rose to present a Petition from Newfoundland, which was most numerously signed, and some of the signatures were highly respectable, complaining of the administration of justice in that country. They complained of the present Chief Justice Bolton, and they stated that in the year 1826, upon the granting of a new charter, there were provisions in that charter directing all rules of Court to be published for three months, and then transmitted for the sanction of the Crown, It appeared that in 1826 the names of the Juries were arranged in alphabetical order, and the jurors were directed to be called consecutively in that order. This was a perfectly fair mode of arranging a Jury, without reference to party politics or religion. This was the case till Judge Bolton was appointed Chief Justice, and his first step was to abolish the former Jury process. The result, as the petitioners complained, was that, instead of having an impartial Jury, the jury-box was now packed to suit particular purposes. They complained that the Chief Justice had come to the Colony a violent religious partisan. Before that time the Roman Catholic had his fuel drawn home for him by the Protestants, and the Catholics at their own expense built a church for the Protestants, so much were they then in amity; but the moment Chief Justice Bolton came there the case was altered, and he set the parties much against each other, and he had put down schools. At one time a paragraph appeared in a newspaper, complaining of a charge of his in a trial for a political libel. In place of proceeding legally, he had the writer brought before him on a charge of contempt of Court; and the Chief Justice, himself being a party, and without a Jury, sentenced him to imprisonment for three months, and a fine of 50l. There were other charges in the petition, but he would not state them as they were not distinct. He would only lay the petition on the Table at present, and he trusted he should not be under the necessity of taking any further steps upon it.

could not but regret that such a petition should have been presented. If the allegations of it were true, then there could be no doubt that Mr. Bolton had deviated from the strict path of his duty. With respect to the Juries, he thought Mr. Bolton had acted very properly, for in place of having a list of only eighteen, taken alphabetically, he had instituted a system by which forty-eight names were now taken in the same manner as in this country. With respect to the allegation with regard to the schools, Mr. Bolton, who was now in this country, assured him that all was untrue, because, though he had lent the Judge's chambers for a meeting with respect to them, it was one to which the Catholic Bishop was invited, and had nothing at all sectarian in it. With regard to the allegation of his having acted wrong in the libel case, he (Sir G. Grey) had no doubt that he had acted strictly legally; but the matter had been referred to the Attorney and Solicitor-General in this country, and they reported that though the Judge was strictly legal in his sentence for contempt, yet the practice for many years in the Courts of this country was against him, and the sentence, under their opinion, was remitted.

contended no man could blame Chief Justice Bolton for his regulation regarding Juries, which had met with the approbation of not only his colleagues, but the majority of the Colony. There was at present no religious difference prevailing among the inhabitants of the Colony. Mr. Justice Bolton positively denied ever telling the Jury to place themselves in the condition of the plaintiff; and from the conversations he had with him he considered him to he a man of cool temper, and not likely to be led away by any party excitement. More than that, he had seen some public documents bearing high testimony to the impartiality and ability with which Mr. Bolton discharged his duty; and he thought that an opportunity ought to be given him of stating the circumstances under which he had committed a person for contempt of Court. It was admitted that he had acted legally, and it should be remembered that there was a great difference between the administration of the laws in this country and in a new Colony. It was true that great party spirit did prevail there, insomuch that an editor of one of the newspapers was stopped on the high road, in the middle of the day, and had his ears cut off; but Mr. Bolton did not in any way participate in the causes of this excitement.

begged the House to suspend its judgment on the case at present. He had been informed that many of the signatures to these petitions were in the same handwriting. He should merely observe, in conclusion, that the Chief Justice had received an address on leaving the Colony, expressive of the gratification of the inhabitants at the manner in which he had discharged his official duties.

would only remark that the signatures had been open to the inspection of the Chief Justice's friends for several days. He begged to express his entire satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and he was sure the colonists would learn with great satisfaction the mode in which the case had been treated by his Majesty's Government. With respect to the change in the Jury process, he believed that it was a violation of the charter, and it was necessary to inquire into it. The charge of having acted in his own case had, he was glad to find, met the disapprobation of Government, and had received as severe a censure as could well be inflicted upon any judicial functionary. It had been urged by the hon. Recorder that the Chief Justice was a very cool man, and therefore could not be a party man. Why, he had known men as cool as cucumbers who were violent party and most bigotted men. It was also asserted that the Chief Justice had received an address on leaving the Colony; but probably the praise of one party was the severest censure that could be cast upon the judicial conduct of a Chief Justice, who ought to be independent of all parties.

, in moving that Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman be called to the Bar, wished to put the House in possession of the reasons which induced the Committee on Orange Lodgesin Great Britain to adopt the course it had taken in this instance. Having seen a letter-book containing the correspondence of Colonel Fairman, deputy Grand Treasurer and Secretary of the Orange Institution of Great Britain, which correspondence came down to March, 1833, the Committee found some letters of an important nature, that appeared to have been answered at a period subsequent to the last date contained in the letter-book. On being asked by the Committee whether he had not another letter-book, coming down to a later period, Colonel Fairman admitted that he had, but declined to produce it, on the ground that it contained communications having reference not only to the affairs of the Orange Institution, but also to private matters. The witness being then required to produce the book, and read such portions of it only as related to the Orange Institution, he finally refused to do so. The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from the evidence of Colonel Fairman before the Committee, from which it appeared that the witness kept a letter-book containing communications respecting Orange Lodges, but he objected to produce it. It was exclusively his own, and he never laid it before the Grand Lodge. He considered himself perfectly warranted in keeping its contents secret. He admitted that he might have corresponded with persons who held Orange Lodges in the army in different parts of the world; such correspondence would appear in the letter-book. The book also contained a great number of private letters, and he objected to produce them. There were letters from himself to Lord Kenyon, which he considered private and confidential, although they might partly relate to the affairs of the Orange Institution. He was Deputy Grand Secretary to the Institution, and Lord Kenyon was Deputy Grand Master. He had received letters from Malta and the Colonies relative to Orange Lodges in the army, and was ready to lay these and the answers before the Committee. He had corresponded with the Duke of Gordon, but rather as a private friend than as an officer of the Orange Institution. He had no objection to produce the Duke of Gordon's letters. In fact, he made his objection more for form's sake than on any other account, and there was but little in his correspondence that he should object to read. The witness was finally informed, that if he did not reconsider his determination, the Committee would report to the House his refusal to produce the letter-book. Among this gentleman's papers letters had been found from Gibraltar and Malta, relating to Orange Lodges in the army. From a letler written in Gibraltar in 1832, it appeared that there were Orange Lodges in the Sappers and Miners, in the 12th Regiment, and in a battalion of the 60th Rifles. It appeared that a gentleman named M'Kellar had been introduced to Lord Kenyon, and the Committee held a recommendation of that gentleman from Lord Kenyon to Colonel Fairman, in consequence of which a warrant was granted to Mr. M'Kellar, signed by the Grand Master of the Orange Institutions of the empire, and authorizing him to establish Orange Lodges in Malta, the Ionian Islands, and other places. The Committee had before them a letter, stating this gentleman's progress in his undertaking, and the difficulties he experienced from the opposition of commanding officers in the Ionian Isles. Mr. M'Kellar communicated with Lord Nugent, who refused to allow him to found an institution of the same kind as an Orange Lodge, but under a different name. It appeared that an Orange Lodge had actually been established at Rome. The Committee had all the letters of the gentleman in question, but not a single answer. The Committee wished to have the answers in order to be able to trace the result of this proceeding, and lay before the House the operation of Orange Institutions, not only in Great Britain but in our foreign settlements and colonies. It would be for the House to determine, if they wished the Committee to prosecute the inquiry with effect, what measures should be taken for that purpose. The hon. Member concluded by moving that Lieutenant-Colonel Fairman be called in.

