rose for the purpose of presenting a Petition from the Rev. J. A. Emerton, master of a school at Camberwell, and curate of that parish, on the subject of the Charter to be granted for a Metropolitan University. The petitioner had. understood that it was intended to limit degrees to the pupils of only two schools, by which the interests of private schoolmasters would be materially injured. In April last this House had addressed the Crown by a large majority in favour of a charter to the London University, a grant which was solicited from all parts of the country, on account of the manner in which Dissenters were excluded from academical honours at Oxford and Cambridge. He should be opposed to any change which would place Oxford and Cambridge in the hands of persons hostile to those universities; he wished to see abuses corrected, but not the universities subverted; but he wished to know whether, in establishing a new institution of the same kind in London, it was intended to found another monopoly? Were Dissenters to be excluded there also? He exceedingly regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, because he was anxious to hear the right Hon. Gentleman state what were his views and intentions upon the subject of the new charter. Was it right that the conditions of that charter should be framed in secret, and that the Members of the House should know nothing about them until the document received the sign manual of the Crown? This was a species of Star-chamber legislation that ought, if it existed, to be abolished; it was an abuse of the royal prerogative that could not be too soon corrected. He hoped that the House would interfere in a matter regarding which it took so much interest, and require that a draft of the intended charter should be laid upon the Table. It might soon become the law of the land; and was it fit that any law should be promulgated, with the nature of which the Legislature of the country was unacquainted? At present there was reason to believe that students in private schools, who were under the moral control of masters, would be shut out from the honours of the new institution; while students who were under no such moral control of the professors, would be allowed to partake of them. Before the charter was confirmed, he trusted that Ministers would, at least, inform the House what were its conditions. True it was, that they might be responsible for the insertion of improper conditions; but he did not see in what way they could be brought to account if they offended. As to the gentleman with whose petition he was intrusted, he could state that he was a well-wisher both to the London University and to King's College, and that he was sincerely friendly to Oxford and Cambridge.

said, he should not think it necessary to trouble the House at any great length upon the subject which he was about to bring under their consideration, because the Bill, for the introduction of which he should move, differed but little from that which he brought forward last Session, and which passed that House without a division, and, he might say, with almost the unanimous assent of every Member. Why that measure did not pass the other branch of the Legislature he had not been able to ascertain, for its leading features were derived from the provisions of Bills introduced by Members of former Administrations. Nor would it answer any good purpose to taunt the other House on the subject, or inquire into the motives by which they were actuated in refusing to pass the measure. One of the assigned reasons was the late period of the Session at which the Bill was sent to that House; and it was to obviate that objection that he now brought the measure forward again so early. He hoped that it would meet with the approbation of all classes—for he could justly say that it had no party tendency—and he trusted, therefore, that it would be now brought forward under happier auspices than its predecessor. The Bill which he proposed to introduce differed from that of last Session mainly in that it repealed the laws by which the constabulary and peace establishment in Ireland were at present formed and regulated; not with any view, however, to suppress those bodies which, with a few drawbacks, had been found to work well for the country, but in order that a sufficient force should be established under one improved and uniform system. The continuance of the present force had been provided for until the new one was organised. The Bill would enable the Lord-Lieutenant, instead of the four Inspectors-general, who now had the chief regulation of the police force in the four provinces of Ireland, to appoint one Inspector-general for the superintendence and management of the police force; and under him there were to be two Deputy-inspectors. It vested in the Inspector-general, subject to the approbation of the Lord-Lieutenant, the power of making rules and regulations for the government of the police force. Without entering into the minutiæ of existing Statutes, it was enough at present to say, that this authority would be accompanied by provisions better suited to the present time than those which at present existed. The Bill would also enable the Lord-Lieutenant to appoint county inspectors, and under them sub-inspectors, as well as a person to act as paymaster and storekeeper; and in the three largest counties, Cork, Galway, and Tipperary, there would be two of those officers. The appointment of all the police constables, whether chief or sub-constables, was placed in the hands of the Government. And this was, perhaps, the most material alteration in the Bill, transferring as it did the power from the local Magistracy to the Lord-Lieutenant. It was a material alteration, but he humbly submitted that it was a most important and judicious one. The Bill proposed that the Lord-Lieutenant should have the power of decreasing, or increasing the police force, according to the circumstances of the case. This would supersede all the cumbrous machinery which it now became necessary to resort to whenever a district was to be proclaimed; and would enable the Lord Lieutenant to diminish the amount of the police force with corresponding rapidity. With respect to transferring the appointment of the police force from the local magistracy to the Government, although that appointment would be nominally in the Crown, it would be practically in the hands of the Inspector-General. He (Lord Morpeth) contended that such an officer as the Inspector-General would be able to exercise a much more careful and a much more unbiassed choice than could be expected from so numerous a body as the local magistracy. Without imputing any improper motives to that body, without ascribing to them any other political feelings than would be found to exist in any equally numerous body of the same station in society, it was clear that the magistrates would in most cases be very desirous to appoint their own friends. Now, as he apprehended, the Inspector-General would be influenced by motives much more unbiassed, and his only object would be to make his force as efficient as possible for the public service. As a proof that the present mode of appointment was not the most advisable, he would mention that there had been instances of magistrates in some counties voluntarily divesting themselves of the power of appointment; and he believed it would be found that they had never repented. A few days ago he heard that five men who had been recently appointed to the constabulary force in Ireland had distinctly admitted that they belonged to a secret political society; and he found that, within the last three months, there had been dismissed upon that single ground, in the province of Ulster sixteen, in the province of Leinster thirty-one, in the province of Monster thirty, and in the province of Connought nineteen; so that in the whole of Ireland, within the short period he had mentioned, no fewer than ninety-six constables and sub-constables had been dismissed for belonging to secret societies. The proposed measure, he trusted, would prevent such a disgrace from again falling on the public service; for it proposed, that besides the oath to which the constables were at present subject, they should take an oath, that they were not members of any secret or political society. Magistrates were to be empowered to fine constables guilty of a neglect of duty in the penalty of 5l. It was also proposed to establish a supernumerary reserved corps, who should be trained at certain periods, and who should be called in on special occasions to the assistance of the permanent force, and out of that body it was proposed to make all appointments for the permanent force. Power was given to the Inspector-General, subject to the approbation of the Lord-Lieutenant, to move the force from one county to another. With respect to the amount of salaries, and other details, it would be better to reserve those matters for consideration when the Bill should go into Committee. By a provision of the Bill, two per cent was to be deducted from the salaries of the force, for the purpose of constituting a superannuation fund; and also 10s. per cent from all salaries for the police reward fund; the object of which was to reward those whose conduct entitled them to particular distinction. Such were the main features of the Bill which he had the honour to propose, and he confidently hoped that it would be found to be an improvement upon the general system, that it would render the constabulary force more effective, and that it would tend to the preservation of the public peace. He, therefore, begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Constabulary of Ireland.

did not rise to oppose the Motion; but he thought there were some parts of it which must necessarily excite the apprehension of the Magistracy in Ireland, considering the course which his Majesty's Ministers had chosen to adopt in that country, where they had made the Executive Government, he might almost say, subservient to the system of agitation which had prevailed in that country for many years. Although he himself did not loot upon it with apprehension, he could not look upon it otherwise than with distrust, seeing that a large and respectable body, against whom no objection had been made for a long series of years, who were now mature in their organization, and imbued with a knowledge of their duty, were to be removed and dispersed, and a new system was to be adopted without any grounds having been stated for the altera- tion, or any sufficient advantage anticipated from it. The noble Lord had terminated his speech by saying, that he hoped the new system would be economical. If it were economical, that alone would not justify so great a change; but he apprehended that the result would be the reverse of economical. He also objected, on constitutional grounds, to making that great force, which ought to be amenable to the Magistracy of the country, altogether independent of them. He had been a Magistrate for many years, and he thought that that course had been too extensively adopted in Ireland already; because he was convinced that the placing of the body in question on a footing which would render them independent of the Magistracy, could not fail to be injurious to the Magistracy, and pernicious to the community. Various parts of the enactments were, in his opinion, objectionable; and he should watch with great jealousy the diversion of power from the hands of those in whom it was legitimately placed, into the hands of those from whom the worst was to be apprehended. As to the superannuation fund, he thought that that was a fair proposition.

rose for the purpose of protesting against the transfer proposed by the noble Lord. He conceived that the local Magistrates were the persons in whom the appointments ought to rest; and he could not agree in the propriety of transferring the appointment of the constables to the Lord-Lieutenant. He believed he spoke the sentiments of his own county, as well as those of the landed proprietors of Ireland generally. The Magistrates of his own county had had two meetings on the subject; and he knew that he was speaking the sentiments of most of the resident gentry and landlords of the county, when he said, that the Magistracy was the constitutional body by which the constabulary was to be appointed. The Magistracy knew the characters of the persons who applied to be appointed, which the Inspector-General could not do. He must protest, therefore, against the transfer of the appointment of the constables from the local Magistracy and resident landlords to Government. It might be said, that the Magistrates would be influenced by a system of favouritism in recommending their own tenantry to the office of constable, but he must protest against such a doctrine. He was old-fashioned enough to think that the Magistrates were the more constitutional authorities. The character of the gentry of Ireland had, in- deed, fallen low, if they were not thought worthy by that House, or by his Majesty's Government, of retaining such a power. He protested against such a doctrine in the name of the Magistracy and gentry of Ireland, and on the behalf of the whole empire; for he was sure that the gentry of Ireland were not inferior in any respect to the gentry of. England, or to the gentry of any country in Europe. Though he did not agree with his Majesty's Government in polities, it was upon other grounds that he opposed the present proposition. He meant no disrespect to his Majesty's Ministers, or to the noble Lord, but he for one could not consent that the appointment of the police force on which depended the tranquillity of Ireland, should be hung (Jangling on the finger of any Secretary of Ireland.

denied, that taking from the Magistracy of Ireland the power of appointing constables would degrade them in any way. In the province in which he resided, the Magistrates, so far from having any objection to the change, had voluntarily given up the power of appointment to Major Warburton, the Chief of the Police. He was informed that a similar step had been taken in Munster. If, therefore, the measure were at once advantageous to the community, and agreeable to the Magistrates, what more need be urged in its favour? How stood the case in this city? Was the appointment of the police vested in the hands of the Magistrates of Bow-street? No: the power was lodged in the hands of those who were to govern and command the force. He had never, however, heard that Major Warburton had hesitated to take into consideration the recommendation of the local Magistracy; and the Gentlemen opposite, therefore, had no right to suppose their representations would be unattended to. He thought it was a calumny upon Government to say, that they wished to degrade the gentry of Ireland, and he believed the opposition to the measure was the effect of party policy and party tactics.

