion of the great mass of those who attended, that the High Sheriff should sign the petition in the name of the meeting, as their organ, and in his opinion (Sir Robert Bateson's) the proceeding was legal and constitutional. Several taunts and insinuations had been thrown out against his noble Friend, the late High Sheriff of the county, by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But with due deference, he begged to tell that hon. and learned Gentleman, that the character of his noble Friend was too well known to be in danger of being damaged by any assertions about his Orangeism, his packing juries, his denial of Roman Catholic rights, and privileges, and justice, or sanctioning outrages. All these charges would fall harmless on his noble Friend, as other calumnies equally vile and false had done upon those who did their duty to their country. The hon. Member for Dundalk said, this petition did not speak the sentiments of the Protestants of Down, for that 200 persons, including eight or ten Magistrates, had declined signing the petition. He gave him credit for the fact as far as it went. The hon. Member had stated, too, that the people were driven into the town by their landlords, as they were at the time of elections. This was the first time he had ever heard of such a circumstance ever taking place at elections; it might perhaps happen at Dundalk, but not in Down, certainly. On the contrary he would declare, that no exertion whatever which could have been made would have prevented the people from coming forward, even from a distance of twenty-five miles. They came forward as free and unbiassed persons to give their opinions on the state of affairs in the North of Ireland. There never had been more decorum preserved at any meeting. He believed that not a blow was struck in the whole course of the proceedings. He defied any hon. Member to prove that any charge was brought forward of assault at the subsequent Petty Sessions. He had heard, indeed, that party feuds had been excited by this meeting, but he did not believe it. The Protestants met quietly, and they met the Roman Catholic with the same good-will as they had ever done on the following day; not an Orange riband or symbol was there displayed. The people came there as peaceable loyal subjects to express their opinion openly and constitutionally. If the meeting were an illegal one, why did not the Magistrates treat it as such? With reference to the argument of the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who, in speaking of the Dublin procession, attempted to draw a distinction between religious and other meetings, he thought it was hardly possible to deny that the procession in question had a religious character. When the hon. and learned Member for Dublin attended the reform meeting at the Corn Exchange, he proclaimed his orders that persons should go to the chapels, and that the people should be warned to attend the meeting. Places of worship then were made use of to collect the meeting. What would be said if the Protestants had gone to the Presbyterian and other places of worship to do the same thing? Again that procession was accompanied by party flags, and he declared that he had seen at least twenty green flags, and in his opinion there were none but green flags there. Perhaps his noble Friend (Lord Castlereagh) would have been more correct in saying that the green flag was the symbol of rebellion at Vinegar Hill than of the persons who went to Bantry Bay to welcome the French. In his opinion it was almost impossible for the Lord-lieutenant not to have seen those flags if he did not shut his eyes, seeing that they were displayed during a march of two or three miles. The procession had a national band too, for whom the castle band was compelled to stop, while this national band played under the castle windows. Some blame had been cast on the former Lord-lieutenant because a flag had been exhibited at the theatre, but how could the Earl of Haddington have prevented that? He had seen the procession which accompanied that noble Lord from Dublin to the sea-side, at which ninety-nine out of 100 of the respectability, of the rank, and intelligence of the city of Dublin were congregated. Considering the talents of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and also that that hon. and learned Gentleman was an Irishman, he would say he would much sooner see that hon. and learned Gentleman filling the office of his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland than being, as he was now, "Master of the puppets." The hon. and learned Member would then be open to the opinions of the country, and it would not, in such a situation, be in his power to go beyond the law. The situation of that hon. and learned Member was unexampled; for he had the whole power of the country in his hands. With respect to the subject of education, the noble Lord had sneered at some Members, as if they had been guilty of a dereliction of principle upon this point. He did not know to whom the noble Lord alluded, but this he would say, that his opinions on the subject had never changed, no matter upon what side of the House the noble Lord might sit.

in explanation, denied that the petition was from the county of Down. There was a protest entered into against the meeting, which was published in the papers on the very same day that the resolutions agreed to at the meeting were published.

wished to notice this one fact—that at this meeting it was not attempted to propound one single resolution in support of Tithes as they at present stood. He took the opportunity of giving his unqualified contradiction to the statement made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Bateson)—namely, that in the Castle-yard the band had been stopped in order that an opportunity might be given of making the display alluded to. He was an eye-witness upon the occasion, and he could give a most distinct contradiction to the statement.

as Chairman of the Ennis Election Committee, said, that he had been directed by the Committee to report to the House, that the Committee had met that morning, but in consequence of the absence of General Palmer, one of the members of the Committee, they had been obliged to adjourn their proceedings until to-morrow. The hon. Baronet added that they had endeavoured to find the hon. and gallant Member, but were unable to do so.

brought up the Report of the Committee appointed upon the subject of the Ipswich Election. He was directed by the Committee, to inform the House that the Committee had, after due consideration, come to the following Resolutions:—

"That the Resolutions of the 14th of April be rescinded.

"That Robert Adam Dundas, Esq., and Fitzroy Kelly, Esq., are not duly elected, and ought not to have been returned to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Ipswich.

"That the petition of Robert Ransom and others does not appear to have been frivolous or vexatious.

"That the opposition to the said petition does appear to be frivolous and vexatious.

"That Mr. John Brown and others had been struck off the roll, it having been proved that they were not entitled to vote.

"That Robert Adam Dundas and Fitzroy Kelly, Esqrs., were, by their friends and agents, guilty of bribery and corruption at the late election for the borough of Ipswich; and that Arthur Robert Cooke, J. B. Dasent, John Pilgrifn, and others were guilty of bribery at the said election.

"That J. B. Dasent, A. R. Cooke, R. B. Clamp, and John Pilgrim, were guilty of absconding, to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant; and that J. E. Sparrow and John Clipperton, the avowed agents of the sitting Members, and F. O'Mally, Esq., one of the Counsel employed by the sitting Members, aided and abetted them in keeping out of the way to avoid giving evidence before this Committee.

"That the said John Pilgrim having at length been served with the Speaker's warrant, was prevented attending on this Committee by being arrested on a charge of embezzlement by Messrs Sewell and Blake, under very suspicious circumstances.

"That the conduct of the Magistrates, Samuel Bignold, Esq. and E. Temple Booth, Esq., before whom he was charged, appears to this Committee to be a breach of the privileges of the House."