was called in, placed at the Bar, and interrogated by

— Do you hold any and what office connected with the Orange Lodges of England and Ireland? Yes, I hold an office connected with the Orange Lodges of England. What is the situation you hold? That of Deputy Grand Secretary and Deputy Grand Treasurer. How long have you held those situations? For the last three or four years. Have you attended to be examined before a Committee of this House appointed to inquire into the state of Orange Lodges in England and Ireland? I have for, I believe, the last five days. Have you answered all the questions which have been put to you? Yes, I have, almost gratuitously I may say. Was there any question which you have not answered, or rather which you refused to answer? No, not any question that I am aware of, Have you produced any documents in your possession which were demanded of you? I have produced a variety of documents. Have you produced all the documents that were asked of you? All that I considered public documents I have produced, or rather they were extorted from me. Have you produced all that were required of you, or have you refused to produce any particular document? I do not know that I have. Everything in my possession I have given up with the greatest pleasure; no, not with the greatest pleasure, but the greatest readiness. Have you any book that you have refused to produce? No, not any that I consider the Committee had any right to call for. Is there any book that you have refused to produce, and which was required of you? Yes, there is one, a private book, which I have at home. For what reason have you refused to produce this book?—Because I considered it a private book—a book which never was laid before either the Grand Lodge or the Grand Master, and for which, consequently, the Committee had no right to ask. I conceive I had a right to refuse its production. Does that book contain any information respecting the proceedings of Orange Lodges?—It contains my answers to letters I received; but those letters more particularly relate to private matters, unconnected with Orange Lodges in the army. Does it contain any official answers to communications, official communications, made by you connected with the business of Orange Lodges? A great many.

.— Has any proposition been made to you to extract such letters as related exclusively to Orange Institutions? Yes. I wish to know what was the answer of the witness to such a proposition? Being disposed to meet the wishes of the Committee I wanted to come to a distinct understanding that nothing else should be required. I refused the production of the book more upon public than private principle, and least of all upon Orange grounds. Would the Committee come to the understanding that they were only to have copies of such letters in the book as relate exclusively to Orange Institutions? The question did not go to that extent. The idea was that this book contained the names of persons connected with the army. I said I could not, from recollection, say whether there were any such answers contained in the book; but that if, upon looking over it I found any, I would give them up. Upon the understanding, as you have stated, that you would look over the book, and if there were any letters in it relating to military lodges, you would furnish them, did you offer to produce all matters relating to military lodges, that being the principal object of the inquiry?

rose to order. [The witness was ordered to withdraw.] The hon. and learned Member then said, no distinction was made by the Committee between the military and the civil parts of the inquiry.

contended that the Committee were bound to confine themselves to the army only.

said he must suggest to the House whether the line of examination which the hon. and gallant Officer opposite was pursuing was the proper one under the circumstances? The witness had been asked, not whether he had refused to give up all letters relating to Orange Lodges in the army, but whether he had refused to give up all letters whether relating to Orange Lodges in the army or not?

would state exactly how the evidence before the Committee stood. The witness admitted that the book contained the copies of letters connected with the general question of Orange Societies, and when the Committee said that they were anxious to have all the information it contained before them, he then offered to furnish them with extracts from it, of all matters relating to the army, provided they would limit their demand to that. Of course the Committee refused to make any bargain with him of the sort, and in this way the matter rested.

said, that notwithstanding the lecture on evidence which he had received from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he must say that he could conduct the examination of the witnesses in as fair, manly, aboveboard, and impartial a manner as if he had taken the lesson which had been read to him. He would not, however, take the hon. and learned Gentleman's lesson.

said that was no proof the hon. and gallant Officer did not want it.

conceived that the hon. and gallant Officer had a right to put any question to the witness he thought fit.

was sure the House would do him the justice to admit that the question he had put to the witness was one which was calculated to extract from him answers which must prevent him from concealing anything even if he were so inclined, which evidently was not the case. He, therefore, did not deserve the attack which had been made upon him. But all he could say was, that he would rather be exposed to the hon. and learned Member's censure than be the object of his commendation.

conceived the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to the question of the hon. and gallant Officer related to the words "that being the principal object of appointing the committee."

I may have been irregular, but I must contend that such is not the fact.

considered the inquiry to be much broader than the hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose, for it was not limited to anything specific, but included the whole of the Orange institutions in Great Britain.

thought the question put to the witness by the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo a very proper one.

said, that one principal fact had been omitted, and that was that a book was produced purporting to contain the correspondence of the Orange Lodges down to the month of March, 1833. The book now called for contained the continuation of that correspondence. In the book produced was a letter which proved the establishment of Orange Lodges in the army. In that letter the following passage occurred—"I am aware that there are great objections to it, and I would advise you to be cautious and circumspect, for if you are not it will tend to inquiry into the societies." As this suppressed book was no more than a continuation of the book which had been submitted to the Committee the House ought to order its production, in order that the correspondence should be seen.

suggested whether the better course would not be to have the witness recalled.

having been re-conducted to the Bar, was again examined by

. Now, Sir, I wish to know whether the book which you have called a private book, and which you have refused to furnish to the Committee, is a continuation of the letter-book of which the Committee are already in possession? It certainly is not a continuation.

That book contains letters subsequent to those which are to be found in the book which you have produced? Decidedly. Is there in that book other correspondence respecting Orange institutions, addressed to members not in the army? Decidedly. The correspondence contained in it is principally with persons not in the army. The exceptions do not amount to more than three or four. And those others you refuse to produce? Yes, I refuse to produce them on public principles, and not on Orange grounds.

When you receive letters do you submit them to the Grand Orange Lodge or to any member of it? Never. Would it be your duty to submit any letters you might receive to any person connected with the Orange Lodges? Certainly not; that is a matter over which I exercise an individual opinion. Do you mean to say, then, that there is no power that could oblige you to place before the Lodge any original letter?—I do not mean to say any such thing, for there is such a power. If, then, the Grand Lodge required you to give them the answer you returned to a particular letter, would it not be your duty to communicate it?—Certainly. I should look back to see if such a letter had been answered, but it does not always follow that letters are answered. Would you, supposing such a request were made of you by the Grand Lodge, consult the book which you refuse to produce, to see if the particular letter was answered?—Certainly.

Are you obliged, by any law of the Orange Institutions, to produce the private book which you have declined submitting to the inspection of the Committee?—No.

If the Grand Orange Lodge required the answer or the copy of the answer given by you to a particular communication, would you look for it in this book?—Undoubtedly. If the lodge required to have the book itself would you refuse to let them have it?—I think it very likely.