, after the very extraordinary speech of the noble Lord, could not be silent. As an Irish Gentleman, he could not sit still and hear the Irish Magistrates compared to those of Bow-street. Nor could he allow the assertion of the noble Lord, that the opposition to the measure was the result of party policy and feeling, to go uncontradicted. In the very temperate, and able speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan, there was not a syllable that could be construed into party spirit; and he (Sir Robert Bateson) agreed with that hon. Gentleman, that it would be impolitic to place in the hands, not only of the present, but of any Government, the power comprehended in the Bill. He did not wish to see the constabulary force converted into a gendarmerie, without any control on the part of the Magistracy. The Inspectors-General might be men of temper, judgment, and impartiality, but they might be zealous political partisans. They had heard one of them declare, that he knew of no secret society but one—the Orange Society; although in every county in Ireland they were surrounded by Ribbon Societies and other illegal associations; that person was either so ignorant, or so blinded by party feeling, that he was unable to distinguish the fact. As to the benefit of having stipendiary Magistrates, no benefit had been derived from them in the part of Ireland with which he was connected. To show that the system was not one of fair play, and that it was liable to be operated upon by party and political bias, he would state a circumstance which had come within his own knowledge. He made a complaint of a sub-constable to his officer, and required that he should be reported to Sir Frederick Stoven, the Inspector of the province; the officer replied, that the individual in question was a man of bad character, and could not be trusted, but that as he (the sub-constable) was a Roman Catholic, and as he (the officer) could not afford to lose his place, he could not report him as desired [loud cries of "Name, name."] What he had stated was the fact, but he would not give the Gentlemen opposite the gratification of naming the individual of whom he spoke. After such a specimen of the impartiality of the Government, it was not surprising that he should feel disposed to give every possible opposition to the present attempt to extend so injurious a system. He for one should object to place further power in the hands of that faction which ruled the Government of Ireland.

observed, that the hon. Baronet had taken leave to mention the name of Sir Frederick Stoven, but refused to give the name of the officer with whom the hon. Baronet had been in communication. That was not justice! The hon. Baronet took care to mention the name of the accused, but he carefully concealed the name of the accuser. Now, if the story was true, if it was not a delusion practised on the hon. Baronet, the person so charged ought not to be permitted to retain office for a single hour. But it was an accusation brought forward on anonymous authority. The present Government was assailed, because it was the first Government that had ever acted towards Ireland on the principles of justice. He did not know what effect his support of the Bill might have upon its fate. Perhaps it would be more prudent were he to absent himself, or to take his seat on the other side of the House. In Kerry, where the matter was first considered, the Magistrates had voluntarily surrendered into the hands of Major Millar the power of appointing persons to the police force. Clare, and some other counties in Ireland, had done the same thing; and the greatest advantages were found to result from it. In the first place, it did away with much village favouritism, and every other species of improper influence, in the selection of constables. In the North of Ireland, however, the Magistrates had not adopted this course; and therefore the Government found it necessary to take the matter into their own hands. In such a country as Ireland, power ought never to be left in irresponsible hands. At New Ross two constables were lately broken. One of them had exclaimed to a crowd of persons in a public-house, "Now for a bumper!" and having filled his glass, he gave as a toast, "The Pope in the pillory, the pillory in Hell, and the Devil pelting him with Popish priests," The other gave as a toast, "May the ears of all the Papists be nailed to the chapel-doors, and the chapel transplanted into Hell! These men were dismissed; but what remedy had the public against the Magistrates for having appointed such men? If the appointment lay in the Government, the moment such a charge was brought the censure of the House would fall on the Lord-Lieutenant by whom the appointment had been made. It had not been asserted, that any of the Magistrates of Ireland were Ribbonmen; but was it denied that many among them were Orangemen? Was it not a fact that the principal functionaries of the Orange Lodges in Ireland were supplied from the Magistracy? Would it be contended that the Grand. Orange Lodge was the fittest body in which to vest the appointment of the police? In his opinion, Government had done wisely to seek to have the appointment vested in their own hands, and he was happy that the subject had been taken up by the present Government—the first that had ever shown a disposition to do justice to Ireland.

would not enter upon a general defence of the Magistrates of Ireland on the present occasion, so unjustly treated by the noble Lord's proposition. He was disposed, however, to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that it was not proper to place power in irresponsible hands; but he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member that the hon. Member for Londonderry had brought forward his charge on anonymous authority. He had stated that the constable had made a communication to him personally; and he had stated that on his own authority. One of the effects of the Bill would certainly be to vest very considerable additional patronage in the hands of the Irish Government. Upon that point, however, it was not his intention then to dwell. As to the appointment of Roman Catholics, he would merely say that he was one of those who never objected to a man because he was a Roman Catholic; but at the same time he was strongly of opinion that no man ought to be appointed merely because he was a Roman Catholic. He did not mean to give offence to anybody; but he could not help observing a circumstance which had recently taken place in Ireland, namely, that in the appointment of thirty-four new officers—solicitors for conducting prosecutions at quarter sessions—thirty were chosen of the Roman Catholic persuasion. He did not mean to object to any of the gentlemen who had been thus appointed; but looking at the state of society in Ireland, and considering that in the legal profession there was a vast proportion of well-educated Protestants, he would ask any unprejudiced person whether the selection of so many Roman Catholics could be regarded as perfectly fair.

wished to say a very few words on this subject; and in doing so, he should endeavour to steer clear of all differences, whether of interest or passion, that might exist between Irish parties, and to state as briefly and concisely as possible what he conceived to be the general reasons on which the Bill proposed by his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) was founded. There was at present an armed police force in Ireland, very different from any that existed in England, but which was thought necessary to keep the peace in that country. The object of the Bill now proposed by the noble Lord was to remedy the inconvenience which at present resulted from the imperfect organization of that force. In the first place, it appeared that the police of Ireland were at present subject to the direction and control of four inspectors-general;, all four being, as it were, totally independent of each other; therefore, adopting as they thought proper different systems, and each of them corresponding with his own sub-inspectors and thirty constables. By this means there was a want of uniformity throughout the whole system, whilst at the same time there was a great accumulation of business at the seat of the Government in Ireland, which was certainly unnecessary, and which ought properly to be conducted by the head of police. There was another inconvenience arising out of the present system, which it would be the object of the Bill now introduced to remove—namely, that while a great part of the police force was by common consent appointed by the inspectors, another part was appointed by the Magistrates, and by this means became subservient to local interests, to party views, and to the motives and feelings of particular individuals. The object, then, of the present Bill was to place in one inspector-general the direction of the whole police force of Ireland, to give him a complete control over it, to empower him to organize it into one system, and thus to make the police in Leinster and in Connaught act under the same rules and directions. This, he thought, it would be admitted, was an object which belonged not to any particular party, or to one party more than another; it was a national object, an object which all who desired to see the efficiency of the police improved by a proper system of organization, and by that means wished to contribute to the maintenance and preservation of peace in Ireland, would be anxious to see accomplished. In the course of the short discussion which had taken place upon this subject, there had been some insinuations thrown out, most unjustly as he thought, against a distinguished officer, who was now one of the inspectors of police in Ireland, he meant Sir Frederic Stoven, a man of high military reputation and unblemished character. No one in the army would deny the well-merited reputation which Sir Frederick enjoyed as a soldier, and being himself aware of the merits of the gallant officer in other respects, he was sorry to hear anything said within the walls of the House calculated to cast a slur upon his character. But with respect to the command of the police force, which was to be vested in the hands of an inspector-general, it had been the object of the Government, both in this country and in Ireland, to find some person who had been for years unconnected with any party in Ireland; but who, at the same time, should be qualified by habits of command and ability to govern the minds of men, to establish and enforce that discipline so necessary to the efficiency of a general police force in Ireland. For this purpose he had been in communication with an officer who was acknowledged to have been one of the most efficient persons in preserving the peace of this country in difficult times—he meant Colonel Shaw Kennedy. He believed that every gentleman in the House would concur with him, when he said that there was no man whose temper, discretion, judgment, and impartiality, could be more depended upon than those of Colonel Shaw Kennedy. He asked that gallant officer whether he would undertake the government of the police force in Ireland, and he was glad to find that he was not disinclined to do so. Therefore, if the Government should be enabled to pass the present Bill, and to adopt a different system of police in Ireland, his Majesty having approved his recommendation in that respect. Colonel Shaw Kennedy would be appointed to the head of the force. It would, he thought, be necessary for him to observe, that Colonel Shaw Kennedy, connected with no party in Ireland, would perform the duties imposed upon him with the utmost impartiality and exactness, and, at the same time, in such a manner as should give general satisfaction and produce general conciliation.

begged distinctly to be understood that he had not intended, in any observation that fell from him, to reflect in the slightest degree upon the conduct of Sir Frederick Stoven.