The hon. Member then said, that he had been further directed by the Committee to call the attention of the House to the peculiar hardship under which some of the voters, who had been struck off the poll-books, laboured. The Committee had divided the voters struck off into three different classes, according to the circumstances of each case. The total number struck off was 21. Of these, 13 were voters whom the Committee had resolved should be struck off, because they had not been duly registered upon the poll-books. He was directed to call the attention of the House to the hardship to which these thirteen were exposed in consequence of the resolution come to by the House in June, 1833. From that resolution the Committee had no choice left but to strike those votes off the roll; and the consequence would be, that those voters, for no fault of their own, would be unregistered as well as struck off the roll.

suggested to his hon. Friend, the Member for Lancaster, that it might perhaps be right that he should state, what further steps he meant to take in regard to the representation of Ipswich?

said, that the question was easily answered. He meant to move that a new Writ be issued for the election of Representatives for that Borough.

then said, that a case, which he believed to be analogous to the present, bad occurred in 1827—he meant that of Penryn, in which Mr. Leigh Keck, who was the Chairman of the Committee who sat upon that election, reported that John Stanbury, having been summoned to attend to give evidence before the Committee, had not attended, and that it appeared he had absconded, and he therefore moved that John Stanbury be taken into custody, and that the Speaker do issue his warrant to that effect. He suggested that, in the present case, the same course should be pursued by the House that had been pursued in the case of Penryn. With respect to one class of the offenders—he meant those who had absconded in order that they might not be called upon to give their evidence before the Committee—the difference between the case of Penryn and the present case was, extremely slight. The only difference was that in the Penryn case, John Stanbury had been served with the Speaker's warrant, and had afterwards absconded; but in the case now under consideration, J. B. Dasent, A.R. Cooke, R. B. Clamp, and John Pilgrim had been guilty, as appeared from the Report made by the Committee, of having absconded in order to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant.— He did not suppose that the House would consider that the offence committed by the offenders in the present case was less than that committed by Stanbury. It would not be considered a less offence to have successfully avoided the Speaker's warrant, than to have absconded after having been served with it. He would therefore suggest to his hon. Friend, that he ought at once to move that J. B. Dasent, A. R. Cooke, and R. B. Clamp should immediately be taken into custody. With regard to John Pilgrim it seemed that he had since appeared before the Committee and had given evidence. He might, therefore, be said to have purged himself in some degree from the effect of his previous fault. He should therefore suggest, that at present only J. B. Dasent, A. B. Cooke, and R. B. Clamp, should in the meantime be taken into custody.—There were other parties who were also implicated by the Report of the Committee which they had heard read. The Report stated, "That the conduct of the Magistrates, Samuel Bignold, Esq., and E. Temple Booth, Esq., appears to this Committee to be a breach of the privilege of the House." He was aware that there was a difference between these parties and the parties of whom he had formerly spoken: still he thought that the Report of the Committee in regard to these Magistrates rendered it indispensable to bring them to the bar of the House, in order that they might meet the charge brought against them by the Committee. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Lancaster, in his capacity of Chairman of the Committee, would consider it his duty to move, that the Magistrates, Samuel Bignold, Esq. and E. T. Booth, Esq. be taken into custody, or that some independent Member would take the case up, if his hon. Friend thought fit to decline doing so. [Cries of "Move."]—If his hon. Friend declined moving in the matter, he (Mr. Gisborne) should certainly consider it his duty to move "That Samuel Bignold, Esq., and E. T. Booth, Esq. be also taken into custody." There were other parties who were implicated in this matter. The Committee reported in regard to Messrs. Sewell and Blake, that "John Pilgrim having at length been served with the Speaker's warrant, had been prevented from attending on the Committee, by being arrested on a charge of embezzlement by these parties, under very suspicious circumstances." He did not think that in respect to Messrs. Sewell and Blake, the charge brought against them was sufficiently explicit and distinct to warrant their being taken into custody; but he should consider it his duty also to move that they be summoned to attend at the Bar of the House.

was not sure that it properly devolved upon him, as Chairman of the Committee, to make the Motion alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. He had no instructions from the Committee regarding any Motion for the arrest of the witnesses. He would, therefore, for the present, simply move, "That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee be laid upon the Table of the House." Having brought the subject under the notice of the House, he would rather leave it to his hon. Friend to make the Motion which he had proposed if he thought proper to do so; and he would leave it to the House to consider whether the Motion should be acceded to. With regard to the proposition of his hon. Friend, that the conduct of the Magistrates should be taken into consideration he thought it a little premature.

said, that he should also move that P. F. O'Mally, J. E. Sparrow, and John Clipperton, who had aided and abetted the witnesses in keeping out of the way, should also be taken into custody.

begged to ask why the hon. Member had omitted the sitting Members, who had been reported as being guilty, through their agents, of bribery and corruption.

wished strictly to follow the course adopted in former cases of the same kind. The hon. Member would find that in all former cases, where Members were placed under similar circumstances with Messrs. Kelly and Dundas, the House had always postponed any proceeding against them until after the minutes of evidence were before the House.

having read the Motion from the Chair, "That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be laid upon the Table of the House."

said, that he rose to second the Motion stated by the hon. Member for Derbyshire. He thought the present a case well worthy the attention of the House.

said, that the Question which the House had to consider at present was simply, that the evidence taken before the Committee be laid upon the Table of the House, and with a view to guide the House as to any ulterior proceedings which it might be considered proper to take—if it should so happen that after seeing the evidence, the House should consider ulterior measures necessary. It was not, therefore, his intention to give any opinion upon the merits of the case at present.—But his purpose in rising was to ask a Question in strict connexion with the Motion before them. It appeared that one of the sitting Members had appeared before the Committee, and made several statements containing strong views of the Question before the Committee, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman had appealed for the veracity of what he said to his honour as a gentleman, and a professional man. It had been stated that there were correct short-hand notes of that statement. Now, he (Mr. Harvey) thought that it would be an act of justice to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that it would likewise guide the House in coming to a proper judgment upon the subject, if this statement was laid upon the Table of the House along with the evidence. He thought it would be but an act of fairness to the hon. and learned Member if he was allowed the benefit of his address.

was not aware that there was any precedent for such a course, but he would leave the subject to the sense of the House.

asked, if there was a report of the speech?

said, that there was no authorized report.

said, that if it was consistent with the rules of the House, he would beg leave to move as an Amendment, that there be laid upon the Table of the House, the minutes of all the evidence taken before the Committee, and also a transcript of all statements and legal arguments made use of by Mr. Kelly.

believed, that there was no instance of any statement made by Counsel being laid before the House.

begged to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether he intended to continue Messrs. Bignold and Booth in the Magistracy?

was understood to say, that as the guilt of the Magistrates depended on the evidence, he could not determine until he had seen that.

reminded the hon. and learned Member, that the Magistrates in question were not appointed by the King, but by the Corporation of Norwich, in virtue of their office.

said, that it would be but justice to suspend all discussion upon the case until after the evidence and the minutes of the proceedings were before the House. The hon. Member for Derbyshire proposed to deprive the persons mentioned in this Report of their liberty, without any evidence being before the House. He would suggest, that they ought not to prejudge the case by such a course of proceeding. The hon. Member ought, either then, or on some future occasion, to give notice of the Motion which it was his intention to make. In his opinion the House ought not to exercise its authority in ordering these persons into custody without due consideration. The case of Stanbury, which had been alluded to was different from the present. Stanbury had been served with the Speaker's warrant to attend, and had afterwards absconded. Surely the House would not say, that the witnesses in the present case, who had never been served with the warrant, were upon the same footing with a person who had been served with the Speaker's warrant, and who had absconded in order that he might not be forced to obey it. At least before the House came to a resolution which involved the loss of liberty to the persons implicated, it ought to have some evidence before it to show under what circumstances the act of absconding had taken place. Was it certain that avoiding a Speaker's warrant was punishable? All that he asked was, that the House would give time for the consideration of the subject, and that it should not act upon the Report of any Committee, but upon evidence before it as to the guilt of parties, and the degree of punishment to which they should be subjected.