Does the book already produced to the Committee belong to you or to the Orange Society?—That book I found in the office when I entered it. I never had any control over it. But my own book I consider as my own private document. Does it contain private correspondence?—Yes, it does in many instances. Did you make any offer respecting it to the Committee on Orange affairs?—Yes, I did; but I was afterwards obliged to withdraw that offer, because they would not accede to the proposition which I made to them. I think no honourable man could do otherwise under the circumstances. Have you, then, a decided objection to produce that book?—I have.

Do the private letters you speak of refer chiefly to Orange matters? Chiefly. [The witness here said that as he had not seen the evidence taken before the Committee on the matter in question he hoped the House would order it to be read over to him before he was required to answer any other question. He made this application under the supposition that it was not inconsistent with the rules of the House.]

begged to inform the witness that he had already read the whole of the questions and answers relating to his refusal to produce any part of this book except that which related to the military portion of the inquiry. The witness said, he believed that there had been a sort of compromise between him and the Committee.

considered the request of Colonel Fairman so fair and reasonable that he must move that the shorthand writer be ordered to read over in his presence the notes which he had taken of the evidence.

said, that they might now put to the witness the same questions which had been put to him by the Committee. This, he thought, would answer the object which the hon. Baronet had in view. Nothing could be more fair and candid than the conduct of the witness before the Committee.

said, that the whole of the evidence should be read, if they meant that the witness should rightly understand the course which it would be for him to take.

must protest against any such proceeding, because it would lead to manifest inconvenience if the evidence taken before a Committee up stairs was to be read over in that House. Besides, the adoption of so unusual a course would guide the witness as to the evidence which he should give, and enable him to reconcile any contradiction or discrepancy which might exist between his present and his former statements.

said, that the object was not to instruct the witness in the answers which he was to give, but rather to direct him as to the course which he ought to take with respect to whether he ought to give up or withhold this book.

. I believe, Sir, that the examination has closed [Cries of "No, no."]

denied, that the examination had closed. The witness had merely withdrawn, in order that his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis) might move, that the notes of the evidence should be read over to him.

read an extract from the evidence of Colonel Fairman, given before the Committee, to show, that Colonel Fairman had obstinately refused to yield to the wishes of the Committee.

thought it but fair to the gallant Colonel that the answers which he had given before the Committee should be read to him. It would not be right to endeavour to convict him of giving answers before the House contradictory to those given before the Committee. If the witness were proved to be guilty of contempt he should be punished for it.

said, the question before them—their object in calling the witness before the Bar of the House—was to ascertain whether he would or would not answer certain questions put to him by the Committee, and which were thought necessary to assist their inquiry; and if he would not answer these questions, the House must take the necessary measures. The question was not whether there was a discrepancy in Colonel Fairman's answers to the questions put by the Committee, and those put by the House, but whether he would now consent to produce the book called for by the Committee, and whether it were a document which ought to be produced? Colonel Fairman admitted, that he was in possession of the book, and it was, in his (Lord Howick's) opinion, a document the production of which was necessary to the inquiry. The House should call on the witness, therefore, to say whether he was now prepared to give up the book, and if so, they should overlook the former refusal.

was of opinion, that Colonel Fairman acted under the conviction that he was bound by a point of honour not to produce the book. It was fair, that the evidence which he had given before the Committee should be read to him.

said, that there was no complaint of any difference in the testimony before the House and before the Committee.

felt himself bound to say, that Colonel Fairman had given his evidence in the fairest and most manly manner up to a certain point, and that his demeanour before the Committee was most creditable and honourable. He (Mr. Aglionby) regretted, that the discussion had taken a turn which would, in the slightest degree, impute to Colonel Fairman any discrepancy in the answers which that Gentleman had given.

observed, that with regard to the consistency of Colonel Fairman's answers, there was no doubt whatever. The question was, should he or should he not give up the book?

differed from the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces. When that noble Lord said, that Colonel Fairman was bound to produce the book which Colonel Fairman stated to be his own private property, he would put it to the House whether they would assume to themselves such an inquisitorial power? If they assumed such a power over private property, he, for one, would enter his protest against it. The Colonel had agreed to give up such portions of the book as related to Orangeism in the army, but very properly withheld that portion which was private. If he (Colonel Perceval) stood in the place of Colonel Fairman he should, notwithstanding the respect in which he held that House, most certainly not give up to an inquisitorial power that which he considered his private property.

said, it would be better first to ascertain, whether the witness would persevere in his refusal to give up the document; and, if so, then the House could consider how it should proceed under the circumstances.

thought, it would be better to narrow the inquiry. It appeared, that the witness had been asked certain questions, and, for fear of a mistake, he wished to have his previous testimony read to him. Now this would be very fair, if there was any suspicion existing as to discrepancy or contradiction, but there was no suspicion in existence. The question was, whether or not the witness refused to give up the document, and on his answer the House could determine how to proceed.

said, it was right that the witness should know what was the charge against him. He should persist in his Motion, that the questions and answers be read over to Colonel Fairman.

was again called to the Bar, and re-examined.

Where did you find the first book?

I found it in the office of the Orange Society.

Were you directed to keep the other book, which you refuse to produce, by any person connected with the Orange institution, or was it merely a proceeding of your own?

I kept that book on my own and sole authority.

Were the letters in that book official, or written in your own private capacity?

They were written in my own private capacity.

Was it or was it not a continuation of the other book?

It certainly was not.

Was that book which you refused to give up official, or was it kept for your own private purposes?

I kept it for my own private purposes, and merely as a remembrance.

Did you not consent to give up such portions of it as related to military lodges?

Such a proposition was made to me, and I did express my readiness to consent to it, but with a condition, namely, that I should not be brought to the Bar of this House.

Have you any objection to give up those portions which relate to other lodges?

Certainly.

Do you now object to give up that portion which relates to military lodges?

Now, after what has occurred, I do.

Are you desirous of concealing the information which that book contains?

No, I would not care a halfpenny, if the contents were known from Whitechapel-bars, to Hyde Park-corner.

Then your refusal now to produce it is on a point of honour?

Exactly so.

Then it is upon no Orange principle that you now refuse to produce the book.

It is not.

If you had not been brought up here, is it likely you would have produced the book?

The probability is that I should not have produced it.

Do you still persevere in your refusal to produce the book?

was understood to say, that he still persevered in the refusal.

Where is the book?