rose principally for the purpose of confirming, which he did with the utmost satisfaction, the testimony which was borne by the noble Lord (Russell) to the high character and great military reputation of Colonel Shaw Kennedy. His first communication with Colonel Shaw was at a time when he had no personal acquaintance with him whatever; although he knew that he was distinguished in the highest degree for his gallantry in the field, and remembered that he had superintended the whole of the extensive arrangements which it was necessary to make on the return of the British army of occupation from France. On that occasion, too, he recollected that Colonel Shaw had exhibited so nice a power of arrangement, and so ready a talent of combination, as greatly to add to the military reputation he had previously acquired. Aware of these high qualities, when the police force in the metropolis was constituted, the first person to whom he applied to undertake its direction and control was Colonel Shaw. The regret which he felt at Colonel Shaw's declining the appointment, was greatly mitigated by the acceptance of the same office by the gallant officer who now, in conjunction with Mr. Mayne, superintended the constabulary police force in the metropolis. It was, however, with the utmost satisfaction that he now heard from the noble Lord that Colonel Shaw was likely to accept the command of the police force in Ireland. He would venture to say, that no man could be found who would execute all the duties of that important trust with greater impartiality, or with more complete freedom from all party feeling. He, however, would suggest, that when appointed to the head of the force, Colonel Shaw should have the appointment of all the officers employed under him, and for whose conduct he was responsible. He believed it to be of the highest importance that the police force in Ireland should be kept perfectly free from the influence of party animosity and party excitement. The appointment of police officers, therefore, was a trust which, if honestly administered, he thought had better be intrusted to the hands of the representative of the Crown than to any local authority. But he made that admission on, the assumption that the trust was to be administered with perfect honesty. If it were otherwise—if the power conferred by the trust were perverted to other purposes, and were employed to gratify party animosities, or to confirm political advantages, then he should say the efficiency of the Bill would be totally destroyed. He thought that the noble Lord should adopt the same rule in Ireland as had already been adopted in the metropolis, and that those who were responsible for the good conduct of the men should have the appointment of them; and that the Government ought in no case to interfere in the nomination of officers for the purpose of gratifying any of its political friends. If Colonel Shaw were to be appointed to the head of the force, let him have the nomination of the men; and if he (Sir R. Peel) knew anything of that gallant officer, he would undertake to say, that he would exercise the power thus confided to him with honesty and discretion, and that, in a much less time than could otherwise be hoped for, a well-disciplined and efficient police force would be established in Ireland. And he felt bound to say, with great deference to the opinions of his hon. Friend, who had taken a different view of the subject, that he thought if the police force in Ireland were appointed and directed upon this principle, there would be a much stronger guarantee for its sufficiency, and freedom from all local and party prejudices, than could possibly be the case if the appointment of the men of whom it was to be composed were intrusted to the local authorities. Therefore, he was not unfriendly to the principle of the present Bill, always assuming that the powers to be intrusted to the Lord-lieutenant should be exercised with impartiality, and for no other purpose than that of improving the police force. But the principle of the Bill, good as it was, was of more extensive application than to the mere improvement of the police force. Suppose he (Sir Robert Peel) had been asked, upon the first day of the present Session, to agree to an Address to the Crown, pledging him to apply precisely the same principles to the administration of justice, or to the formation of a constabulary force in Ireland, as were known to exist in England. Supposing that he had said, "Do not ask me on the first day of the Session to give such a pledge; there may be peculiarities in the state of society in Ireland which call for the application of a different system, and which may render it right or necessary to place the whole power of the police in the hands of his Majesty's Government. As a general principle, it may be right not to transfer such a power from the hands of local authorities to those of the King's Secretary of State; but there may be such peculiarities in the state of Ireland, in the state of the population, in the state of property; above all, in the unfortunate state of religious animosities, which make it better to trust the representative of the Crown, than to allow the power to remain in the hands of the local authorities, however respectable." Suppose, having such an argument in his mind, he had said he would not give the pledge required of him—suppose, although most anxious to administer justice in Ire- land on the same principles of impartiality as in England, he had said, that he doubted whether he should effect that object by pledging himself to apply precisely the same principles to a totally different state of things—suppose he had said, with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, "Beware of local animosities and jealousies—beware of village partialities—do not trust local authorities—do not trust irresponsible bodies. Place these appointments in the hands of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. If he abuse them, he is more tangible than any local authority." He admitted the justice of the principle on which the Bill proceeded; but if that principle were good for the police of the country, why was it not equally good for the police of the town? And why, because it might be fitting to intrust the appointment of the Municipal Police to Corporate authorities in England, why might it not follow, or why might they not choose to subscribe at once to the inference, that therefore it should be good to place the same power in the same local and irresponsible bodies in Ireland? He found, therefore, in the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and also in that of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, a complete vindication of the justice of the course which he had pursued in the first night of the present Session, and in which he was joined by a powerful minority of the House. The Amendment he then moved to the Address was founded on this principle, that whilst he was prepared to concede to Ireland the absolute right of having impartiality in the administration of justice secured to her, yet he desired that he might not be fettered by a pledge that he would apply the same principles which had been adopted here to another part of the empire, whose society was differently constituted, and whose circumstances were by no means the same.

must bear his testimony in favour of the Government of Lord Mulgrave, and express his conviction that that noble Lord would do his duty in spite of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they were now obliged to have recourse to the present measure (and he admitted it to be a strong one), it was on account of the bad measures which had been adopted by the party who had so long misgoverned Ireland. He thanked God that the present Government were disposed to act upon different principles, and as long as they continued to pursue the couse they had so well begun they might rest assured of the support of the great majority of the Irish Members.

would not attempt to make any reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He really believed the hon. Gentleman had made use of the words without intending to use them, and many sentences, which in his cooler moments he, would not have troubled the House with. He (Colonel Perceval) rose for the purpose of saying that the explanation of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, relative to the intention of his Majesty's Government of selecting a man so unanimously admired and respected as Colonel Shaw, would undoubtedly remove many of the difficulties and objections which he and his friends were of opinion had existed against the Bill as introduced during the last Session of Parliament. He would, undertake to show, that they were not inconsistent in opposing the measure of the noble Lord, up to the moment that this explanation was made. As the power which the local Magistrates possessed of making appointments was to be taken away by this Bill, and the inspectors-general, in whom all parties placed the most unequivocal confidence, to be removed, their opposition to the measure was grounded, upon, the apprehension, justly, he would say, formed from these circumstances, that this indication on the part of his Majesty's Government in Ireland would have been followed up by the appointment of partisans of its own, for the purpose of carrying this measure into effect. One of the reasons for his so thinking had been adverted to by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but as he (Colonel Perceval) was anxious to prevent any further pique upon the subject, and was also desirous of allowing the feelings of both parties to be directed to the improvement of the Bill, with a view to render it as beneficial a measure as possible to all portions of the community—he would not now more particularly allude to his reasons of objection than by merely asking the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, whether it was his intention to introduce a Clause authorising his Majesty's Government to grant a retiring allowance to the Inspectors-General for Ireland, commensurate with the services they had rendered. He alluded particularly, to the Inspector-General who had been at the head of the police department for such a number of years, and who, during his time of office, had secured to him the confidence, good opinion, and respect of all parties — he meant Major Warburton. He believed it was in the power of the Government to remunerate by public employment the services of Sir Frederick Stoven, as they might also those of another military officer, Major Miller, of the artillery. He respected Sir Frederick Stoven's character as an officer, though he had no confidence in him as head of the police. Much of the objection which he (Colonel Perceval) urged against the Bill of last Session was founded upon the dread he entertained of a political partisan being placed at the head of the police. The fourth and oldest of the Gentlemen who had filled the offices of Inspectors-General, was now by age rendered unfit for any other occupation, and he was sure it would be a great gratification to all parties in Ireland, if they were now to understand that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to allow his long services to go unrewarded.

should not have addressed the House upon the subject of this Bill, but for an observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw). That hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that of thirty-four local solicitors recently appointed in Ireland, thirty were Roman Catholics. Now, what was the fact? When he (Mr. O'Loghlen) was appointed to the office he had then the honour to hold, he found four local solicitors, all of whom were certainly Roman Catholics; but instead of thirty four others being added, twenty-four only were appointed, and of these, as he was credibly informed, certainly eight, and he believed nine, were Protestants; and he might add, that many of those who where Roman Catholics had received their appointment from the recommendation of Protestant Magistrates and Protestant Barristers The question of what religion the party was of never entered into the consideration of those by whom, the appointment was made. The office was not one of emolument. It consisted merely in this;—of having a person who had practised at the quarter sessions in Ireland who would undertake to prosecute such cases as might be sent to him by the Crown-solicitor in that particular circuit. And the object o the appointment was this:—to put an end if possible, to those factions and party fights at markets and fairs which were so frequent in the south and west of Ireland, previous to his (Mr. O'Loghlen's) coming into office, he found that these solicitors charged two guineas for every case put into their hands but he had since reduced the fees so much as to render it extremely improbable that the gross amount of the emolument arising to any one of the solicitors would exceed 10l. per annum. In fact, since the last Session of Parliament he hail received letters from several of the gentlemen who had been appointed local solicitors declining to serve any longer, stating that they were better paid by the rioters to defend them than by the Crown to prosecute them.

said, that having entertained, in common with his hon. Friends who had spoken against this Bill, a great objection to the changes it proposed, he must admit that he concurred in principle with those who thought that appointments in the police should be made by a responsible authority; but it could not be supposed that the magistrates and gentry of Ireland would be satisfied with a measure which would transfer such power to a Government who, they had good reason for supposing, would be guided, in the disposal of their patronage, by an influence which was both dangerous and irresponsible. He was ready to admit that some of his objections were removed by the character given by the noble Lord of the gentleman who was to be placed over the police, confirmed as it was by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth and in withdrawing his opposition he was glad to prove to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. H. Grattan) notwithstanding his exaggerated statements, that he did not object to a measure, if a good one, from whatever side of the House it might come. And he trusted, from the great experience and high character of the officer who would have the superintendence of the police, that a confident hope might be entertained that, disregarding all party feeling, he would only desire to have that force as efficient as possible, for the protection of life and property in Ireland.

merely rose to notice what fell from the hon. Member for Meath, with regard to an outrage which he stated to have taken place at Ballybay, in the county of Monaghan, on the 14th or 15th of last month, when, as the hon. Member observed, a body of Orangemen attacked the Roman Catholics indiscriminately coming to the market, beat and abused them without provocation, and. drove them into a lake —into which, as fast as they endeavoured to release themselves, they were again pushed. Possessing property in the immediate vicinity of that town, he did not think such an occurrence was likely to take place without its having come to his knowledge; but he could quote better authority than his own for doubting the accuracy of the hon. Member's information—his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan, authorised him (Colonel Verner) to say, that until this moment he never heard of the transaction alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath, or that any outrage had been committed at Bally-bay, such as had been stated by the hon. Member, He felt that in justice to the Magistrates of the province of Ulster, he ought not to sit down without replying to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin, charging them, by the name of Orange Magistrates, with having appointed or nominated improper persons to the constabulary force of that district. One fact which he (Colonel Verner) should state to the House would be a sufficient refutation of this assertion. The province of Ulster was in point of extent and in point of population greater than any other in Ireland, notwithstanding that its constabulary force was less by upwards of 200 men than that of the smallest province in that country. In another province that force was more than double that of Ulster. But what was most remarkable the number of men belonging to the police in one southern county exceeded those of the nine northern counties united. This spoke volumes, not only as to the good conduct and character of the men, but as to the peaceful state of the province. Now, he should only mention one circumstance more upon the part of this body. When it became necessary, in consequence of renewed disturbances in a southern county, that an augmentation should be made to the force in that part, from whom was the draft taken? from Armagh. And what were the instructions issued to the chief constable of police? To send good men. He left to hon. Members acquainted with the character of the police of Ulster to put their own construction upon that order.

complained that the system of favouritism to Orangemen in Ireland had gone so far under the old police system as to allow persons who had committed arson and murder to escape.