observed, that when he had formerly said, that they ought to take more time to consider the matter, he did not mean that observation to apply to the case of the witnesses. He thought that the practice had always been, where a Committee had made a Report inculpating parties, that the House immediately ordered them into custody, lest they should abscond. He thought the House had a right to compel the attendance of witnesses, and order them into custody they did not attend.

said, that the noble Lord had misunderstood his meaning. He agreed with the noble Lord, that the House had a right to compel the attendance of witnesses; but what he doubted was, whether these persons could be considered in the character of witnesses, never having been served with a summons. They ought to remember that these persons had left the country before they had been served with a warrant, which they might perhaps be entitled to do. Let it be admitted that these persons did abscond, surely the general principle of law should prevail in this case. He was satisfied that the opinion of the hon. and learned Attorney-General was in unison with his own as to the law of the case, namely that in the case of a man—not summoned but against whom there was a strong presumption, that he had absconded to avoid being summoned, that the Courts of Law would not order him into custody.

wished merely to state, that it came out in the course of the evidence, that the persons alluded to absconded to avoid being summoned to attend before the Committee. They had met previously together at Ipswich, and resolved at the suggestion of some of the agents, not to attend any inquiry that might take place in that House respecting the election. This came out in evidence; and he left it to the House to form its judgment in the matter.

was anxious to set the House right on one point. The persons who had been alluded to had left the country before any petition had been presented to the House complaining of the election.

thought, that the House should consider these persons to have placed themselves in the situation of having been already summoned. The Committee had reported, that they were of opinion, that these persons had absconded to avoid having the Speaker's warrant served on them. It was obvious that these persons must have known that they were to be summoned before the Committee. They must have known that they were material witnesses—they must have known that their evidence was of importance in enabling the Committee to arrive at a conclusion; it was, therefore, their duty not to have absconded. With respect to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he would only observe, that that House was not accustomed to adhere to the mere technical rules of law which were enforced by the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas. In these Courts, in the case of a witness not appearing, and before proceedings could be taken, it would be necessary to show that a copy of the subpœna had been served on him, and also that the original had been shown him at the same time. The House, however, had never deemed it necessary to adhere to these technical forms. If the House saw clearly that there was a deliberate attempt to defeat justice, and to prevent the investigation before the Committee, the House ought, in his opinion, to pursue the course suggested by his hon. Friend, the Member for Derbyshire. He allowed that it was a great stretch of power to take a person into custody who had not been before the Committee, and who had not even been served with a summons to go before the Election Committee; yet good reason for so doing had been shown in this case, and the House was fully justified in acting on the Report of the Committee. He admitted that it might appear the more regular and equitable mode of proceeding, to summon these parties to appear and show why they had left the country to avoid the Speaker's warrant; but this was a very strong case, and had been fully proved. He was clearly of opinion, that persons keeping out of the way to avoid the service of the Speaker's warrant were guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House. He could not see any substantive distinction between a person having the Speaker's warrant in his hand, and getting out of the way to avoid it, knowing that it would be put into his hand. He was therefore of opinion, that although it might be acting on a strong principle to take a person into custody who had not been heard, and that it might appear more regular to summon him, still under the circumstances of the case, they were justified in taking the parties into custody at once. The case of Stanbury went the full length of justifying the course recommended by the hon. Member for Derbyshire.

could not but observe, that the subject under discussion ad no immediate reference to the question then before the House. The question was whether the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee should be laid on the Table of the House. It was not for the House then to say that those persons had been guilty of a breach of privilege; indeed, he hardly thought this could possibly be done until they were enabled to form an opinion on the subject, by having had the evidence laid before them. It might be, as his hon. and learned Friend had stated, that certain persons, whose evidence was material to the inquiry, had been together, and had entered into an agreement together to abscond and avoid the service of the process of the House. It might be right for the House to proceed according to the mode recommended, although, as his hon. and learned Friend had stated, the Courts of Law would not do so. It might be a very strong case, as his hon. and learned Friend had stated, but he would ask whether it was not a very harsh and severe proceeding to order persons to be taken into custody without hearing anything of the evidence against them, and without hearing anything they might say in their defence. He was called upon by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, to agree to order these persons to be taken into custody upon the presumption of proving what is alleged to have been proved before the Committee, namely, that they went abroad to avoid being summoned before the Committee. In justice to the liberty of the subject, the House of Commons should not proceed to such an extreme case until they were made acquainted with the grounds on which the Committee had come to the conclusions which had just been reported. If after the minutes of evidence had been printed, such a case existed as had been stated by his hon. and Learned Friend, it might then be the proper time for the House to pursue the course now proposed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire. Surely they were not to proceed to order the arrest of those persons, and commit them to prison, without looking to the evidence, or without hearing anything that the parties might have to say in their defence. The Special Committee, appointed to inquire into contested elections had, by Acts of Parliament, certain powers delegated to them, but as far as the privileges of the House were concerned, they had no power to act. The Committee were empowered to report on certain facts, and their decision was final on these points, and the House uniformly acted upon it; they did not, however, delegate to the Committee such authority as to consider their decisions final on special circumstances attending cases. He would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend, whether his opinion was not correct on this point. He did not say that his hon. Friend was not right in the statement he had made; he did not say that the majority of the Committee was not right in the opinion they had given on it; but it appeared to him that a Select Committee of that House was just as likely to fall into error, as the same number of other persons. He, therefore, did not think that the House was bound by any conclusions to which such a Committee might come, but that the evidence should be laid on the Table, and placed in the hands of Members, before they came to a decision. If it should appear from the evidence laid before them, that a breach of privilege had been committed, he would agree that the proposition now made should be enforced, and the privilege of that House vindicated. With respect to the precedents alluded to in the course of the debate, he would only say a few words. He did not know of any other case that could be quoted as a precedent than that of Stanbury, and this did not altogether apply to the present case. The want of sufficient precedents was ample reason, in his mind, why they should not proceed prematurely. Indeed, he was not aware of the case of Stanbury, until it was stated by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but it differed from the case before the House in this most important point, namely, that the Speaker's warrant had been served on Stanbury, and the Chairman of the Committee had also issued his summons, and yet he did not appear, while in the present case there was no evidence that the Speaker's summons had been issued. It did appear to him a very different thing for a man to be served with the Speaker's warrant and to disobey that warrant, and for one not to be served with it at all. In the former case the Chairman of the Committee, knowing that he had issued the warrant, and that the party had refused to obey it, might have stated these facts to the House, which might have been inclined to look for no further authority than the statement of the Chairman, that the party had refused to obey the warrant. But he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend, that the House ought to act on the presumption that these persons absconded because they knew their evidence was of importance. Surely a man was not always bound to live within the jurisdiction of the House, and he thought it would be hard to deprive him of his liberty on the ground that he had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, because he did not answer a summons which he might not know had been issued. He wished, therefore, that the Minutes of the Evidence should be printed, and then the House might be enabled to form a judgment on this part of the case, and afterwards to decide upon it; and then they might determine what ulterior measures they might pursue, either to institute a prosecution by the Attorney General, or to maintain their privileges in any other way that might seem most suitable to the circumstances of the case.