It is in my own possession.

said, that he had found a precedent which would serve for the guidance of the House, under the present circumstances. It was one which occurred in the celebrated case of his late royal Highness the Duke of York, and Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke. When the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to have Capt. Sandon taken to his (Capt. Sandon's) lodgings, and to bring to the House any papers which might there be found, this was accordingly done, and then, on the Motion of Mr. Warton, the House granted leave to the Committee, which sat upon the subject, to sit again, and also granted them a power to inspect the papers in question. Here there was a case in point, and he would accordingly move, that Colonel Fairman be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who should proceed with him to his lodgings, and there take possession of this book, as well as of any other papers, which might there be found relating to Orange Lodges. He should first move that Colonel Fairman be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

protested against such an arbitrary act.

did not think the hon. Member could be serious in this proposition.

protested against the tyranny of breaking into the residence of any subject of the realm, and taking possession of his property for the purpose of satisfying an impertinent curiosity, or gratifying a desire of revenge. He really did not think the hon. Member was serious when he first made the proposition, and it could only arise out of curiosity or revenge. That the book was private property, and that it was so considered by the Committee, was evident from their proposing that Colonel Fairman's Secretary should read those portions of it which related to Orange Societies, and not those of a private nature. Would the House, then, entertain such a proposition as that before them? The book was withheld by Colonel Fairman on a point of honour, he not deeming himself bound to give up to threats that which he considered his private property. For his own part, he was of opinion, that there were some to whom the production of the book would prove a disappointment, as in that case, Colonel Fairman would not be sent to Newgate.

denied, that any person on that side of the House was actuated by motives of revenge, and did not think, it becoming in a Judge to impute any such.

said, he was not a Judge, although he held a judicial office. He regretted, that he had been borne away by his argument to say anything which could be construed into offence; but he could not help feeling warmly; and, perhaps, too warmly expressing himself, when he per- ceived a majority of that House prepared to sanction such an act of tyranny as breaking into a man's private house, and bearing away his private property.

believed, that his conduct in that House and in the country would bear comparison with the hon. and learned Gentleman's at any time. He would add, that the remarks which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made regarding him were totally and positively unfounded. He was quite incapable of either the revengeful or the tyrannical feelings imputed to him, and he demanded of the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would state any instances with which he was acquainted in which his conduct had not been as high and unexceptionable in its bearing as that of any individual in the empire. He had never forgotten himself as the hon. and learned Gentleman had.

said, he did not think that the hon. and learned Member meant seriously to impute revengeful feelings to others.

begged to bring the House back to the subject under consideration, which was, whether it would persist in putting the question to Colonel Fairman? He wished to remind them that there was no charge against this witness, notwithstanding which it was contemplated to send him to Newgate. He understood the hon. Member for Greenock to have given notice that he would move that the witness be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

wished to call the attention of the House to the exact position in which this question stood. The examination by the hon. Member for Bridport was in strict conformity with the precedents to be found on the Journals of the House; and after that examination was concluded, it would be open to the House to decide what further steps they should take with regard to the book. They had no right to object to a course of examination founded on Parliamentary precedent, from an apprehension that they might not approve of the course with which it might be proposed to follow up that examination. First, the examination should be proceeded with, then they should determine whether the book ought to be produced or not; and if the decision were in the affirmative, and the witness refused to produce it, they should then consider what further steps should be taken.

expressed his deep regret that the book wag not in his posses- sion; if it were, he would try the question with the House. He would see whether any one should enter his private chamber to carry into effect a tyrannical measure. They might pride themselves (said the hon. and gallant Member with great vehemence) on their numbers, but he could tell them that strength did not depend on numbers, but on individual resolution and determination.

moved that the witness be re-called.

Is the book under lock and key?—Yes. Have you given any orders for the removal of that book since you have been in the presence of this House—in the course of the last quarter of an hour?—No.

Were the letters you received addressed to you in the character of Secretary to the Orange Lodges?—Certainly. Does the book in question, which you refused to produce, contain any answer from you as secretary of the Orange Society to letters written on Orange subjects?—Many.

Suppose the date of the first entry in the book to be 1835, is there entered in it all your official correspondence from the period?—Certainly not, by a great deal. Are you willing to produce, for the information of the Committee of this House, all the official information which you have, in the shape of correspondence or otherwise, respecting these Lodges?—Certainly. In answer to Mr. O'Connell, the witness said if he had letters of more than ordinary importance he generally entered them in a book. Examination continued by Mr. Borthwick: In the event of your absence for some months, what becomes of the letters and answers?—If they were letters of consequence, I forwarded the necessary instructions; if they were letters of mere routine, the persons in the office answered them to the best of their ability. I refuse on public principles to produce the book. I consider it inquisitorial to call for it, and therefore I refuse. The witness was ordered to withdraw.

moved that Colonel Fairman be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

submitted to the hon. Gentleman that this would be going rather too quickly. The first point to be determined was, whether the book was one which ought to be produced?

begged that the witness might be re-called. He had a very important question to put to him. The witness was re-called and examined by the hon. Gentleman: Is the book in question your property?—I consider it my property. Are the entries in that book for your own satisfaction, or for the use and benefit of this society?—For my own satisfaction.

I beg to ask the witness whether part of that book is not in the handwriting of the Deputy Secretary of the Orange Lodge?—No doubt about it.

You say the book contains copies of answers which you wrote to the Orange Institutions; did you sign your name simply, or did you add your title?—Generally speaking I signed but my name: it is universally known what office I hold, and I do not think it necessary to sign D. G. S.

Do you consider the letters addressed to you in your capacity of secretary, your own private property or the property of the society?—The property of the society. Do you consider the official answers which you give to those communications to you, in your capacity of secretary, to belong to the society?—I do; because if I am called on to do so by the Grand Lodge, or by the Committee, I must produce them.

Have you any other books containing correspondence between the Orange Lodges and the Grand Secretary?—None.

said that the Motion he should now put to the House was, that the witness who had just left the Bar was bound to produce the book. And he did not call on the House, in asking them to affirm this proposition, to affirm at the same time, the second proposition, namely, as to whether any and what steps should be taken to dissever that portion of the correspondence which was of a personal and private character from that which was purely public. He should not allude to the refusal of the witness to produce the book, but he would bring to mind the admission of the witness as to the contents of the book. Of what avail would it be to institute inquiries if they were to be opposed by such obstacles as were now under consideration? To what purpose would they appoint Committees empowered to call for "persons, papers, and records," if they established a precedent for witnesses bidding defiance to the powers of the House, themselves laying down the line by which they were to be governed? This witness could not be considered a private individual; he took upon himself a high official situation. The book in question contained copies of the letters the witness had received, acting in his official capacity, and also of the answers that had been sent; and they were in no other book. Such was that individual's admission. Then he asked was this correspondence relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry before the Committee? If it were, would not the investigation of the Committee be fettered—would it not be barred altogether—if this evidence were not produced? What would be the result if he, a Minister of the Crown, took such a course? If he said, in answer to a demand for some important papers, that they were in his possession, but he had allowed them to be mixed up with private matters, and he would not produce them—would he be allowed to rest for one hour? Would there not be moved by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, as well as by hon. Gentlemen on his side, that an address be presented to the Crown on the subject, or that he be impeached? In no Court of justice would a witness be allowed to refuse to produce such evidence. Unless they were prepared to turn all their proceedings into a farce—unless they were disposed to bring ridicule upon them—unless they had determined to afford lo every public delinquent the most easy way of screening himself from justice—they would demand the production of this book—they would demand that the whole of the proof they required should be laid before them. He appealed for support, in the view he took, to the hon. Member who seconded the motion for the appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into Orange Lodges, and who told the House on that occasion that there was no document—that there was not anything connected with the Orange Lodges—which they wished to keep back—who, indeed, even declared that they were anxious for an opportunity to produce their documents. He appealed also to the hon. Member for Chatham, whom he was glad to see returning to his place. The language, from one and all of the supporters of the Orange Lodges, was, that they did not fear the light, but that, on the contrary, every act and document connected with those societies, they were ready to submit to examination, and to justify. He would say that they ought to put aside all those little considerations of nice points of honour, and come boldly to the question. The truth must be told. The question as to what course a Gentleman ought to take under durance was not applicable here. To make out the case, the conduct must come after durance and a threat, but here the refusal came first. The witness was asked this simple question—whether he would produce the book—and he refused. He was quite disposed to give full weight to the feelings of honour, however mistaken they might have been, but before it was established that the witness was entitled to such consideration, there was his refusal in the first instance to be explained. He was most anxious to protect the principle of private confidence, but he would not do it in a mode to defeat justice and screen offenders against the laws. These being his opinions, he would conclude by moving that the witness be called in, and informed that it was the opinion of the House that he was bound to produce the book which had been alluded to in his evidence.