, in explanation, begged to say, in reference to the number of Roman Catholics amongst the newly-appointed Crown Solicitors, that he had abstained from making a remark on the subject so long as the fact rested on mere report or newspaper authority; but he had spoken on the authority of a letter he then held in his hand, from a Gentleman, a friend of his own, of the highest character and station, who had assured him of the correctness of the statement, and since he had before spoken on the subject that evening, he had written to that Gentleman to request he would furnish him with the particulars of the case.

said, that for many years it had been the policy of the Irish Government not to appoint Roman Catholics to any official situation, so that no apology would be due from the present Government, even if every one of the appointments which had been referred [to were of Roman Catholics. But the accusation which had been brought forward against the Government this night appeared to be totally false and unfounded. He rejoiced that the right hon. Baronet opposite had given his support to the principle of this Bill. The testimony borne by the right hon. Gentleman in its favour would go a great way with all men, both in and out of this House, and he hoped it would also go a great way with noble personages in another place, and be the means of the Bill becoming the law of the land. He sincerely trusted that the Government would go on day after day, and session after session, to assimilate the law in the two countries until Ireland, now torn to pieces by contending parties, should become peaceable, prosperous, and happy. He only regretted that the right hon. Baronet, who had been so many years in power, had not seen the necessity of making this great reform until now, when it emanated from other parties. He was sure, however, that the right hon. Baronet's enlightened mind must long since have felt the necessity of such a change; but he was unfortunately trammelled and held in bondage when in that country by the party now sitting beside and around him. He was now out of power, and they had his admission that such a change was absolutely required, and he (Mr. Barron) congratulated the House and the country upon the likelihood of the constabulary law in Ireland at length becoming what it ought always to have been.

supported the Bill, and said that the recent appointments in Limerick had given general satisfaction.

wished to say one word in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford, although a move convenient opportunity would be afforded him to enter upon the question fully on the second reading of the Bill. Supposing he (Sir Robert Peel) was taking a different course from what he did in 1814, still if a change of circumstances and subsequent experience led him to think that a different course was desirable, he should, without the least apprehension of any charge of inconsistency, adopt that altered course. The question was not, whether a public man changed his views, but whether there was any interested motive for such a change. If there was, then the change might be censured; but if there was not, then he must say he could not feel the force of that satire which the hon. Gentleman had directed against him, for having (suppose he had), after a lapse of years, more extended experience, and subsequent consideration, changed his opinion as to the policy best to be adopted. That was what he should feel supposing the charge of inconsistency applied to him. But he thought, while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, that he was not subject to that charge. To the best of his recollection, the principle of the Act which he (Sir Robert Feel) introduced on this subject in 1814, expressly gave to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland the power of these appointments. He was not responsible for the subsequent Acts that were passed; but the principle of the Act which he introduced was precisely the same as that which had been adopted by the noble Lord. He confessed his confidence in the Bill would have been greatly shaken, unless it preserved to the Lord-lieutenant the power of appointing persons to the constabulary force, and also the power of removal. Those powers had been given by the Bill he himself introduced; and he saw by the report that some of the constables went under the designation of "Peelers," which confirmed him in the recollection of the nature of his Bill, showing that they must have owed their appointments to him, and not to the magistrates.

^* rose for the purpose of moving that a Select Committee be appointed to

^*Reprinted from a corrected Report.

inquire into the conduct of the Commissioners of Public Records, and into the present state of the Public Records. The hon. Member said, that when he had laid before the House a few of the circumstances connected with the history of the Commission which formed the subject of the present motion, and when he called their attention to the state of the Records of this kingdom, and to the great amount of public money which had been expended by the Commissioners, he felt not the least doubt that the House would agree with him as to the necessity of an immediate and careful investigation of the whole matter; and it therefore might be presumed that the appointment of the Committee for which he sought would, without difficulty, be acceded to. The Public Records, he presumed it was quite unnecessary for him to remind the House, were, whether they respected private property, or the means of authentic history, of extreme value. Of the first class were all grants, leases, and conveyances by the Crown to individuals or corporate bodies; of the second were ancient records, treaties, and public or national compacts. However carefully these might be treasured up, they were, of course, of perishable materials; and it had been determined by the Legislature that the subject of their preservation, custody, and perpetuation should be referred to Commissioners. The Commission had sat now many years, and was established in consequence of an address from the House of Commons in the year 1800. The annual grants to the Commissioners had varied from 5,000l. to 20,000l. Small as the annual amount was, yet the House would certainly think it a matter worthy of being inquired into, when they found that since the formation of the Commission about 400,000l. had been voted by Parliament towards its expenditure. But that had not been the sole expense the country had been put to on account of the Public Records during that period. The keepers of the principal offices were paid by Government; and it was supposed that, including the expenses of the Irish Commissioners, the whole amount bestowed on the Public Records was not less than 600,000l., or 700,000l. Besides this enormous expenditure, it now appeared that this Commission was actually in debt to the amount of 20,000l. It was obvious to a common observer that a considerable portion of this expense had been unnecessarily, if not blamably, incurred by the Commissioners, who seemed, in most instances, to have lost sight of the objects which had occasioned their appointment. Of one thing they had, however, been very laudably tenacious; and that was, to take all possible pains to render themselves generally known to all the countries, and in almost all the languages, of Europe. A portion of the public money intrusted to the Commissioners had been devoted to publishing in the various languages of Europe an account of the nature of the Commission, and a full detail of the names and titles of the Commissioners. He held in his hand a Portuguese pamphlet on the subject; in which the names of the Commissioners were given, no doubt in the purest Portuguese. The right hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams Wynn) was designated "O muito nobre Carlos Watkins Williams Wynn," The hon. baronet, the Member for Oxford, had a most romantic title, "Sir Roberto Harry Inglis." That was one of the ways in which the public money was spent—making the style and title of the Commissioners known all over Europe, from Lisbon to Hamburgh, Even the Secretary to the Commission is immortalized in the printed proceedings of the Board, as of "Viro illustri, excellentissmo, clarissimo, doctissimo C. P. Coopero equiti Anglo." The principal objects of the Commission were the care of the Records, their preservation, and perpetuation by means of transcription of such as had become nearly defaced by time or accident. How these objects were provided for he should briefly state to the House. He need scarcely inform the House that the Public Records were of great importance to suitors in the courts of Law and Equity, and were also of great public importance, as forming the genuine materials of the history of England. In this point of view, he should not of course be otherwise than the advocate of liberal expenditure, provided it were directed, and efficiently directed, to the proper objects. The first great object was, that those Records should be kept in a convenient place, in security, and good arrangement; the next that there should be proper calendars and indexes; the third, that all Records which were in any danger of perishing, should be transcribed; and in cases where printing happened to be not too expensive, that such Records should be printed. He had every reason to believe that, if the Committee were granted him, he would make it appear that the Commissioners had neg- lected the principal of those duties. It appeared by the last Parliamentary returns of the Commissioners' expenditure, that only 1,500l. had been spent on what he would call the most important object for which they were appointed, namely, on the arrangement of the Records. What was the present state of those important documents? Considering that the object of the Commission was the preservation of the Records, and the affording easy accessibility to them, the method in which the Records were kept was perfectly scandalous. They were scattered about in eight or ten different offices, in different parts of the town. Those at Somerset-house were in underground vaults, where the light of the sun never penetrated. Fires were lighted in these vaults for the purpose of dispelling the damp; and the result was that the Records were alternately damp and dry, the destructive effects of which changes be need hardly point out: he feared they might have operated extensively already. A very picturesque description had been given in a report of some stalactite found in one of these vaults by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis); stalactites were interesting objects to the geologist, but a Record-office was an inappropriate place for their growth. Mr. Illingworth, who was very familiar with these Records and their situation, stated in a letter that he was afraid to touch them, on account of their dampness, lest he should catch the rheumatism in his hand. In these same vaults the Records were placed so high on shelves, some sticking out like bottles, that a ladder must be obtained to reach them; and then there was the chance of falling from the top with the roll upon the adventurous individual who made the experiment: no very pleasant predicament. Surely, nothing could be more evident than that the public Records of a nation ought not to be left in such circumstances, but should be placed in commodious and suitable apartments in accessible situations, and under a perfect system of arrangement. As to the miscellaneous Records lately at the Mews, and now at Carlton-ride, the method of keeping them was most ridiculous. They did not talk there of books, and manuscripts, and rolls, like other people but they described the Records by sacks and bushels. They would tell you that they had six hundred and fifty sacks of Records, containing eight bushels each. The Commission had begun some little good here; which, being good, was mysteriously suspended. The papers were sorted by years in sacks; so that if you wanted a document for such a year, you went to such a sack. The Records to which he was now alluding, had previously been kept, as the House might remember, in the temporary sheds which till lately Stood in Westminster-hall. One of the fittest objects of the Commission would have been to provide a proper repository for the reception of the Records. He had seen a very fair estimate for a building, but no repository had been built. The money spent in temporary buildings and removals would have gone a great way towards realising this object. The sum actually expended in fitting up the vaults of Somerset-house was 16,000l.; and the various migrations of the Records from the old buildings in Westminster-hall to the King's-mews and Carlton-terrace, had cost 12,000l.; so that these two sums, making 28,000l., would have formed a fund sufficient to build a very good Record-office. Another object, of course, of great importance was, that these Records should be safe. Ever since 1732, it had been reported to the House of Commons that there were a brewhouse and washhouse at the back of the Chapter-house, where the Records were kept, and by which the safety of the Chapter-house was greatly endangered by fire. In 1800 this brewhouse and this washhouse were again reported as dangerous. In 1819 this brewhouse and washhouse again attracted the serious notice of the Commissioners. In 1831 it was thought expedient to send a deputation to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and to request his Majesty's Surveyor-general to report upon the perils of this brewhouse and washhouse, and endeavor to get the Dean and Chapter to pull them down. But the Dean and Chapter asserted the vested rights of the Church, and no redress was obtained against the brewhouse and washhouse. In 1833 another expedition, headed by the right hon. Baronet opposite, was made to the Chapterhouse, but the right hon. Baronet, desiring not to come into collision with the Church, omitted all mention of the brewhouse and washhouse. And thus the attention of the Commissioners had been constantly directed to this eternal brewhouse and eternal wash-house without any avail. There they still remain as a monument of the inefficiency of the Commissioners, and of the great power and pertinacity of the Church of this country. It seemed, however, to him (Mr. C. Buller) that the hon. Baronet had not consistently exhibited that attachment to the Church which the world gave him credit for, as in 1833 it was reported that the Records in the Augmentation-office (in which the great bulk of the Records relating to the Church were deposited) were in great danger from fire. The praiseworthy efforts of Mr. Protheroe to reform the condition of the Augmentation-office, and especially his representations of the dangers likely to arise from fire, were practically disregarded, though the burning of the Houses of Parliament, which occurred since, bore ample testimony to the value of his suggestions. The result of not attending to his advice was, that the Records at that period were all thrown out of the windows, to be preserved from the ravages of fire by the mire of Palace-yard, and soaked by water from the firemains. He had heard that the Records made admirable rat-traps. It was astonishing the quantity of remains of rats which were found amongst the Records. On one occasion the skeleton of a cat had been found amongst them. Evidence too appeared, that the Public Records had served a better purpose than rat-traps. The Public Records had been boiled down, for glue, and the cleaner and better sort had been converted into jellies by the confectioners. He had heard, too, that the embezzlement of Records had been carried to a serious extent, and that at the sale of a deceased virtuoso a lot of this kind fetched above 600l. They were also to be found, as matters of course, in curiosity-shops through the town. The disorderly course of keeping the Records in large masses scattered on tables, amongst which it was necessary to hunt for any specific document, might perhaps be accounted for by the knowledge of the fact that the searchers were paid by the time spent in these hunting matches. An attempt was made to arrange the Records in the Augmentation-office by the late Secretary, who bound those of similar sizes together without regard to subject or date—leases, grants, and rentals, altogether—of which an index of contents, compiled at the public expense, was kept by the Secretary at Spafields, where it could be consulted on payment of a fee; but, owing to the imperfection of this arrangement, three days had been frequently spent, with the help of this index, hunting for a single class of documents. This was not at all surprising, for he found one volume labelled "Rentals" which contained seventeen sorts of Records, yet not a single one of that class. The Commissioners were especially expected, to report on the subject of fees, a matter of great import, which still lay quite neglected, though Sir Harris Nicolas had, in his valuable work, exposed the enormity of the prevailing practice It appeared that any one wishing to look at a single record must pay 16s, 8d.; if a transcript were taken, additional fees were required; if a full copy, higher still. A general search cost five guineas; and in the Rolls' Chapel even eight guineas is not an unusual charge. There they would not allow a copy of part of a document to be made or examined by an applicant. A person wanted a few lines of a particular instrument transcribed, and applied to be permitted to copy them himself. He was told he must, to obtain them, order an office-copy of the entire record, the expense of which would be 140 guineas; and this abuse was yet unreformed, Again, if a document was required in a Court of Law, a guinea per day was charged for bringing it from the Tower; if ten records were required at once, ten guineas were charged; and so on. The effect of this might be estimated from the fact that in a single case instituted to try the right to the Barony of Stafford, the charge was eighty guineas. In this case the sum of eighty guineas was paid for taking certain rolls from the Tower to the House of Lords, and, as the House did not sit that day, they went back again, to be produced on other occasions, with other payments of fees. As he had already said, the great object which the Commissioners ought to hold in view should be to make those Records accessible for purposes connected with the history of the country; to have them well and carefully arranged, with good indexes, so as that all learned men might enjoy easy access to them; to have them so deposited as that there should be no injury from damp, and no danger from fire. But the preservation of the Records seemed to be entirely neglected in the eagerness of the Commissioners to print certain costly works, and in reprinting of essays. Amongst the works of the present Commissioners was a supplement to the "Valor Ecclesiasticus," a work given to the public as completing the previously published volumes. In less than a month after this publication appeared, fresh, supplementary matter was found in sufficient quantity to mate another volume. He held in his hand a volume, entitled "Rotuli Selecti," as a specimen of the accuracy of the present Commission's editorship. The work contained a patent roll twice printed by the present Commission, and other rolls of Henry 3rd, transcripts of which were twice made at the public expense. In this work there were more mistakes than might be expected to occur in proof-sheets sent to an author for correction. Those blunders were not only numerous, but somehow always occurred in the most important words. Thus in one place it ought to have stated that a certain payment was made to the king, but the word "king" was left out, and it therefore became impossible to say to whom the payment was made; then, certain ladies were mentioned who were heiresses of some person, but the word "heiresses" was omitted. In one publication by the old Commission, the transcript called "Testa de Neville", there were 120 variations from the original roll in twenty-two lines. And what made this negligence the more alarming was, the announcement in a printed work of the present Commissioners, that it was intended to apply for an Act to make this correct and authentic copy a sufficient proof in Courts of Law. The Commission was enjoined to print the "more valuable and ancient of the Records." and yet they bad expended 634l. on reprinting Sir Henry Ellis's Introduction to Doomsday;—300l. having been paid for the editorship of the two octavo volumes to that gentleman. Then there was an "Account of the Public Records" printed at the public cost, and appearing as a private work, without the title and dignity of the Commission attached thereto. Another work' printed, and not an "ancient record," was a "Proposal for building a Record-office, and Judges' chambers" Another work, not an "ancient Record," was an Essay reprinted from the Quarterly Review. Another work was a Report on the Chancery Proceedings. Such was the curiosity and value of this work, that it was presented as a beautiful specimen of typography, printed in red and black letter, and the name and style of every Commissioner was printed in his own copy. These items reminded him (Mr. Buller) of the celebrity which the Irish Commission had obtained in printing. In the Irish Record Commission some surprise was expressed at seeing a charge for the collection of ancient and valuable works in England by Mr. Rowley Lascelles. It appeared, on applying to that gentleman for an explanation, he had (on a quarrel amongst the Irish Commissioners) been deputed to select materials at this side of the water, and certainly he had brought together some "ancient and valuable re- cords," amongst which appeared a pamphlet of Mr. Croker's on the state of Ireland, and Mr. Thomas Moore's "Captain Rock." Another complaint against the Commission arose from their proceedings on the Continent. He thought the Commissioners had rather gone out of their way in sending to Belgium to procure the copy of a document which was itself a copy of an original Record existing in the Tower of London, and could not understand how they could find occupation for similar embassies in Germany, Portugal, Russia, Italy, &c, except to furnish a justification for expending 5,000l. in mating themselves known. He also saw an item of 1,500l. for books, and was rather surprised that the Commissioners should think it necessary to gratify continental curiosity at such an expensive rate as was indicated by a present sent to one learned individual, Dugdale's "Monasticon,' a work which originally cost above 100 guineas. He thought the system very unwise and dangerous which placed 10,000l. a-year at the entire disposal of a secretary to pay away at his discretion, without any order from the Commissioners; which was the system until lately. Things had gone on in this way for thirty-six years, notwithstanding the representations of Mr. Prothe-roe—a Commissioner to whose exertions for reform the public was much indebted; and it was only when a Parliamentary inquiry was talked of that any reform was perceptible. He decidedly objected to the constitution of the Commission. It was said, in its defence, that it was composed of men of high honour and respectability; but it was well known that individuals of such character were not so remarkable for conducting business well as for leaving it to be done by others. In conclusion, this Commission had expended a large portion of the public money, and was now deeply in debt. It could not show that it had done anything towards having the Records of the country well lodged, well housed, or more accessible to the public; it could not show that it had done anything towards reducing the fees; it could not show that it had done anything towards rendering the Records available by means of good calendars or indices; but it could show that their money had been expended in very useless and imperfect works. It was for these reasons that he asked the House for, and it was on these reasons that he thought they would grant, the Select Committee.