could not help remarking on the inconvenience attending the present proceeding, namely, debating one question when another was before the House. The Question before the House was, whether the Minutes of Evidence should be laid on the Table, and they were all agreed on that point. He would suggest that that Motion should be put, as well as that for printing the Evidence, and then they could put the proposition of the hon. Member for Derbyshire. The Motion had been generally misunderstood. The question was, not that certain persons should be taken into custody for the purposes of punishment, but that they should be arrested, so that they would be amenable for punishment should they be found to deserve it. The House had presumptive evidence sufficient to warrant them in pursuing the latter course. If the parties were arrested, then they would be amenable to justice, and would have an opportunity of defending themselves against the Report of the Committee; and should the allegations adduced against them appear unfounded, of course they would be discharged. The Committee had jurisdiction in this matter, and after hearing evidence they concluded that those persons had wilfully kept away to prevent the service of the Speaker's warrant. They were better judges than the House could be of this fact, and it would be casting a reflection on the Committee if they did not admit the allegations in the Report. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked of the value of personal liberty—undoubtedly it was of great importance—but there was another thing of higher importance, namely, taking care that those who chose the guardians of the liberties of the people were not corrupted; if they were, there was an end of liberty. Let them not appear to throw even a shade of doubt on the Committee, by agreeing to delay the matter.

thought that as the House would be inclined to visit with special indignation those who tampered with the integrity of electors, and were guilty of bribery, they should be anxious to proceed with caution and hesitation. He thought the enormity of the charge brought against the persons named in the Report of the Committee, was a sufficient reason for pausing before they resorted to strong measures. He was satisfied, if they acted upon the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Dublin, that they would establish a dangerous precedent. He said, that in ordering these persons to be taken into custody, they only did so to see whether they had or had not been guilty of an offence. The House had never hitherto acted on this principle, and he trusted that it never would. He thought the precedent quoted did not hold good in the present case. He suggested that further proceedings should be postponed, until the evidence was printed and in the hands of Members.

rose to suggest, that they should postpone the debate on this subject until to-morrow. He thought that in all cases of this kind, they should have precedents before them; and if they postponed the matter for a short time, they would have all the precedents bearing on the case. Since the subject had been alluded to, he had found an analogous case, and he had no doubt others could be found. The case he alluded to was that of Camel-ford; and in referring to the votes of 16th June, 1819, he found the following special report: "That Wm. Hallett and others did corruptly endeavour to procure the return of two persons to serve in Parliament for the said borough of Camelford; and that the said Wm. Hallett has wilfully absconded, in order to avoid being summoned to give evidence before this Committee. Whereupon this person was ordered to be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms." He thought this was a case in point, but he trusted that his hon. Friend would not insist on their coming to a vote on the question to-night, but would consent to postpone it until to-morrow.

had been informed, that no other candidate had made a speech before the Committee besides Mr. Kelly; he had also found that the speech was taken down by the same short-hand writer as took the evidence. If the House did not afford Mr. Kelly the advantage of laying; his speech before the House, he trusted that it would not be hereafter referred to with the view of adducing charges against him.

was satisfied that it would be an extremely bad precedent to print the speeches of counsel. If they did so on one side, of course they must also do so on the other.

rose to make the Motion of which he had given notice; but if it seemed to be the opinion of the House that it should be postponed, he would consent to do so, although he did not see what advantage would be gained by pursuing such a course. He was surprised at the nature of the arguments adduced on the other side. Hon. Gentlemen had spoken as if he had moved that the persons named in the Report should be sent to Newgate, or be subjected to very severe punishment; but all that he proposed was, that they should be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms to answer for the conduct imputed to them by the Special Committee. The course he proposed was not unusual, for all accused persons, let the tribunal be what it might, were taken into custody before they were put on their defence. In the first place, they took possession of the person against whom the charge was brought, and he was brought into court. He denied that the precedents were all on the other side. How loud and eloquent he had heard the right hon. Baronet speak in favour of precedent, and yet he had disregarded it in the present case. The Select Committee, in performance of their duty, had made a report, and in it had alleged that these parties had been guilty of bribery. The evidence on which this report had been founded had been heard vivâ voce by the Committee, and surely they were enabled to form something like a judgment on its merits. He was satisfied that the Committee who heard the evidence were much better able to form a just and correct opinion on the subject than persons who merely read the evidence. He thought, if they did not agree to the course he proposed, which was conformable to former precedents, they would establish a dangerous exception; at the same time, if he saw it was the general feeling of the House, he would postpone his Motion; but he did not see any necessity for so doing. He concluded with moving, "That A. B. Cooke, R. B. Clamp, J. E. Sparrow, J. Clipperton, and F. O'Malley, having been guilty of bribery at the last Ipswich election, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms." He did not move that Pilgrim or Dasent be taken into custody, as they had come forward and given their evidence.

supported the Motion. He asked whether hon. Members would be in a better situation than at present to form an opinion on the subject if they had the evidence before them?

thought the House was obliged to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, for taking up the case in the way in which he had.

remarked, that bad precedents were never so often set as when the cases which gave birth to them were on the unpopular side of the question; but he for one would never shrink from espousing what he believed to be the cause of justice, because his protestation might be attributed to a desire to prevent the detection and punishment of crimes. The House was not about to proceed to inquire into the absence of certain material witnesses, but they were, acting in a judicial capacity, about to assume that those persons were guilty. According to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Member for Dublin), the process was not punitive; but had not the hon. Member for North Derbyshire expressly asserted their guilt, and therefore called for the Speaker's warrant to be issued against parties, of all whose guilt the House would declare itself convinced? He certainly admitted that the House was not bound by technical rules of evidence, but they were as much bound as any Magistrate. It was evident that he was speaking in the presence of many Gentlemen who thought it a light thing to assume the guilt of parties without hearing the evidence. The House, too, was about to inflict this punishment on the advice and opinion, not of the Committee, but of those who attended and heard the evidence given before them. He believed the Committee did not act in this matter. If, then, the Committee did not advise this step, and declined this Motion, surely, although it was said that those who stood by frequently knew more of the matter than those who actually engaged in it he was not unreasonable in asking for twenty-four hours' delay to examine the grounds on which this Motion was made. He would admit that the precedent quoted by the noble Lord opposite was of great weight. He was represented by the hon. Member for North Derbyshire as attaching great importance to precedents, and perhaps he did; he was not ashamed to say that he was not well acquainted with these precedents, nor had he an opportunity of looking for them, as this Motion had come on without notice. The precedent quoted by the hon. Member, however, was one that did not bear on the case. If he had made himself master of his subject, and had proved that the course proposed by the hon. Member was borne out by precedents, he might have been ready to concur in the views which the hon. Member had taken, but Stanbury had been served with the Speaker's warrant, and this entirely destroyed the parallel sought to be established between the two cases. He wished also to know on what grounds Pilgrim had been exempted from this Motion. When several parties were guilty, why should one be fixed upon for punishment, and the others be permitted to escape? The name of J. B. Dasent, Esq., was not included in the Motion; the original offence was committed by seven; why did they select five? It would appear almost an arbitrary exemption in favour of those two persons, unless those persons were alleged to be likely to abscond to avoid the Speaker's warrant, and no intimation of that nature had been made. He entreated the House to pause and take twenty-four hours to consider whether any of the parties deserved punishment, or whether any of the parties had purged their offence by submitting subsequently to the authority of the Committee.