seconded the motion. The House ought to know that the witness having been called before the Committee a second time, was told that they were informed the book had been recently seen in his possession, and it was hoped he would not object to produce it. The witness, however, did refuse to produce it, alleging as his reason that it contained letters from Lord Sidmouth and a number of great men among whom was the King of Spain. With the King of Spain of course the Committee had nothing to do.

moved an Amendment to the effect that only such portions of the document in question should be produced as related to the subject matter of the inquiry.

said, that the witness had no desire to keep back the letters, and that he would have been perfectly willing to accede to their production had he been properly asked. A sort of threat had been held out after he had first refused, whereupon he said that he would not produce them; again, however, he added that, considering himself committed to their production, he would assent to it, and then the question was put as to the production of papers relating to Orange Societies generally. In his opinion, the importance attached to this case was very absurd. He believed that not the least objection existed to the production of the documents in question, or of any other relating to Orange institutions. From first to last he had thought that the witness ought to have produced the letters and every document which related to the subject-matter of the inquiry.

observed that he had not intended to cast any insinuation upon the Committee in any observations which he had made. If the witness refused to produce the book in question, as he hoped he would not, he for one should desire to make him produce it; but he believed that the witness had objected to the production of it under an impression that a threat had been held out to him.

corroborated the statement of the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), that the witness had not at first refused to produce such part of the letters as related to the subject of military lodges, but that afterwards, considering that a sort of threat was held out to him, upon the point of producing those relating to Orange Lodges generally, he had felt bound, consulting his honour as a military man to refuse. A Court of law had no authority whatever to force a witness to produce documents. If he refused to produce them, he might be personally punished, but the Court had no means of reaching the documents themselves.

wished, upon the subject of the hon. and learned Gentleman's last observation, that the Court had no power to compel the production of documents, to state a case somewhat in point—that of the Dorchester labourers. Those men were taken before a Magistrate—they were sent to gaol and searched—their keys were taken from them—a constable was sent to their houses—their boxes were opened, their papers were taken out of them; and the papers so taken furnished the ground of the allegations against them. Now, really, if they were to have justice at all, let them have evenhanded justice—and let not an Orange Society, because it was headed by a Duke, have a preference over a secret society, which was headed by a village labourer.

could not allow the Resolution to pass without protesting against it, on account of the principle which it involved. If a precedent were to be laid down for breaking into a man's house for the purpose of seizing his private docu- ments, though they related to public matters, a principle of the most odious inquisitorial nature would be established. Whether it would be wise on the part of the witness to produce or withhold them, still he was not bound to produce them, as they were private, and not official.

said, a more dangerous doctrine there could not be than that because a man alleges a particular document to be private he is therefore at liberty to withhold it, so as to defeat the ends of justice. Such a defence as that could not be received in a Court of Justice. As to the preference to the Dorchester Labourers, the case was not applicable. There the parties were regularly accused of having acted in defiance of the law, and the papers were seized, in order to arrive at the evidence against them. That was not the case in the present instance. The book which contained public documents could not be considered a private book, and therefore the witness was bound to produce it. Even if it were a private book he would be bound to produce it.

as a Member of the Committee, must say that Colonel Fairman at first refused to give any evidence before the Committee. It was true he attempted to justify his refusal by saying that there were certain secrets which he could not reveal. He proposed to trust to the honour of Colonel Fairman as a gentleman to keep back what was private, and divulge what was public. That act he (Mr. Aglionby) would not now justify, for he was of opinion that the gentleman should furnish any information within his reach, private as well as public.

would support the Amendment, which was the only fair and expedient proposition to adopt. He was utterly amazed at the proposition laid down by the learned Gentleman opposite. Surely no Court of Justice could compel a man to reveal what was private, or personal to himself, the question was one of contempt. Now, it was the practice in the case of contempt of a Court of Law to attach the party. The party was then to be heard on his affidavit against the attachment, and was allowed to show cause. But was that rule observed in the present instance? In fact every rule of a Court of justice was positively laughed at in the present discussion. No Gentleman in that House could take it upon him to say that if a gentleman of untarnished character declared that the book contained private matter he was guilty of contempt. He did not object to the production of the book, but he objected to an invasion on the private secrets of life—he objected to a wanton and cruel exposure of a man's personal affairs. Let the book be produced, and the part that was relevant to the subject be separated from what was not. Surely the House should, in its proceedings, bear some analogy to a Court of Justice. When the question of Orange Lodges was first introduced there was a general cry of "Produce the books," and hints were given that those documents would not be produced; but what was the fact? Why, that all the officers of the Lodges in Ireland did promptly produce all their books and documents.

said, that as to the parallel attempted to be drawn between Orange Lodges and the case of the Dorchester labourers he would observe that if it could be proved that the Orangemen were an illegal body they would have been gladly prosecuted by the Government; and they were spared, and reluctantly, because they were legal. Let the Government fasten on any particular fact, and punish the Orangemen. But they knew they could not, and perhaps they regretted it, for the Orange Association was a legal one. [Mr. Hume: "No, no."] The Society might be opposed to the capricious and loose doctrines of the hon. Member for Middlesex on loyalty, but they were not the less a legal and loyal body on that account. The hon. Member said "No," but all the great constitutional lawyers said yes. Let the opinion of the Judges be taken on the point of legality, and let the question be tried by that test. If other Societies—the Political Unions, the Reform Societies, and the Radical Clubs—were submitted to the same ordeal of probation—if they were exposed to the light as the Orange Societies were, would they bear the scrutiny as well? They could not; and perhaps the hon. Member himself would admit the fact. The more the Orange Society was examined and sifted the more creditable would it appear; for it was neither disloyal, nor unfriendly, nor unneighbourly.

said though opposed to Orange and other secret Societies, yet he could not, as an honest man, sanction the inquisitorial and tyrannical precedent that the original Motion would lay down.

was ordered to appear at the Bar.

addressed him as follows:—It is my duty to inform you that this House is of opinion that you should produce the book which has been alluded to in your evidence, and which you declined to produce before the Committee. Without adverting to the foundations for that which you considered as a point of honour obligatory on yourself, I am confident that you will feel that, when the House has come to the Resolution that you are bound to produce that book, you will forthwith comply with the opinion of this House, because you must be aware that your first duty, and one which supersedes all private and personal feelings of your own, is to yield prompt obedience to the pleasure of this House. You may now withdraw.

withdrew.

moved that the consideration of the Petition of Silas Pearse (presented on the 17th of August), complaining of the conduct of Government, in February last, in relation to a contract for the supply of limestone to the Breakwater at Plymouth, should be referred to a Select Committee.