said, the publications alluded to by the hon. Member had, under the sanction of Parliament, been distributed to the Members of both Houses, who had been themselves to blame if they suffered the Commissioners to pursue an erroneous system so long, yearly reports of their expenditure and progress having been regularly laid before them. He was himself a member of the Commission, and he knew that the Commissioners had frequently laid before Parliament their opinion of the necessity of building a new Record Office. They had not authority to build any office, or to remove the Records any where. He was prepared to take his share of the responsibility of having a plan made for removing those shelves, and enlarging the building. The hon. Member who brought forward this Motion was wholly misinformed as to the Portuguese work of which he had spoken. He could only say, as one of the Commissioners, that he never saw or heard of such a work; and, as to the book published by Mr. Cooper, that publication took place solely at Mr. Cooper's own expense, and not at the expense of the Commission. The hon. Member should, therefore, have informed himself better on this point before he made his statement. The Commission, he believed, was first suggested many years ago by Lord Bexley, but not carried into effect fully until a much more recent period, under the present Commissioners. Without at all including himself, he believed there were men upon the Commission whose names were a sufficing guarantee for adopting the best means to accomplish the object for which they had been appointed. Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Hallam, and Mr. Allen were on the Commission, and the late Earl Spencer and Mr. Dundas, the Lord Register of Scotland, were constant attendants at the meetings of the Commissioners. These were Gentlemen who devoted all their attention to the subject, and who could not fail to bring about a very satisfactory result. With respect to the fees charged, the Commissioners had nothing to do with them; but he must say, that he had never heard of any abuse on the part of those who were entitled to those fees.

was glad that his hon. Friend near him had brought this subject before the House, because it was clear that there was something going on of which the Commissioners knew nothing. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wynn), although he was one of the Commissioners, had that night stated that Mr. Cooper's book was not published at the expense of the Commission, whereas it appeared distinctly, by a return made to that House on the 13th of August, 1833, that the book was published at the sole expense, and under the authority, of the Board of Commissioners. The heavy fees demanded for inspecting those Records were a grievous injustice and oppression on the public. He could name one striking instance of this which came under his own observation at the last assizes at Chester. On a trial, which involved a disputed claim to property, it was necessary to inspect six sides only of a grant of Queen Elizabeth, and in order to do this, the parties were compelled to take a copy of fifty-six sides of folio parchment, containing totally irrelevant matter.

said, that it was rather strange that the hon. Member for Liskeard should take so much pains to find fault with a Commission appointed by the present Government, which he so strenuously supported. He himself (Sir R. Inglis) was, he believed, the only Tory on the Commission. The present Speaker was at the head of it, and the Commission, he believed, originated with Lord Brougham. The accounts, too, which had been complained of, were audited by three Gentlemen perfectly competent to such a duty, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. W. Brougham, and Mr. Protheroe. From time to time there had served on the Commission men of all others the best qualified for such an object. The Earl of Aberdeen had been once on the Commission, and so had Earl Spencer, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Hallam, and Mr. Allen. These were men likely to know what would best promote the interest of the profession and the public. As to removing the Records, it had been decided by the authority of one of the Judges who attended on the Commission at the Speaker's house, that it was not competent to the Commissioners to remove them without an Act of Parliament.

suggested that, as all the old rotten stores were now selling off at the Tower, which would leave plenty of room there, the Records ought to be removed there as the best and safest place for their preservation.

thought the House were indebted to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the subject under their notice.

would not say that the expenses had not been considerable, but the country was deeply indebted to the facilities which the labours of the Commissioners had given to all persons who were desirous to obtain information, which it would otherwise have been very difficult to procure, on the history, the laws, and the government of the country.