moved that the debate be postponed until to-morrow.

said, he could not conceive how an adjudication of a Committee which had acted on the sanction of an oath—he could not conceive how, acting on the Report of such a Committee, which was to the effect that certain individuals had been guilty of certain acts,—could be called acting on an assumption of guilt: be should rather say that it was acting on an adjudication of guilt. Taking this view, he doubted the propriety of adjourning the Question, as was proposed; but he should nevertheless bow to the high authority of the noble Lord. The Committee had reported that certain individuals had absconded to avoid the service of the summons of that House. What did that imply? It was now said that these persons should have a hearing; to adopt that course would be only to give them an opportunity of repeating their offence; for the complaint against them was, that they would not attend the Committee to be heard—that they were absent by their own wilful default. If the House was disposed to pay such respect to this Report as it usually paid to the Reports of its Select Committees, it must come to the conclusion that the individuals in question, after having been apprized that they were about to be summoned, and that their evidence was considered important to the administration of justice, had absconded with a view to evade that summons, and throw an obstacle in the way of the administration of justice. In his opinion the Committee were quite as likely to ascertain the justice of the case, considering the powers with which they were invested, as the House itself would be, were the individuals brought to the Bar. This Committee having reported that these persons had absconded, they had the adjudication of a competent authority which was entitled to credit, and he thought it was the duty of the House to have the offenders at once taken into custody, after which the House might hear anything that the parties might have to urge in extenuation of their offence. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Tamworth that there was no just reason for excepting the two persons whom it had been proposed not to proceed against. He did not, however, agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the circumstance of the parties who at last appeared against their will should excuse their previous conduct. By adjourning the discussion, it appeared to him that the House was showing a tardiness on the subject that was not consistent with sound judgment.

explained the cause of his absence since last Friday from the Ennis Committee, of which he is a Member. He stated that his absence proceeded from his having erroneously understood that the Committee could not meet till the House re-assembled.

said, he wished, on the Motion for going into a Committee on the Seamen's Enlistment Bill, to put a question to his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) relative to the Order of the Day for the committal of the Seamen's Enlistment Bill; and perhaps the House would pardon him, if in doing so, he stated some of the circumstances connected with the subject. The House would remember that in the course of the last Session of the former Parliament, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Buckingham) moved a Resolution relative to Impressment. He, having at that time the honour of being one of his Majesty's confidential servants, considered it his duty to resist the resolution moved by the hon. Member; but in resisting it he announced, on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, that a Measure was in their contemplation, which he hoped would supersede the necessity for the hon. Gentleman's Motion. In redemption of the pledge he had given as a Minister of the Crown, he, in the commencement of the present Session, and in his individual capacity as a Member of that House, having no longer any connexion with the Government, brought forward a Measure, the principle of which was, first a statutory recognition of his Majesty's prerogative of Impressment in case of a declaration of war; and secondly, the extension of the principle that before recourse was had to compulsory means of manning the Navy, it should be tried whether voluntary enlistment, could not be induced by offering particular encouragement to the sailor, and removing many objections that had existed to the service. The hon. Member for Sheffield, he understood, agreed to the latter part of the proposition, but to the former he was decidedly opposed; and the hon. Member had, therefore, given notice, that on the Motion for this evening, that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Seamen's Enlistment Bill, he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee to omit from the Bill every part of the same which might be intended to give legal power and authority, by statutory enactment, for the exercise of forcible impressment towards any class of his Majesty's subjects. Under these circumstances he felt, that as an individual Member of that House, he was justified in asking his noble Friend to state what was the decision of his Majesty's Ministers with respect to the notice which had been given by the hon. Member for Sheffield. If his Majesty's Ministers should be of opinion that on the whole it would be inexpedient that there should be a statutory recognition of the high prerogative of the Crown to enforce impressments, or that the inducements proposed in the Bill, as an encouragement to voluntary enlistment, would be too expensive to the country—and expensive he admitted they would be—then, as an individual Member of that House, he thought he should best discharge his duty by relinquishing the Bill, and giving it in charge to his Majesty's Ministers, to deal with it on their responsibility as they might think fit. He now proposed to fix a day—he would say this day se'nnight—for going into Committee on the Bill, and in the interim his Majesty's Ministers might determine what alterations they would recommend. The Bill would be committed pro formâ, to allow of the suggested alterations being printed, and the House would then consider whether the alterations were such as it could approve. He thought it much more advantageous that the Bill should be carried forward on the responsibility of the King's servants, than that he should proceed with a Measure against their opinion. He hoped that under those circumstances the hon. Member for Sheffield would allow him to postpone his Motion to the day he had mentioned.

said, he would answer as clearly as he could the question put by his right hon. Friend. The Bill to which he had alluded had two objects; one to maintain the prerogative of the Crown with regard to impressment, and the other to encourage voluntary enlistment. Now, in these two objects he was disposed to concur. The Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield with respect to the instruction to the Committee, he should feel it is duty to resist. Having explained so far, he had to state further, that after consulting with his Colleagues, the first Lord of the Admiralty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the sub- ject, it was their opinion that the Bill ought to be considerably altered, and if it were pressed into Committee to-night they should feel themselve called on to press their alterations. He thought, therefore, that the Measure had better be postponed. When his Majesty's Ministers had stated what alterations they had to recommend, his right hon. Friend would decide whether the Bill still accorded with his original views, and if it did, he would probably continue to take charge of it.

said, that having been personally appealed to by the right hon. Baronet, Sir James Graham, he was bound to say that he had stated the case of the Bills and the discussions to which they had given rise, with great fairness and fidelity; and he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman entirely in the opinion that both these Bills were of such public importance that they ought to be undertaken by the Government rather than left in the hands of any individual; at the same time he must say, that he had hoped to have heard from the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Home Department, a different opinion from that which he had just advanced in favour of a satisfactory recognition of the prerogative of the Crown to enforce the impressment of Seamen.—He had hoped that his Majesty's Government would have been content to have let the prerogative remain as it was, a power existing in name only, but never to be carried into execution, and to be permitted to expire or die a natural death by process of time alone, in common with the other feudal privileges that have already so become extinct. For himself, he must say, that his objections to impressment continued as strong as ever, and though it would give him great pain to do anything which might have the appearance of obstruction to the proceedings of the present Government, he was bound in honour to say, that if they should retain in the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, when it came before the House again, the objectionable clauses which went to enact or give statutory recognition to the power of impressment as a just, and lawful, and undoubted prerogative of the Crown, he should feel it his duty to oppose it, and to take the sense of the House upon the Question.—He should readily consent to the postponement of the Bill for the period named, to enable the Government to make such alterations in it as they might think de- sirable, but if these alterations did not include the striking out from the Bill all those parts of it which either recognized the power of impressment as legal, or authorized it by positive enactment, it would be as objectionable in his eyes as ever, and after this fair and public warning, he hoped that he should not have any want of fairness imputed to him, if he then gave, as he should feel himself bound to give, his most strenuous opposition to such a Bill passing into a law.

said, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time if the hon. Gentleman would postpone the Committee, in order to allow time for the consideration of several alterations which he should feel it his duty to propose, on the subject of County-rates. These alterations could not be taken into consideration till after the Report of the Committee to inquire into the subject had been laid on the Table.

had a great objection to one Clause of the Bill. The Clause to which he alluded would disfranchise the whole of the freeholders of counties who were not possessed of freeholds to the amount of 40s., and would give to all those who were now the electors of Members of Parliament in counties, the right which formerly belonged to the entire body of the freeholders. On what principle was it, that without giving them a bearing—without notice even, these freeholders should be deprived of the right they possessed of voting for Coroners? The preamble of the Bill stated, that whereas such elections were made with much riot and confusion, and were attended with great and unnecessary expense. Now he doubted not they were attended with unnecessary expense; but he never in all his experience knew of any rioting at elections for Coroners. It should be known that by this Clause the 50l. tenants-at-will would be brought into play. Coroners in counties were the persons to whom the poor looked for protection, and it was most unjust to deprive them of the franchise, and transfer it to another class. But there had been great and unnecessary expenses, forsooth, at the elections. Whose fault was that? Was it not the fault of the candidates themselves? The very individuals who had incurred the great and unnecessary expense, would make it appear that they had not sufficient remuneration, and by this Bill proposed to increase the rate of mileage. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

notwithstanding the warmth and zeal of the hon. Member who had just sat down, must give his cordial support to the general and leading principles of so useful and wise a measure. The objection made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Blackburne) might be taken into consideration in Committee. Besides the hon. Gentleman had not stated the principles of the Bill fairly. He had omitted to state the abuses of the present system. In the county of York, in particular, the office of Coroner had become a property, and it was there a saying that a Coroner was returned by one or two persons. No man would be more ready than himself to endeavour to avoid the disfranchisement of those persons alluded to, but he really thought that Clause was a subject for consideration in Committee. With regard to the ninepence a mile that had been mentioned, he believed that the fair construction of the Act of Parliament which gave that amount for travelling expenses would make it amount to the same as it was now proposed to make it. The ninepence a mile having been considered to be ninepence to a place and from a place, and the present Bill only expressed what the previous Act intended. He would remind the House that this necessary measure had now been before it for no less a term than five years.

said, that the last day of the last session a Bill similar to the present had been thrown out of that House after having passed the House of Lords, in consequence of some amendments having been made. With regard to the clause which might be considered harsh in its operation, namely, that which disfranchised the poorer freehold voters, it might be easily altered in Committee, and he for one would concur in such alteration. The present Bill for the first time gave the power to a Coroner of registration of all those who came to an untimely end; to order the opening of a body when considered necessary; and authorise the payment of a medical man for the purpose The Court of the Coroner was also to be an open Court, as had been provided by he Bill of last session. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his amendment.

while he adopted the principle of the Bill, thought that some amendments might be necessary. He thought that the office of Coroner should be more open to competition, and not left, as at present, to be occupied only by medical men and lawyers. It was also important to the country at large that the Coroner's Court should be an open Court, for which reason he should give the Bill his support. He should, however, oppose in the Committee that Clause which proposed the disfranchisement of the lower class of freeholders, in regard of voting at the election for Coroner.

consented to withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself the right of opposing any obnoxious clauses in the Committee.

considered the Bill a compound of good and evil, and although he was disposed to give it his support in its present stage, it still required great alteration in the Committee. The great advantage which it would confer was said to be, that it declared the Coroner's Court to be hereafter an open Court. Now, how did it provide for that? Why thus—"And be it enacted, that every inquest to be held before any Coroner upon the body of any person shall be deemed to be an open Court, and the evidence of the witnesses, and the charge and direction of the Coroner, shall be delivered in, and all the proceedings shall be carried on in open Court; but nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to limit or control the power and authority of the Coroner to preserve order in the said Court, when in the judgment of the said Coroner the ends of public justice may require the exclusion of such persons from the said Court. ["Read on, read on."] "Provided," the Bill went on to say, "that in all cases where the Coroner shall make use of such authority, he shall, as soon as may be after such exclusion, report the same to the Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty's Court of King's Bench, and also to his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, together with a statement of the circumstances which induced the said Coroner to require such exclusion, and provided that the Coroner shall transmit to the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench and to the Secretary of State for the Home Department an account of the circumstances of the case which demanded exclusion." But by that provision, the mischief might be done, and then, the means of redress were out of reach. He was inclined, however, to believe that there was so much good in the Bill that they ought to allow it to be read a second time. But it was impossible that the Bill should ever pass, giving as it did only to the persons who had the right of voting for the election of Knights of the Shire, the right of electing a Coroner. He knew many cases in which the one qualification no way implied the possession of the other; and where, if the parties were not registered for the borough election by the Bill now proposed, they would be disfranchised; now that could not be the intention of any hon. Member. He therefore trusted that before the Bill was brought forward in Committee, the hon. Member (Mr. Cripps) would see the propriety of making such alteration in it, as would have the effect of introducing those voters into it which were admitted before. The Bill did not, he would observe, multiply the Coroners, it only authorized the Magistrates to divide the county, in such a manner as would best promote the ends of justice; such a power they ought to have; and he was glad the Bill gave it to them. The hon. Member would, he trusted, make the alteration which had been suggested to him.

said be felt himself responsible for that particular clause as it now stood, having been induced so to draw it up as, if possible, at once to secure the important object of publicity, and obviate the objections to that principle which seemed to be felt in another place. When duly considered, he had no doubt it would receive the approbation of that House and the public. The Coroner's Court was now considered by many persons an open Court, but by others it was asserted that the Coroner might capriciously, without assigning any reason whatever, turn out those who attended for the public press, or who were anxious to see that justice was properly administered, and sit with shut doors. Now, this Bill declared that the Coroner's Court was an open Court, where the justice of the country should be administered openly before the country. At the same time it gave the Coroner a power, which he (the Attorney General) thought he ought to possess, of ordering certain individuals in certain cases to withdraw. For instance, on an inquisition for murder it was quite possible that the guilty person might be present, and after hearing the evidence he might abscond. But this power was to be enjoyed under great responsibilities. Immediately afterwards, the Coroner was bound to transmit a statement to the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench and the Secretary of State for the Home Department of what had transpired, and the reasons which had induced him to clear the Court. His conduct might be publicly canvassed, and if he acted capriciously or from corrupt motives in any case, he would be amenable to the ordinary Courts of justice, or at the bar of that House. He thought the clause was the object which those who maintained the opinion that the Coroner's was an open Court had in view, and he trusted the Bill would experience no interruption in the present instance, but would be suffered to go into a Committee of the whole House, where it might be more conveniently, and at leisure, examined in detail.

declared, if the disfranchisement clause were not abandoned, he should vote against the Bill on the third reading.

said, that the measure was the result of a mistaken humanity, and would neither benefit the prisoner nor the public. It was unnecessary inasmuch as the judge was the Prisoner's Counsel, and it would be mischievous, causing contentions among the counsel, and delaying the business of the Courts. He objected particularly to the clause which allowed an Attorney to plead as counsel. Considering the Bill to be quite unnecessary, he would move that it be read a second time that day six months.