said, that the grievance complained of occurred in February last; yet now, on the 19th of August, the hon. Gentleman proposed to take into consideration the conduct of an individual who had been for the last five months in London, but who was now in Ireland with his family, and unable to defend himself. He hoped the hon. Member would have too much justice to conduct the prosecution in the absence of the accused. Why not bring forward the affair before, while his friend was present to defend himself? That would have been a more fitting and honourable course than to impeach him the moment he left the country.

did not know why it was the petition was put so late in his hands, but immediately on its receipt he took measures for instituting an investigation. He thought there would be plenty of time to enter upon the subject, even though some days must elapse before the return of Mr. Dawson.

said, it would be impossible Mr. Dawson could be in London within a week. He thought it was far too late in the Session to proceed with such an inquiry as the hon. Member proposed. It would even be difficult to get a sufficient number of Members to constitute a Committee. And the chances were, before Mr. Dawson arrived, Parliament would be prorogued.

expressed his surprise that when the malversation of a public functionary was the question to be submitted to the consideration of the proposed Committee, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashley), during whose continuance in office, as one of the Lords of the Admiralty, the ascribed breach of duty was said to have taken place, should have objected to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bridport. In his opinion the Lords of the Admiralty were the most deeply interested in the investigation which it was intended to institute before the Committee, for it was scarcely possible that the Secretary should have signed the order which formed the subject of the Petition which had already been presented without the assent of the Lords of the Admiralty.

was certainly astonished that this subject was not brought to an investigation at an earlier period of the Session. He would say now, however, that he was perfectly willing to take all responsibility that could fairly be attached to him on himself, and to abide by the decision even of the hon. Member for Middlesex as judge.

said that he had postponed his Motion at an early period of the Session for a considerable time, in order to accommodate the noble Lord (Lord Ashley.)

was old enough to recollect that on one occasion Mr. J. Wilson Croker turned round on Sir Joseph Yorke, and declared that he, as Secretary, was only the servant of the Admiralty. He did not think, then, that it was any ground for refusing the appointment of the Committee that the Secretary to the Admiralty was absent in Ireland, when the Lords of the Admiralty must be prepared to meet the charges intended to be brought against them.

moved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill, and the order having been read, he moved that the Bill be read a second time.

said, that although he did not intend to object to the second reading of the Bill, there were yet some clauses in it from which he so strongly dissented, that he could not permit the Bill to be read a second time without offering a few observations upon it. He would, in the first place, call the attention of the Committee to the title of the Bill. It was intituled, a Bill "to amend the law relative to the Registry of Voters in Ireland, and to taking the poll at elections, in that part of the United Kingdom, and to assimilate the same as nearly as may be to the law in force in England and Wales." That certainly was a plausible title; but, in reading the Bill, he found it deviating in many important particulars from the practice in England—and, amongst others, he would cite the case of granting the power of appointing the Revising Barristers in Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant, whereas, in England, the right existed in the Judges. He must own that if no other discrepancy existed, that one case alone would do away with much of the confidence which reading the title of the Bill was calculated to inspire. If any person were to refer to the preamble of the Bill, they would be led to believe that a new Registry under it was absolutely necessary. The first clause under it was as follows, viz.:—

"That notwithstanding any law now in force in Ireland, no person whatever shall, after the first day of March next, be entitled or permitted to vote in the election of any Member to serve in Parliament for any county, city, town or borough in Ireland, the borough of the University of Dublin only excepted, unless he shall have been duly registered according to the provisions of this Act; and that from and after the said first day of March, any Registry not made under the provisions of this Act, shall be null and void, and of no effect; and that no Sheriff or other Returning Officer in Ireland shall, after the said first day of March next, receive or place on the poll the vote of any person by reason of any right, qualification, certificate or registry whatsoever, unless such person shall have been duly registered pursuant to this Act."

So far as that Clause went, every one would suppose that a new Registry was bonâ fide intended; but, on turning to the 9th Clause, it would be seen that it was intended to protect the fictitious voters, which had been improperly placed upon the Registry. The Clause was as follows:—

And be it further enacted, that the said Revising Barrister shall also revise the list of the names of the persons now registered, or who shall appear on the register hereby directed to be kept, as having been registered by the Revising Barrister under this Act, and shall examine into any objection which may be made to the right of any such person to have his name continued on such register, provided it shall appear to such Barrister that such objection is founded on some matter respecting the qualification of such voter, which occurred since the former revision or registry.

It was, he contended, a manifest fallacy to say, that this Act provided that there should be a revision of the registry; and if passed, it would have the effect of keeping in the registry those who obtained their franchise by any means, no matter how foul. If the House would look to the proceedings of their own Committees they would see that, with perhaps two exceptions, revisions had taken place. In Monaghan, Longford, Carlow, and Galway, he could state from his own knowledge that a scrutiny had been granted, and in all, numbers of fictitious voters had been struck off the poll. By the present Bill a scrutiny was only to be permitted in cases where "the objection was founded upon circumstances which had occurred since the registry." If that Clause did not nullify the preamble, he did not understand the meaning of plain terms. He had already shown the direct variation that existed between the law of England and the proposed measure, and he should like to know why it was that the English Judges should have the appointment of the Revising Barristers, while the Irish fudges had no such privilege; those learned personages were, in his opinion, the fittest to make the appointments; and as the Bill professed to assimilate the laws in both countries, "as nearly as may be," he saw nothing to prevent the appointments being made by the Judges in both countries. There were many parts of the Bill of which he (Colonel Perceval) approved, and if the preamble were fairly carried out, he thought the Measure, on the whole, would be a useful one. From the 9th he should proceed to the 49th Clause; which he was bound in the strongest manner to object to. It appeared to him, if not the production of a different hand, never to have entered into the contemplation of the original framer of the Bill. He (Colonel Perceval) could easily divine the purpose for which it was introduced, and most probably it had its origin in circumstances which had recently occurred in a Committee of that House. The Clause was as follows:—

And be it declared and enacted, that in estimating and determining whether any person who shall claim to be allowed to register as a voter has a beneficial interest to the amount in value required by the said in part recited act of the second and third years of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, "an act to amend the representation of the people of Ireland," in or out of the premises in respect whereof he claims to register, the said revising barristers, or any judge, on an appeal to him, shall estimate such value according to the beneficial interest which the person so claiming to register has in such premises, and not according to the rent which a solvent tenant could afford to pay for the same, over and above the rent which the person so claiming to register is liable to pay.