stated that he rose to propose a number of resolutions respecting divisions in the House, which were founded on the report of the Select Committee which sat on the subject last year. The object was, the giving publicity to the names of the Members who voted in each division. He thought, as well for the sake of themselves as for their constituents, that hon. Members should be prepared to give an account of their stewardship, and to let the public know how they voted on each occasion. Undoubtedly, the most important part of the business of a Member of that House was voting in conformity with the wishes of those who had sent him to represent them. Every hon. Gentleman who heard him was aware that he was subject to the tribunal of public opinion, and each should be prepared to bow to it. What had recently been allowed to be done with reference to the debates, ought equally to be permitted in the case of divisions. Lists were now published of the persons who voted, but these were constantly found to contain inaccuracies, and all that was wished was, to cambine with the accuracy of the debates the accuracy of the account of the divisions. One could not be perfect without the other. It was not sufficient for a constituency to know how their representative spoke, but they should also be aware how he voted. The report of the Committee was presented last year, and it suggested a plan of taking divisions by means of double nominees and clerks, and that a second lobby should be built. At the suggestion, however, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the matter was postponed until this year, as the lobby could not be then conveniently built. The second lobby, however, was now erected, and it was only for the House to carry out their own resolutions, and adopt the mode of division recommended by the Committee, and sanctioned by the House last year. The first resolution that he had to propose was, that on any division the House should be entirely cleared, and that the ayes and noes should be sent into different lobbies. The second resolution was, that four tellers should be nominated in each division, and that they should be attended by four clerks; that two of each should take their places at the door of each lobby, and that the doors should be simultaneously opened, and that the numbers should "be counted, and that the names of the Members should be taken down by the clerks. The lists should then be taken up to the Table, and that the Speaker should direct an alphabetical list of the Members voting to be prepared, which should be inserted in the votes. Such were the resolutions of last year; but he would suggest a slight alteration in one of them, namely, that in each division the name of the Members who voted should be marked in a printed list of Members which had been prepared in an alphabetical form. He had done this in consequence of having seen a table which had been drawn at the suggestion of the Speaker. This mode of proceeding might afford greater facility of taking the lists than writing the names down; but he should propose that either of these modes might be adopted. He thought that the plan was sufficiently plain and feasible for the adoption of the House, and he trusted that all sides would agree to give it a fair trial. Everybody was aware of the inaccuracies that were to be met with in the list of every division that was now given in the newspapers; and by the plan he proposed, he was satisfied that an accurate list of names would be furnished. In the list of the majority of last night, in the first division, there were not less than fifty-seven omissions, and the hon. Member for Exeter was described as voting on both sides. In the division on the Address, the names of three Members were omitted, who, at great personal inconvenience, had hastened from the north of Scotland to be present on the occasion. Another case had recently occurred, of a very remarkable nature, to an hon. and gallant Friend of his. He had been accused on the hustings of voting against the Impressments Bill. He was satisfied in his own mind that he had not done so, and contradicted it, but not less than eleven lists of the division were produced to prove that he did. His veracity was impeached, and discredit was thrown on him; but it appeared on inquiry that all the lists had been copied from one in which there was an inaccuracy. This was a point affecting every man in the House who wished to stand well with his constituents. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed the resolutions.

thought that the best argument which had been used for the adoption of the plan was the erection of the additional lobby. He was not aware that the lobby wag to have been built, and was not aware of its erection until he found it where it was. He trusted that the House would consent to try the experiment of the hon. Gentleman, at the same time he would not say that some inconvenience might not arise from it. He could not help feeling that there would be a material difference in point of time in taking the divisions. The division last night was 190 to thirty-six, and certainly in this case no great time would be consumed, but when a very large number of Members were present a material difference would be perceived. His hon. Friend urged that by adopting this course correct lists of the names of Members who voted in the divisions would be furnished. Certainly, as the habit prevailed of publishing lists of divisions, it was desirable that they should be accurate. His hon. Friend said inaccurate lists were constantly published in the newspapers, and that Members had to write to correct those lists. It was one thing, however, to correct the lists in the newspapers, and another having to get up and complain to the House of errors in the votes, in the latter case of course it would be necessary to search out where the error arose. As it appeared that the lobby was ready he could see no objection to make a trial of the resolution.

saw no objection to try the experiment, and if it was found that much time was consumed in divisions, he had no doubt that the House would feel disposed to return to the old system. If the new plan did not occupy much time, the House would act upon it. It would be necessary by this plan, however, to have four clerks in constant attendance, and they might pass eight or ten days without having one division, therefore the expense of it would not be inconsiderable.

was glad that the right hon. Baronet was disposed to give the plan a fair trial, as he had no doubt of its success. He did not suppose that it could be carried into effect without some additional time, but certainly it would not be of any considerable duration. He objected to intrusting discretionary power to any man, but he thought in this case no great evil could result from leaving it to the Speaker.

stated that the plan had been tried, as appeared from the Journals, in 1834, when it was found that names had been inserted by mistake.

said, that the plan alluded to by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, was essentially different from that now proposed. If a clerk should not be present at the time of a division, it would be easy for a Member to take his place

suggested that much time might be saved in, divisions if the lobbies were on the sides of the House, and there were several doors into them from the House. When all the Members had got into the lobbies, all the doors with the exception of one should be shut, through which the Members could return into the House.

remarked that at present a Member might always excuse himself to his constituents for his voting, and impute it to the mistakes of newspapers. If errors should occur in the proposed system, it would be easy to correct them in the votes on the following day. He did not think that so much evil arose from a single error in a list of a division as hon. Gentlemen supposed, as constituents would generally form an estimate of their representative from the general tenor of a Member's votes.

expressed his surprise at the tone of the hon. Baronet's observations. As to the proposed plan there could be no doubt of its superiority to the present system.