supported the Bill, and must say, that he thought that the speech of the late Attorney-General the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon in favour of it, was quite convincing and unanswerable. The existing law was a remnant of feudal severity, and the alteration in it was resisted merely from the general fear of innovation.

said, that having for many years past taken an anxious interest on the subject, he trusted the House would allow him to state those reasons which he thought gave great weight to the propriety and necessity of the Measure. They had heard that evening, a specimen of most of the arguments, usually advanced as a defence of the existing system; in the first place, there was the old argument of the Judges being the Prisoner's Counsel, and that the Bill would deprive the prisoner of that existing advocacy: that presumed in the first place, that the Judge had the opportunity of hearing all the evidence, which were he the Counsel for the prisoner, he would have the means of knowing, and then that he would know accurately what points of that evidence bore upon the merits of his case. Now, if that were so, not only would there be no necessity for the speech of the Counsel for the prosecution, but, in civil cases, no necessity for Counsel on either side, as the evidence would come out passage by passage, and the Judge would have nothing to do but to decide on its application, and then, without any contest, there would be an end of the matter. But how was the Judge to know what was the point intended to be relied upon by either of the parties? He had no brief upon the matter, the only brief which he got was the deposition, which was in fact the brief of the prosecutor. But then it was said, that the Judge would hold the prosecutor's brief, as the Prisoner's Counsel, while the only brief he held was the depositions taken before the Magistrate which in many cases were ex-parte against the client. But if the Judge did his duty, his own mind was necessarily occupied during the trial with something different from the defence of his client. It must be recollected that during a criminal trial three processes were going on. The Counsel for the prosecution was endeavouring to make the evidence bear on the guilt of the prisoner; the Counsel for the prisoner was endeavouring to make the evidence bear on his innocence; but neither of those processes ought to be going on in the mind of the Judge, who ought to be considering in what way the law bore upon the facts, and what was the balance of the conflicting statements, and he could not ful- fil his duty to the public and to the prisoner at the same time, if he were considered the Prisoner's Counsel. To shew the absurdity of supposing that the Judge was the Prisoner's Counsel, it was merely necessary to advert to the frequent phrase that "the Judge summed up for a conviction." What! sum up against his own client? He was the counsel for the prisoner, and he went to the jury, and with a strong and impressive speech, tried to induce them to find his own client guilty; that was a great absurdity surely, and rested with the existing system. The only judicial operation which that House performed, was, upon Election Committees, and at one time there were nominees admitted who were at once Judges and parties in the case, but there was so much hardship, and injury connected with that system, that it was done away on that account. It was sometimes said, that if the Bill passed, there would be great heat—that the Counsel would be extremely ambitious to shew themselves off; he admitted that some feeling of that kind might exist, but then it was the case at present, and the Counsel, having no legitimate opportunity for their observations, were continually endeavouring to get in, not one speech, but two or three speeches, under the shadow of a question, and the Counsel for the prosecution, generally insisting, often very strictly, upon the observance of the rule, what with the struggles on the one side to make a speech, and on the other side, to prevent it, that very heat was generated which was apprehended from granting permission to deliver a regular speech, and in civil cases there was none of that heat produced which was so much dreaded, though each party had often much to gain or lose: was it then much more likely to occur in criminal cases? In general, it should be observed that, so far from there being a strong feeling on the part of the prosecutor against the prisoner, the contrary was the fact, as the prosecutor was almost invariably the party who recommended the prisoner to mercy. But then "time is a question." He (Mr. Twiss) did not think it likely that Counsel would expose themselves by long speeches, to waste the time of the Court, particularly as it was well known he would infallibly expose himself to the ridicule of the Bar, and the dislike of the Judge, but if they were so inclined, would the House of Commons say that the Judge had time to hear one party, and not to hear the other? Then it was said, that the proposed Measure would be injurious to the prisoner. He thought that the prisoner himself would be best able to decide that by himself, or with the advice of his Attorney. At present, the law allowed Counsel in the cases of treason, and misdemeanor; and would any man, even the most strenuous opponents of the Measure, say that the law in those cases should be repealed? Upon what principle then could they justify the argument, that though in civil cases, in treason, and in misdemeanors, the prisoner had Counsel, felony was the only case to be excepted. Did that require any line of demarcation? Not at all, for the felony and misdemeanor, were so closely connected that in many cases it was almost impossible to distinguish between them. Would the House then take away that first right of man—the being heard, either by his own mouth, or by his Counsel more competent than himself? Look at the circumstances in which the man might be placed. In many cases, conclusions were to be derived from the recollection of facts or from some contingent circumstances. It was true, that when the facts were undisputed nothing was to be contested; but the prisoner had the right of arguing the point of law before his Judge, and in many cases it was extremely difficult to put facts on their proper footing without considerable skill in explanation and considerable knowledge. Take the case of homicide in an arrest; a great deal would then turn upon the legality of the arrest, if it were legal, the deed would be murder; if illegal it would be reduced to manslaughter; and that was wholly matter of fact. Again the case of malice prepense in which there was always great difficulty, and the Judge had to decide the law upon it. In almost all cases of circumstantial evidence, it was matter of fact; nothing was more difficult than to decide upon the motives of a deed; and all that was matter requiring the assistance of Counsel, and Counsel of great skill, to elucidate it. It was often part of the case of the Counsel for the prosecution to prove a fact by a great number of allegations which carried credibility of proof with them; a man was tried, with many other persons, for a murder, committed in a general assault; the difficulty for the Judge was to keep the proofs separate, and when the man was unaided, how was he to preserve all the parallel lines in the proofs, to distinguish how much belonged to one and to another, in order to ascertain whether there might not be some inconsistency in respect to some of them; as it often happened that the defence for one was wholly inconsistent with the defence for another of the parties? And when the Question was, "Did A or B strike the fatal blow?" How was the Judge to take the case of each, although the Counsel for each might do it? Let the House consider the case of a deaf person incapable of readily catching the evidence: of a foreigner who could not duly appreciate it; of an invalid, whose strength of constitution was not sufficient to bear up against it; of the aged, with their faculties almost expiring; or, of the young whose faculties were hardly arrived at maturity; or of a woman whose feelings rendered it impossible that she could attend to the evidence. None of those cases, separately, were numerous; but the aggregate formed a large proportion of convicted criminals: and yet, to all of them the argument applied. He would imagine the case of a full-grown man, in the possession of all his faculties, still he might be a man of education, or a common labourer, and the conviction or acquittal might depend on skill, or a want of skill, and not on guilt or innocency. A man might be able to take notes of the evidence, or he might be obliged to rely upon his memory. In what sort of state must his recollection be, or his mind, to argue with calmness upon his own case even if he were a man of ordinary judgment? Even in that House where, theoretically, at least, all men were equal, was it not well known when hon. Members got up to speak, what awe and difficulty oppressed them which all their education and sense of equality did not overcome. How much more, then, in the case of a man in humble life standing against a prosecutor with the aid of Counsel, with a crowded audience about him, perhaps, by the nature of the crime, prejudiced against him, and the man alone in a part of the court whose very situation—the dock—puts him in a place of degradation; with all that against him, let the House say if he were placed in a situation of equality with the Counsel for the prosecution, what chance he had of attending to the merits of the case? If he, by some accident, were enabled so to do, then there arose another class of ob- jections and prejudices not less violent and dangerous: the feeling was, that he must be an experienced rogue. If under the circumstances described, he was able to make out a good case, he must be an old hand, an ancient practitioner, and thus he must either bring out no case at all, or bring it out to his disadvantage. In a great number of cases, too, the fact alleged came, perhaps, by surprise upon the man, and how was he then to make his address, and consider all the questions before him? It was said that the inequality was only in appearance. He hoped for the honour of his country it was so, but it was essential to law and justice that the Judge should not only be just, but be thought just. The damage of the few was the insecurity of the many. It would not do to pride themselves upon their intellectual advances, because every other machinery was rapidly improving; if that machinery, the machinery of justice, upon which the life and liberty of men depended was left imperfect. He therefore should give his cordial vote for the Bill. Amendment withdrawn.