To that Clause he (Colonel Perceval) most strongly objected, inasmuch as it went to repeal an Act of Parliament incidentally, and opened a door for fraud in Ireland, which would let in a pauper constituency, which it was one of the objects of the Reform Bill to guard against. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped in Committee the two Clauses he had alluded to would be struck out, though he must confess that, at this late period of the Session, he should prefer its being postponed altogether.

said that he was opposed to the 9th Clause, as he saw no reason why the revision should not be general; that Clause certainly was not introduced by the framers of the Bill. As the gallant Member for Sligo, however, was not opposed to the principle of the Measure, he hoped the House would unanimously agree to go into the Committee, and make the Bill as perfect as possible. He (Mr. O'Connell) was opposed to giving the conduct of the registry to the Assistant Barristers, as, in his opinion, it would get into worse hands, he objected to mixing up the judicial and political character at all, and, therefore, he hoped the House would not throw the appointment of the Revising Barristers into the hands of the Judges. There was no man in that House would assert that the Judges in Ireland were not political Judges. Even Baron Pennefather, whom he used to praise, had become as violent a political partisan as Baron Smith or any of the rest of them. The Bill, he thought, should proceed to make the registries conclusive for the year, and ought not to give power to a Committee of that House, who were determined to decide one way, regardless of the solemn sanction of the oath they had taken. He was for preventing the possibility of getting seats in that House by the horrible method of false swearing on the part of their friends in Committees. He could not account for recent decisions, except by supposing perjury to have been committed. ["Order, order."]

rose to order, and said he thought it most discreditable for any Member to attribute perjury to Members of that House. He must say that the imputation could not personally apply to him, inasmuch as he never sat on a Committee since the day he first entered Parliament. He begged to call upon the Chair to state whether or not the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin were orderly or not.

said, that nothing could be more disorderly than for a Member to state that Members had obtained seats in that House by the false swearing of their friends.

all he said was, that the present system might afford that opportunity. The objection to the last Clause he thought unjust as well as absurd. Now, was it not a great anomaly that a chattel interest should be valued differently from a freehold interest; and here he might be permitted to state that, a Chief Justice in Ireland framed a new oath, not the one described in the act. He mentioned the circumstance to show the manner in which Irish Judges acted. He considered a ten-pound franchise too high for so poor a country as Ireland. The object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to exclude the people, but his (Mr. O'Connell's) was to give the franchise to as great a number of the people of Ireland as he possibly could. The wish of the Government ought to be to extend the constituency, and the people of Ireland could never be attached to any government who excluded them from the franchise.

complained of the expense of booths, and the various expenses incident upon a contested election being placed upon the county. He thought they were sufficiently taxed at present without having any additional burden placed upon them.

hoped that voters would be allowed to vote in different districts as in England, and not be obliged to travel twenty-five or thirty or more miles to the poll, as they were at present under the necessity of doing. This was rendered more necessary, as two days were only to be allowed for the election.

said, it was impossible to sit silent and hear the hon. and learned Gentleman slander every member of his own profession, from the highest judge on the bench to the humblest member of the bar. He (Mr. Shaw) denied that the judges in Ireland were political partizans. So far as their politics had been known before they were on the bench, they held as various opinions on the Roman Catholic and other great political questions of the day as any other class of men; but, as to their judicial acts since having been in any respect influenced by their political opinions, it was an assertion the hon. and learned Gentleman would scarcely venture upon in his own country, where those judges were known. But, in truth, his abuse was unsparing of every one in authority, from the highest to the lowest; and how inconsistent was the hon. and learned Gentleman in that very Bill, when he proposed to give a final and conclusive appeal to those very judges whom he said could not be depended upon. He would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, as it contained some good provisions, although he greatly objected to others—for instance, that which took the registration out of the hands of the assistant-barristers, and vested it in those of barristers appointed for the occasion by the existing Government; also, to that Clause which rendered valid all votes now registered, however fraudulently, there having been before no appeal except to that House, in case of their improper admission. All he required was, that an appeal should be given in all such cases; and, for the future, when there was to be an appeal to the judge both ways, as well in case of improper admission as improper rejection, he was satisfied that that should be final. As to limiting the number of days for polling, if that was adopted—and he had some doubts as to its propriety—then the corresponding arrangement in the English practice, of distinct polling places, should also be adopted. He meant to propose an Amendment in respect of the University of Dublin, which, he believed, would not be objected to—namely, to change the annual payment of 1l. by the electors to a septennial one; and, instead of requiring a demand and refusal, to make the omission to pay once in seven years an absolute forfeiture of the franchise.

said, it was of the utmost importance that some criterion should be fixed, in order to establish what was meant by a beneficial interest. There was no doubt on his mind, however, that it was such an interest as should give 10l. over rent and charges. That was the decision come to by the Carlow Committee, and, in his mind, a most just one. He considered the judges the proper persons to appoint the barristers, in the event of the duty of registering being taken from the assistant-barristers; and he trusted his Majesty's Ministers would see the necessity of adopting the suggestions which had been thrown out.

said, in framing the Bill, it was his anxious desire to render it an effective Measure, and was desirous even now to receive suggestions calculated to effect that purpose. With respect to the 9th Clause, he did not feel inclined to persevere in maintaining it in the Bill, provided the general feeling of the Irish Members was opposed to it. He thought, as to the appointment of the barristers being vested in the Crown in Ireland, that was the proper course, inasmuch as there was no appeal to the judges in England, whereas the Bill proposed to give an appeal in Ireland. He denied that the counties would be taxed 300l. a-year for the payment of barristers. At present, the assistant-barristers received 100l. a-year each for the arduous duties imposed on them. As those duties were to be taken away, of course the 100l. a-year was also to be withdrawn, and this would more than pay the new registering barristers. He wished he could hold out a hope of establishing different districts for polling in Ireland; but the state of that country was such, that he feared it would be impossible to accomplish it.

did not rise for the purpose of opposing the second reading of the Bill, but he considered he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, as a Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland, were he to permit the observations which fell from the lion, and learned Member for Dublin, with reference to the judges of the land in that country, to pass without his rising in his place to repel imputations which were at once calumnious and unfounded. It did appear to him to be a matter fraught with incalculable mischief to the administration of justice in Ireland to permit such reflections to be made without meeting on the instant the most unqualified contradiction; and he owned he felt great disappointment that his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General for Ireland (Mr. O'Loghlen) holding as he did the high office of legal adviser to the Crown, should not have vindicated the judges of the land from the foul aspersions which had been cast upon them by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but should have maintained a total silence on the subject. He felt it his duty to state, that the judges in Ireland were as upright and honourable men as ever graced the bench in any country, and were quite incapable of being influenced in their conduct by political partizanship. He certainly did think that nothing could be more calculated to prejudice the administration of justice in Ireland, than attacks such as they had that night heard upon the Judges, made in the face of the nation, and especially in the presence of the Ministers and Law Officers of the Crown. With respect to the Assistant-Barristers in Ireland, he must say, that as a class they were men of great learning and ability, and of rank and character in their profession. In his judgment, they were more competent to perform the duties which were to be taken from them by the present Bill, than the occasional nominees of the Government were likely to prove. It was too much to be feared that the Government of the day would select for the performance of this duty, if not political partizans, at least individuals recommended to their notice by those who were the political partizans and supporters of their Administration; and he (Mr. Jackson) had little difficulty in imagining from whom the noble Lord (Morpeth) who was a stranger in Ireland, would receive suggestions and recommend- ations in the present instance. He feared that professional merit and competence would not be the qualities sought for; but the object would be to find men who would be likely to promote the interests of a party. In order to show the nature of the selections which had been made on former occasions, the hon. Member stated that he had been informed on authority, upon which he could rely, that a Registering-Barrister, acting under the Reform Bill, had occupied a considerable time in hearing a learned argument upon the Question, whether a lease for 999 years were not a fee simple estate. Mr. Jackson added, that his object in addressing the House was not to discuss the Measure before the House, it being agreed that it should go before a Committee, when he hoped its details would be much improved, but solely to vindicate the Irish Bench from the unwarrantable imputations cast upon them by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and he only regretted that it had been left to so humble an individual as himself to discharge that imperative duty.