rose for the purpose of moving, according to notice, for a "Return of all Processes which have issued out of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in the cause of Knox v. Gavin and others, and of all orders made in the said cause, and all affidavits made therein; also, copies of any order or orders made by his Majesty's Government in the years 1823, 1825, and 1833, respecting the employment of the police in the service and execution of suits, and of the signatures attached to such orders. Hon. Members no doubt had heard something of the cause in question. It was one among others got up by the "Lay Association for defending the property of the Established Church in Ireland." In the first place, let him not be understood as confounding this Association with the society formed in this country for the honourable purpose of relieving the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland from the, distresses and difficulties under which they laboured. The latter society was instituted for a legitimate, praiseworthy object; its principles were those of truly Christian benevolence; whereas the Association formed in Ireland was nothing but a branch of Orangeism, partaking of all the mischief and malevolence of its prototype. ["No."] Hon. Members cried no, but he should be able to prove what he had said; and moreover, that the gallant officer opposite, the Grand Treasurer of the Orange Society, was amongst the leading subscribers to the new institution. He would read from The Standard newspaper the advertisement put forth by the Association, stating who were their trustees, and so forth. At the head of these appeared the name of the Earl of Roden—the coincidence could scarcely be fortuitous—then came the Earl of Enniskillen, then the Earl of Bandon, Lord Farnham, Lord Lorton, &c. &c. He did not see the hon. and gallant Member's name, but there was the name of the gallant officer sitting on his sinister hand (Colonel Verner), as a subscriber of 25l. The Association set forth as its object the lending its assistance to the Irish clergy in the recovery of dues, which he was ready to admit were legal. But this did not prevent the association from being as illicit and reprehensible as ever; at the best, an organ of this kind, was, after all, but a bad substitute for that Legislative measure which every one must own to be indispensable for the adjustment of the tithe question. This was a point conceded by the late Government as well as the present, both agreed that tithes could not be levied and ought not to be levied by force of arms. He would just state the circumstances of the case to which he had referred, and he would then put the question whether the House was to try the character and objects of the society by the course of proceeding which it had already adopted. The reality of these proceedings he was prepared to prove; to prove, not by idle allegations, which some Members opposite might think themselves in a position to contradict, but by the evidence of a court of justice, which could not be contradicted by any man. The first statement he would make was this; since the 1st of August last, there had been filed by this Lay Association not fewer than 6l7 bills on the equity side of the Exchequer. Hon. Members opposite, perhaps, would say, why not? His answer was this: there were two modes of proceeding open to parties in these cases —one cheap, speedy, and efficient; the other, an expensive and most oppressive process. The 617 bills were filed under the latter process, and it was against the adoption of this proceeding, and their mode of carrying it into effect, that he raised his voice. All tithes under 10l. were recoverable by civil process before a Magistrate; but what had this Lay Association done? Filed upwards of 600 Exchequer bills for sums in most cases under 10l., and in some for sums of 1s. 9d. If this were controverted, let them grant him the returns, which would at once establish the glaring and formidable fact. He would state two of the cases in question, which were to be proved by evidence not to be contradicted. These two cases were striking examples of how this frightful litigation had been carried on. The first case to which he would refer was the case of the very rev. Gilbert Holmes v. Hodges. These facts came out in this case—(that the bill was filed by the Lay Association was not disputed) the bill was filed in the name of the rev. Gilbert Holmes, and conducted by Mr. Smith, a lawyer of great talents, solicitor to the Association, who also filed the whole of the other bills set on foot by the society. This gentleman it was not his (Mr. Shell's) intention or wish to mate any charge against, it was the individuals who had recourse to his professional skill that merited condemnation. Now, as to the facts of the case: on the 4th of January last, Mr. Smith wrote to the defendant, demanding the payment of 22.l due by him for tithe; this was put into the post-office on the 5th, and received by the defendant on the 6th; on the 7th the latter called upon the attorney to pay the amount demanded; but what then did Mr. Smith propose? Not only that the defendant should pay the tithe, but in addition the sum of 19l. 9s. 8d., being the amount of costs said to have been incurred up to that time, although the demand upon defendant was only made on the 6th of January, the day previous. Were hon. Members opposite prepared to deny this fact? Was it true? and if true, was it defensible? If the Lay Association had really taken this course, was the system a good one? Having disposed of this first specimen of the society's proceedings, he now came to another case of far greater importance—he meant that of Knox v. Gavin, In going into the details of this case he should have occasion to cite the words of an Act of Parliament, and to allude to other technical phraseology, but he trusted the House would give its attention to these details; it was worth their while to see the whole machinery of the law applied with the most perverse ingenuity to the unhallowed purpose of crushing the unhappy peasantry of Ireland in the dust. The facts of the case, indeed, required no comment: it would be an injustice to intelligent and feeling persons to imagine that facts such as these he brought forward required any comment or illustration from him. He would in the first place recal to the recollection of the House the Act generally called Goulburn's Act, passed 3rd George 4th, one of the chapters of which made it lawful for the Lord-Lieutenant to appoint four inspectors of police in Ireland, and to those inspectors it gave a power to frame rules for the conduct of the police constables, which rules, if approved of by the county Magistrates and by the Lord-lieutenant, were to be transmitted by the Government to the chief constables, and referred to on all occasions as the manual of the policeman's duty. In pursuance of this Act certain orders or regulations were made by the inspectors appointed and approved of by the Magistrates, by the Castle; and by the Government, among the members of which Government were Mr. (then Secretary) Goulburn and Mr. Joy, then Law Adviser of the Crown, now Chief Baron of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer in Ireland. And what were these orders? This was in 1823. One of these regulations, the 6th, directed that "the men shall on no account interfere in the execution of any writ, decree, or court order, or in driving for rent, tithes, or taxes, unless called on by a Magistrate, or the high-sheriff, or sub-sheriff, in person." This was one of the regulations approved of by the right hon. Henry Joy, who now, as Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, sanctioned a proceeding directly contravening that order. The same order was re-enacted in 1825, and continued in force. Now let the House see what course was adopted in the case of Knox v. Gavin. The same attorney, Mr. Smith, filed bills in the Court of Exchequer against twenty-two persons, amongst the rest Gavin, the tithes owing by whom amounted to the small sum of 1l. 11s. The proceedings in this case showed the animus of the entire system. The bills having been filed, what course was resorted to? In the month of Decem- ber last Mr. Smith wrote a letter to the noble Secretary for Ireland, stating that he was employed in a great variety of tithe suits, and requesting from his Lordship general directions to the police in reference to his proceeding in these suits. Not receiving an immediate answer from the noble Lord, in a few days Mr. Smith wrote again to him, complaining of an alleged want on his Lordship's part of the courtesy due from one gentleman to another—an imputation which any person acquainted with the noble Secretary well knew could never justly be charged against him. The noble Lord upon this returned an answer, assuring Mr. Smith that no offence had been intended towards him, and stating that the police might be employed in tithe cases where an actual riot was in existence, or about to take place, provided that a Magistrate were present. This did not at all do for the Lay Association; and he must beg the attention of the House to a detail of the extraordinary expedient adopted by the Lay Association for the purpose of setting aside the orders of the inspectors, made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, and sanctioned by Government, with a view of enforcing the levy of tithes, by the entire police and military force in Ireland. Many Gentlemen in the House were possibly unacquainted with the curious phrase "Commission of rebellion." In England no such thing existed in the Courts either of Exchequer or Chancery: it had long since been abolished. In the Irish. Court of Exchequer, too, the terra had been, as a matter of substantive practice, obsolete for two hundred years past. At the worst it was used merely as a matter of form, being directed to John Doe and Richard Roe as commissioners of rebellion. The Lay Association, however, were not satisfied with taking the commission of rebellion as a mere matter of form, their object was to give it a fearful reality, and they accordingly had a commission of rebellion issued, addressed to a person of the lower class, named Dudley, and calling upon all officers to assist in arresting the rebels. This Dudleys who, though a young man, swore he had been twenty years in office, had no sooner got the commission of rebellion, than he made an attempt to ensnare the police. He applied to Malone, a chief officer of police, and demanded his assistance in putting the commission into effect. Malone at once referred to the order sanctioned by Messrs. Goulburn and Joy, which prohibited the police from interfering in any of these cases, except by the order, and in the presence, of a Magistrate. Upon Dudley's insisting on his compliance, Malone begged to be allowed to consult his superior officer, Major Miller, inspector of police. That officer at once, in obedience to the order, decided that Dudley was not entitled to the assistance of the police. Upon this refusal application was made to the Court of Exchequer for an attachment to issue against the parties for not obeying the Commissioners, and a conditional order was issued. Against this order the Attorney and Solicitor-General appeared in Court to show cause, on the ground that Miller and his sub-ordinate officer had only done their duty. He was not going to enter into the legal merits or demerits of the case in that House, nor was it his intention to throw imputations upon the motives of any one; he only stated facts. It was for the House to draw their inferences from those facts. The Judges present in Court (Baron Pennefather being absent from illness) were, the Lord Chief Baron (the very man who, as law-officer for the Crown, had in 1823 warmly supported the order on which the police officers proceeded), Mr. Baron Foster, and Mr. Baron Smith, who, though he had been absent from illness since the 2nd of November preceding, became fortunately convalescent on the 26th of January, the day on which the cause was tried. He did not cast any imputation upon the learned Judge. The learned Baron had strong political opinions, but no doubt they were conscientious; no doubt but that the zeal he had formerly displayed in a popular cause, he had transferred with equal sincerity to a cause of which it might truly be said that it was not popular. There were several gentlemen of the name of Smith engaged in this trial, all men of high talent; he did not, however, know that Mr. Smith, the attorney, was related to the other two gentlemen. On the trial, as was too often the case in Ireland, a great deal of political controversy took place in Court. The Counsel for the prosecution did not hesitate to charge his Majesty's Government with collusion and unfair practices, to which libels the Counsel on the other side naturally replied with all the spirit and manliness which so distinguished him. The Chief Baron in a judgment, in which it had been thought some extra-judicial observations were mixed up, granted the rule sought for, thus virtually setting aside the order which he had himself sanctioned in 1823, and giving Dudley authority to call in the police to his aid. He would ask the House to consider, with a view to ulterior litigation, in what a state the country was placed by this decision. The whole country was placed at the foot of this Lay Association, with Lord Roden at its head. Already they had subscribed amongst themselves large sums of money. The country was allocated into various districts, watched over through the medium of chosen attorneys. Already had 617 bills been filed, many of them for the most contemptible sums, as the returns made to the House would show. The Lay Association had nothing to do but to file bills, and issue commissions of rebellion, without the authority or even knowledge of the Court, in which the name of some ferocious myrmidon of Orangeism should be inserted, and their object would be gained. Let them insert, for instance, but the flames of men such as burned six houses in a village in Armagh— men who came into a court of justice and rescued prisoners. There was no reason to suppose that such truculent and ferocious men would not be selected and sent down into the disturbed parts of the country to call upon the police and soldiery, excite riots, and drive the whole district into anarchy and bloodshed. The House might judge what would be done from what had been done. The name of Borrisokane would at once suffice to strike the hearts of all who heard it with feelings of horror at the past, and dread for the future. To such scenes the decision of the Irish Court of Exchequer gave a virtual sanction. His object was not to charge criminality against any one, but to put the House in possession of the circumstances, and draw their attention to the scenes of slaughter which had been witnessed at Newcomer, Rathcormac, and Enniskillen. He wished the English people to know the facts. If he had overcharged his statement, let it be corrected. In conclusion, he moved for a return of the number of bills filed in the Court of Exchequer of Ireland for tithes since the 1st of August last, and of the names of the plaintiffs and defendants, and the sums claimed against such defendants respectively: also of all processes which have issued out of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in the cause of Knox v. Gavin and others, and of all orders issued in the said cause, and all affidavits made therein; also copies of any order or orders made by his Majesty's Government in the years 1828, 1825, and 1833, respecting the employment of the police in the service and execution of writs, and of the expenditure attached to such orders.