moved for a Copy of the Treasury Minute, dated December 5, 1825, whereby Mr. James Walker, the late Crown Agent in Berbice, was dismissed from his office: and also, for a Copy of the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, and of the examination which accompanied that Report to the Colonial Secretary of State, under date the 13th of August, 1825, whereon the dismissal of the said Mr. James Walker from his office was founded.

opposed the Motion, upon the ground that the whole of the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Mr. Walker had been fully inquired into ten years ago; and also, because he thought the papers moved for by the hon. Baronet were of a description that could not be produced consistently either with decency or security to the public service.

differed from the right hon. Gentleman. He (Lord Granville Somerset) had read the whole of the papers through with great attention ten years ago, and he certainly remembered nothing that they contained that could be regarded as rendering them unfit to be produced in that House. He thought that the hon. Baronet was perfectly justified in bringing forward the Motion, but at the same time he regretted that he had done so, because he saw no practical good that could result from it.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the Correspondence between his Majesty's Consul at Tripoli and the British Government, on the contested claims to the Pachalic of that country; and also on the claims of British subjects on the Government or subjects of Tripoli. The hon. Gentleman said, he was induced to move for these papers in consequence of certain representations which had been made, and which were very generally believed, not only in this country, but in the South of Europe, that Mr. Warrington, the British Consul at Tripoli, had most imprudently and most improperly mixed himself up with the contests which had recently taken place for the Pachalic of that country. It was said that the Pacha had complained of Mr. Warrington's conduct, and requested that he might be withdrawn; but that the application had failed of the effect for which it was intended. It was rumoured further, not only that representations of Mr. Warringston's misconduct had been made by the Pacha, but by the Porte, by the Ambassadors of other Powers, and by the commercial men residing and carrying on business at Tripoli. The latter were said to have expressed great dissatisfaction at Mr. Warrington's conduct. It was not his intention to blame Mr. Warrington's conduct, or to judge of it; but he was quite sure that the House would look with great anxiety to the conduct of the Representative of British interests in a country so remote, and of such increasing importance as Tripoli. It was upon that account that he wished the House to be put in possession of such documents as the Government should think proper to produce, in order that hon. Gentlemen might know what was actually passing in that part of the world.

said, it would be very inconvenient to accede to the hon. Gentleman's Motion. Before it could be carried into effect Mr. Warrington must be written to, and the Session must pass before an answer could be obtained from Tripoli. He must add, that a corre- spondence had been begun on the subject with Mr. Warrington, and it would at least be necessary to wait for that Gentleman's reply.

concurred in the Motion for the production of the Papers. He thought there had been very great abuses in Tripoli, though he did not mean to make any charge against the British Consul; but he conceived that at some future period it would be the duty of the House to investigate them.

had no wish to call for any papers, the production of which would inconvenience the Government.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend an Act of the 2nd and 3rd William 4th., chap. 65, to Amend the Representation of the people, and the Registration of the Voters in Scotland; and also to carry into effect the recommendations made by the Committee of last Session, for diminishing the expense of elections there. The right hon. Gentleman said he would shortly state the objects which he proposed to effect. He wished to put an end to creating votes. The Bill would put an end to creating such votes by subdividing property. That such attempts should be made to acquire political influence in Scotland, would not surprise those who remembered the paper qualification which existed under the old system, but it was the duty of the Legislature to prevent it as far as possible. The provision by which he proposed to guard against the extension of this practice under the new system of representation (where it was as yet in embryo only, but liable to increase into a positive evil) was, that there should be not more than two voters on any one joint property or joint farm, instead of, a properly or farm being divided among a great number of holders, each of whom had a vote. This will be the limit to which the creation of fictitious freeholds could now be carried,—in ordinary cases there would of course, be but one vote to each farm. The next point to which he had directed his attention was the difficulty arising from the opposite opinions and decision given in the Courts of Appeal on the validity of votes, a circumstance consequent on the nature of the Appeal Courts in Scotland. The separate Courts of Appeal had in some cases pronounced opposite judgments, and it became necessary to declare the law on these disputed points. Another difficulty was, that when a person, registered on account of one house in a borough, quitted it for another of the same, and even of greater value, he lost his right of voting, until, at the next period of enrolment, he was able to qualify in respect of the new residence—in fact, he could not put in his claim till July, and the final adjudication upon it could not take place till October. He proposed that immediately after Whit Sunday, persons so situated, if they could make out a primâ facie case, should be allowed to be enrolled and to vote, thus giving them the enjoyment of the franchise, in the mean time, before the regular period of registration. Another objection to the existing law was, that too long a time elapsed between the receipt of the writ, and the day of the election. According to the present law, ten days at least must elapse after receipt of the writ by the Sheriff before the nomination could take place. That period could not be shortened, though it might be extended to sixteen days. This caused a very great and unnecessary delay; in addition to which there were the days of polling, and a further interval of a day before the declaration of the election could take place. That created great confusion and interruption to business, and was altogether uncalled for in the present state of the communication all over the country, except, indeed, in some counties where the great distance of some parts of the county from others made time necessary. The Bill proposed, that not less than four, and not more than ten days should elapse between the receipt of the writ and the day of election; which would be sufficient in all ordinary cases. In the distant counties composed partly of islands more time would be allowed. Another provision of the Bill was, that the declaration of the state of the poll might, in all cases, be made without delay after the polling-books were received. It had been a subject of complaint that many votes had been set aside in consequence of merely clerical errors, though such votes were substantially good. By the Bill, errors of a merely clerical kind in the statement of qualification, or in other proceedings with reference to the votes, were not to be deemed sufficient to vitiate such votes, so as to defeat the claims of the voters. Finally, the time of polling was to be limited to one day, the Sheriff having power to increase the number of polling-booths, and the polling to commence at eight in the morning, instead of, as now, at nine on the first day, and at eight on the second. If, however, at the close of the poll on the one day, any voters should remain who, wishing to vote, had been unable to do so, the sheriff should have power to prolong the polling until those voters should have polled. He apprehended that confining the polling to a single day would obviate much of the inconvenience arising from the obstacles which, under the present system, were thrown in the way of the voters, and it appeared to him that no valid objection could be raised to the plan on the score of insufficiency of time, because the polling-booths were to be multiplied; and additional time was given where voters were present before the hour for closing the poll. Upon the whole, he thought the plan of limiting the polling to one day presented great advantages; but, whether it were adopted or not, it would enable the House to consider whether any better regulation could be devised. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.