said, that he certainly objected to the part of the Bill which protected persons at present registered from being subject to any scrutiny. As a Member of the Carlow Committee, he could state, that it appeared in evidence before them that men had sworn they possessed a beneficial interest of ten pounds out of a farm of three or four acres, for which they paid two or three guineas an acre; whereas it was distinctly proved they possessed no such interest.

moved the order of the day for the House going into Committee on the Landed Securities' Bill.

said, he had heard no statement made to the House which should induce it to go into Committee on this Bill. The first and second readings having been allowed to pass without any observations whatever, he was, therefore, induced to trouble the House with a short statement of the circumstances under which he brought forward the original Bill, and those under which they were now called on to repeal one of its main provisions. On the fate of that Clause which they were now called on to repeal, the Bill itself depended. It did not appear to him at all unreasonable to allow parties to lay out monies to be invested in real security in England and Wales upon Irish security. He denied that any inconvenience could possibly result from that provision; it had already wrought beneficially for Ireland, and it was an answer to the whole objection to say that the Act was entirely optional, not imperative. It was highly advantageous to bring money under the authority of this Act, and thereby subjecting it to the English courts. But it was said, that there being a registry in Ireland and none in England the law must be administered differently. That argument, however, could not for a moment be listened to by any one who understood the law. With respect to the form of process there could be no difficulty. After a suitor had proceeded to a certain extent in the English courts to obtain principal and interest, he was bound to carry back the decree to Ireland in order to be enrolled, and the Irish courts would then issue process. Then, as to the remedy by foreclosure: There was scarcely a mortgage without a trust for sale, and in that case, undoubtedly, it might be so. With respect to public bodies, they would not have the remedy by foreclosure; they would come within the statute of mortmain. But what was to prevent any party under this Act to stipulate that the remedy should be by sale and not by foreclosure? If a person were obliged to agree to the terms proposed, it was because he could not go elsewhere, and it must be for his advantage to get money under the provisions of this Bill. Why should a landlord involved in great difficulties—perhaps about to be dragged to prison—why should he not be allowed to take advantage of this Act, and borrow money, not at 6l. per cent., as at present, but at 5l. per cent.? Why not give him the power, the option, of coming under this Act? He did not find that any petitions had been presented from the landed proprietors of Ireland against this Bill in its original form, although all the grand juries had their attention specifically called to it. In fact, as two petitions had been presented against it, emanating from certain societies of solicitors in Dublin, who went so far as to take the opinion of counsel against the Bill, it seemed as if they were afraid of losing business by its operation; but, instead of being losers they would, in reality, be gainers by it. In case proceedings should take place, the answer must be prepared in Ireland; and if evidence were necessary, the commission to examine wit- nesses would be executed in Ireland. There was nothing more injurious than the present system of borrowing money on land in Ireland; not only was the landlord harassed, but the tenant also. How was the tenant to determine as to the priority of the custodium creditors? One calls at one, another at two, and another at three o'clock; how was he to ascertain their priorities? He had only one alternative to pursue—either to pay them all, or set the whole at defiance. It was to put an end to this great inconvenience that he brought in the former Bill; it had passed into an Act and had done good already to Ireland, and he was convinced it would, in future, if allowed to remain as it was, operate much more beneficially. He objected, therefore, to this proposed alteration of the Act, not only because it would destroy the main provisions of the Bill, but also because it was a substantial breach of faith towards those who had availed themselves of its enactments. He, therefore, begged leave to move that the Committee be postponed till this day six months.

confessed he was rather surprised at the course of objection which had been taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the present occasion. That hon. and learned Gentleman did not think this particular clause at all necessary when he contrived and brought forward the original Bill. It went through that House without it, and in another place this objectionable clause was inserted. He had, therefore, the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself in favour of the Bill without this clause. He could not think it fair or right to proceed against Irish estates, as if they were situated in England. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it would be a breach of faith towards those who had come under the act to strike out this particular section; but it was expressly provided that its repeal should have no retrospective bearing. Those parties would not in the slightest degree be affected by it, because it was only to have a prospective operation. He considered that a sufficient answer to such an objection. The consequence of being obliged to proceed according to the 9th section, as if the lands were in an English county, would be, that the suit must be conducted agreeably to the law of England; but although, with respect to registry, the English court might proceed in the same manner as the Irish in questions of contract, as to matters that were transitory, he never heard that doctrine applied to fixed property. It was totally impossible to administer Irish laws in a cause instituted in the English courts. He did not hazard this opinion on his own authority alone. The first legal opinions in Ireland had been taken on the subject. The late Attorney-General, and the present Solicitor-General, for Ireland, concurred in the opinion which he then held in his hand, and in which they strongly deprecated the Bill in its present shape, and urged the necessity of its immediate repeal. He trusted he had stated enough to convince the House that the section introduced in another House of Parliament should be repealed.

said, it appeared to him that the attempt made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) was an attempt to extend one of the most mischievous Bills, in point of principle, that ever passed that House. What did that Bill provide for? That trustees, who were bound to invest their monies in real security in England and Wales, might be at liberty to lay it out in Ireland. This qualification, however, was imposed—if this money were to be lent on Irish security, it should remain within the jurisdiction of the English courts. That provision undoubtedly took the sting out of it; and if that alone were repealed, the greatest injustice would be done.

That proposition was not accurately stated. The consequence of the Bill, standing as it at present did, would be, that instead of a bonus it would become the greatest possible mischief to Irish landlords. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lynch) had spoken somewhat disparagingly of the society of solicitors in Dublin, who had petitioned against his Bill. A more intelligent and independent set of men there did not exist. They felt it an incumbent duty, not from regard to their own pecuniary or professional interests, but to their clients, that this law, in its present state, should not be sanctioned; and with respect to the gentlemen of the Irish bar, who had expressed an opinion against the Bill, they did not require any vindication or eulogy from him. The only doubt they had was, whether the Bill should not be entirely repealed. As a practitioner of many years standing in Ireland, he must be allowed, solemnly, to assure the House that a greater mischief to the landed gentry of Ireland could not possibly be devised than this Bill, in its present shape. He took shame to himself for not having looked more narrowly into the original measure when it passed. Had he known that it contained such a provision as that he hoped now to be repealed, he should have betrayed his duty to his constituents, and the people of Ireland, if he had not given it his most decided opposition.

looked upon this Bill as one of a very important character, and he could not but think that it very properly gave the English trustee, investing his money in Irish security, the aid and protection of the English courts. He was very much disposed to think it but just to allow English trustees and capitalists the protection, in such cases, of the English law. He was not, of course, professionally acquainted with the law, but he could not but think this would be of great advantage to all parties concerned. If the Irish landlord chose to avail himself of English capital, it was but fair that the English trustees should have the protection of the English courts in case of a failure of the Irish landlord.

said, if any proposal were made to repeal the whole act, he would most certainly support it; but the proposition now was of a different kind, and went to continue an act to enable English trustees to lend money on land in Ireland, the words of the trust being "to lend on real security in England and Wales." Now, he did not see how they could fairly continue that act without some provision for enforcing the payment of the money in England. He did not object to go into Committee, but it would be much better to propose that the act altogether be repealed, except as to contracts already made.