said, that both his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy), and himself had cause to complain of the course which the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had taken on this occasion. The first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion formed the subject matter of a distinct notice, and as he had told them that he would not submit it to the attention of the House without giving them some previous notice of his intention, they clearly had a right to complain of having been taken by surprise. He (Mr. Jackson) had come down to the House that evening expecting to hear the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary move in accordance with the notice on the paper; but he certainly did not anticipate that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have departed from what he had declared to be his intention. Had he been apprised that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Member to introduce any other topic on the present occasion he would have been prepared to meet him. Taken as he was by surprise he was not prepared, but still he would do justice to the Lay Association recently formed in Ireland to aid the clergy in obtaining their legitimate rights by defending them against the attack which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made against them. The hon. and learned Member had made a number of allegations for the purpose of showing that he bad grounds for his motion, not a single one of those allegations he had no hesitation in asserting, was founded in fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, it would seem, brought forward the subject of a former notice which he had given for the purpose only of attacking the Lay Association, by stating that it was nothing more than an Orange Association, if that could be a reproach. ["Cheers."] By that cheer he supposed they wished to affirm that it was. He, however, utterly denied the statement. He asserted that the Association was not an Orange society, although he believed no Roman Catholic gentleman belonged to it. It was now the fashion to stigmatise everybody in Ireland who was not of that persuasion. He repeated, that it was now the fashion to stigmatise and render odious every Protestant who refused to submit to the domination of a certain despicable faction in that country.—["No, no."]—He asserted that it was, and that, too, fear- lessly, and without the hazard of contradiction. He admitted that the individuals who formed the Lay Association were Protestant gentlemen, but he most emphatically denied that they were confederated for any illegal or improper purpose. They were associated simply with a view to enforce the law, and not to violate it.— [Mr. Sheil: For the recovery of tithe property.]—Undoubtedly, the Association was formed for the purpose of supporting the law, by aiding those who required its assistance in seeking for that which was their unquestionable right. Tithe property was as much entitled to the protection of the law as any other species of property; but he prayed the House to consider well what the state of Ireland was at the present hour in relation to tithes. An extensive confederation, or rather conspiracy, existed throughout the whole of that country to rob the clergy. The clergy were not only pillaged and plundered to an incredible extent, but they found it utterly impossible to assert their rights; and such, in short, was the universal dread which this conspiracy inspired in the minds of men that even the hon. and learned Member himself had declared that he dared not set himself against it.—[Mr. Sheil: "No, no."]— Why, he had in his hand a letter written by the hon. and learned Gentleman to a Clergyman who had applied to him for payment of an arrear of tithes, in which such a reason was assigned by the hon. and learned Gentleman for his non-compliance with the application. Could it be wondered at that the clergy were driven to the necessity of filing bills for the recovery of their rights, when they found it impossible to obtain from the hon. and learned Gentleman—from a Member of the Legislature'—payment of their dues without the interference of the law? But the House would like to know what the answer was which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the clergyman alluded to. He tells him—[Mr. Sheil: Read the whole letter.] —He had not the least objection to hand the letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman might, if he thought fit, read the whole of it to the House, but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would do him the honour to allow him to exercise his own judgment in selecting and reading from it the passage which struck him as most pertinent to the matter in hand. In other respects he wished it to be understood that this letter was by no means discreditable to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was not to be dictated to by either the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member on the opposite side of the House, as to the course which he should pursue on this or any other occasion. ["Oh."] He had not presumed to interrupt the hon. and learned Member in the course of his address, and all he required was that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not interrupt him. He should only read so much of the letter of the hon. and learned Gentleman as he thought material to the question now before the House. In this letter the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "You must be aware that, as Member for the county of Tipperary, I am obliged to make my election between the payment of tithes and the loss of my seat." Such was the reason which the hon. and learned Gentleman assigned for refusing to pay the tithes which he owed; but to what a pass had things come when a Member of that House was afraid to discharge a lawful demand because of an atrocious conspiracy of this kind—when his holding his seat depended rather on his compliance with the will of such a confederation than his obedience to the laws. Under these circumstances he should like to know whether any Protestant could see the clergy of the religion which he professed reduced to beggary, in the actual process of starvation, and not come forward to compel those to pay them that which they refused to pay except through the intervention of the laws. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated as a fact what was altogether untrue. He had said that the Lay Association had filed no fewer than 600 bills for the recovery of tithes. [Mr. Sheil I said 617;] Whether it was 600 or 617, he denied the fact in the most positive terms. The statement was wholly destitute of truth. Although he said this, it was not his intention to oppose the granting of the returns for which the hon. and learned Gentleman sought, but he did wish that in some particulars the scope of those returns should be enlarged. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman prove, if he could, that a sixth or even an eighth part of the number of bills he had stated had been filed. He defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to the proof; and, what was more, he might, without the fear of contradiction, venture to assert that up to the present hour the Lay Association had not aided the tithe suits commenced in the Court of Exchequer beyond the number of from fifty to sixty through the whole realm of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the number of suits of this description was 6l7, but he (Mr. Jackson) denied that the Lay Association had either filed or caused to be filed a greater number of bills for the recovery of tithes due to the clergy than that which he had already mentioned. Well but, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, there was no necessity for taking such cases into the Court of Exchequer when the Civil Bill Court was open to the parties to the extent of 10l. This was a plausible argument, no doubt; but he should be glad to know how claims in respect to tithes could be enforced by an inferior tribunal. They were all aware, or had, at all events, heard, of the manner in which process servers were treated when they attempted to carry the law into execution. He had been concerned in several cases in which the unfortunate process server had encountered violence and outrage of the worst kind. In one, the Sergeant-at-Mace of Youghal went some short distance from that town to serve process on a tithe defaulter. The instant he effected the service the defendant rushed out upon him with a pitchfork. The whole country was raised, and the unfortunate man was speedily felled to the ground, and beaten in the most brutal manner. Thinking they had dispatched him, his assailants left him to all appearance dead; but after some time he so far recovered as to be able to crawl to a neighbouring house, where he hoped to find protection; but on asking for a little water the female who opened the door saluted him with a blow of a pair of tongs which she had in her hand. These were facts which did not depend on mere report, but had been verified by affidavit. He then, as well as he was able, made his way to another house, but although there he received the draught of water for which he asked, the door was shut in his face. He should have been prepared to cite other instances of a similar kind had he known that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to bring the first part of his motion forward without notice; but, as be had already said he was taken by surprise, he was not prepared to advance facts which he should otherwise have been able to adduce. He could, however, satisfy any man, that the clergy could not obtain their rights through the instrumentality of an inferior jurisdiction, and although it was charged against them as a crime, they had no alternative left but to resort to the Court of Exchequer. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that Mr. Smith was the attorney of the Lay Association, and he charged that Gentleman with—[Mr. Shiel made no charge against Mr. Smith, and meant to make none.] Well, but the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that Mr. Smith was the attorney of the Lay Association. This statement was just as void of foundation as the other allegations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made. Mr. Smith neither was nor ever bad been the solicitor of the Lay Association, but that Association had a solicitor, not, however, for the purpose of originating suits, but seeing that assistance was given in no case that did not merit interference, and that the proceedings were properly conducted. Mr. Richard Open, a gentleman of high character in the profession, was the solicitor of the Association, and his duty was rather to prevent oppression than to cause it. It was not the wish of the Lay Association that the poor should be attacked, or that suits should be commenced for other than substantial sums, or against any persons who put themselves forward as ringleaders in resisting the payment of tithes. He would admit that they preferred instituting proceedings against persons in opulent circumstances—Members, for instance, of that House, or Magistrates—they preferred taking men of station for the purpose of enforcing obedience to the law to any other persons, because such parties were bound not to set the law at defiance, and create rebellion; but to show a good example by their conduct to the country at large. It was a well known fact that the Irish people had had pointed out to them all the subterfuges and stratagems by which the payment of tithes could be resisted, and one hon. and learned Gentleman had gone the length of advising the wallopping away of those who might attempt to execute process for tithe. Now, he-asked, were such things to be endured by a British House of Commons; or whether men were to be branded with infamy merely because they had confederated together peaceably and legally for the purpose of enforcing a just right? The hon. and learned Gentleman also said, that in the case of Holmes and Hodges costs had been accumulated to an extraordinary amount, not by Mr. Smith, but by the Lay Association. But would the hon. and learned Gentleman have the hardihood to assert that the Lay Association had any concern whatever with that case, either directly or indirectly? He called on the hon. and learned Gentleman to make such an assertion if he dared. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) verily believed that the Lay Association never even heard of the case; at least he, who was a member of it, and had attended its meetings, never had. If it were a crime to belong to such an Association he was willing to take the whole burthen of it on himself; but, so far from thinking the object which it had in view criminal, he considered that object so meritorious that he should do all in his power to promote the utility of the Association. As it was not his intention to object to the motion, all he hoped was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have rendered the returns more comprehensive—that he would have ascertained not only how many suits had been brought —how many demands had been paid in consequence—what amount of costs had been incurred, but how many decrees had been pronounced, and what the number of bills was that had been dismissed on the hearing. As the hon. Gentleman had not done that, he would propose that addition to the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion. He asked this to show whether the suits which had been commenced were well or ill founded, and whether they had not been rendered necessary by the system of terror which prevailed, and prevented parties from paying tithes without the intervention of the law? The fact was, that in a large number of cases the demand had been already settled, and that many who had refused to pay tithe, had done so under a system of terror, and they were glad of an excuse to make the payment, and to be let off without the costs; and he believed there were many instances in which this accommodation was afforded them. The proceedings were properly managed, without any view to expense or oppression. The hon. and learned Gentleman had next passed on to another subject involving the character of the Lay Association, but not at all intending to inculpate the Barons of the Exchequer. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to insinuate any thing to their disadvantage, and yet it did strike him (Mr. Jackson) as rather strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have been so emphatic in his remarks upon the circumstance, that the Chief Baron happened to be Attorney or Solicitor-General at the time when the rule was made, founded upon the Act of the 3rd of George 4th, and that, nevertheless, he should have decided with the other Barons of the Exchequer who presided, against the view of the law which the hon. and learned Gentleman took. The question was now, he understood, the subject of appeal, and it would be seen hereafter whether the decision of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland was proper or otherwise. But the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it strange, forsooth, that the Barons of the Exchequer should rule a case contrary to what he conceived to be the construction of a rule acted upon by the Government of the day, when the present learned Chief Baron was a law-officer of the Crown. He likewise insinuated it was very extraordinary that, whereas Baron Smith had been confined by illness from the 2nd of November to the 26th of January, he suddenly came to the Court of Exchequer on that day to hear that cause. Now he was extremely glad the hon. and learned Gentleman had disclaimed the intention of casting any imputation upon those eminent and learned persons; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not uttered that disclaimer, his remarks would have appeared to him (Mr. Jackson), and to those around him, as if intended purposely to convey some insinuations. He was not there to vindicate the Chief Baron, or Baron Smith, or Baron Foster. Their characters were far above any advocacy of his. He was satisfied that the British public, as well as the Irish public, knew the characters of those men, and knew that they were utterly incapable of being swayed by any motive but an anxious desire to discharge their sworn duties conscientiously and faithfully. But was the hon. and learned Gentleman certain that the hon. Baron had come down to court for the first time after his illness to preside in the case of Knox v. Gavin? He believed the learned Gentleman would find himself mistaken in that as in all his other statements. With respect to the law of the case of Knox and Gavin, he ventured to say" no two lawyers could differ. Was it contended that, by the rule which had been referred to, a dispensing power was given to the Lord-lieutenant—much less to an inspector of police, a power to dispense with the common law of the land? Was it contended that the jurisdiction of one of the King's superior Courts, the Court of Exchequer, was to be ousted by such means? The Act in question said, that it was competent for the inspector of police to frame regulations for the management of the police, and for the guidance of their con- duct; and that these regulations, when approved of by the Lord-lieutenant and Magistrates of the county, became the rules to which the constabulary force should conform: but they were intended merely for the regulation of the internal economy of the police—the use of their arms, the care of their horses, the general regulation of their conduct, and such matters. The rule is (for the police) not to interfere—that is, they were not to volunteer to do so. The rule says, unless called upon by a Magistrate to do so. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) would put it to the common sense of any man whether it could be otherwise? [Hear, from Mr. O'Connell.] The hon. and learned Gentleman cries "hear"—let him controvert the proposition if he can. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) was not afraid to meet him—he would not say merely before a court of justice, but in the presence of the Members of the profession of the law in that House, or even before Members possessing common sense, though not professional men; and he would ask, whether it was in accordance with common sense to invest the Magistrates of the county with power to cause process to be executed, and and yet to oust the jurisdiction, and nullify the King's writ issuing forth of his Court of Exchequer? But then the hon. and learned Member said that the writ of rebellion was abolished in England. Now, that was a statement that was not founded in fact; and he must say, that he thought it was rather inexcusable in the hon. and learned Member to make that statement, because, as a member of the profession, he ought to have known that the issuing of a writ of rebellion, so far from being obsolete, had never been disused in Ireland. Before the Lay Association was formed, in 1834, one of these writs was issued from the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and the party was brought up in custody. But then, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, the writ had been abolished in England, He (Mr. Jackson) begged to inform him that he was utterly mistaken. True it was, that it had been recommended by certain Commissioners that the practice should be abolished; but the recommendation had never been acted upon. It did so happen he could show that the practice existed to this day in England., because no longer ago than when Lord Brougham was Chancellor (and it could not be said that his Lordship was obsolete), a person was brought before him in the Court of Chancery, under a Commission of rebellion. The case was one of some encroachment on an oyster bank; and Lord Brougham, when called upon to discharge the party, said he could not interfere. This occurred so recently as when Lord Brougham was Chancellor, and therefore to say that the process was obsolete was contrary to the fact; and to say that it was abolished in England was equally so. He (Mr. Jackson) would go the length of saving, that even if the issuing of a writ of this description had slumbered for 200 years, the present state of things in Ireland required it should be revived.—Let hon. Members look to what had existed and to what did exist in Ireland, and let them then say whether it was not the bounden duty of the Court of Exchequer to carry the powers with which it was invested into full force and effect. The law must not be put down. It must be upheld, and, please God, it should be upheld and obeyed. He (Mr. Jackson) would not believe that any hon. Gentlemen, whether Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, could be of opinion that the laws of the land should be openly defied and set at nought with impunity—such an extremity of absurdity had not yet been arrived at, that the people of England would stand by and see the laws trampled under foot. Sure he was, that the people of England had not gone thus far, and he trusted they never would. I go even further still—I say, that if this writ had never existed, it would have been the duty of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer to have devised writs and invented processes to have met this emergency. The hon. and learned Member would find, that whenever cases had occurred of a declared and determined intention to set the process of the Courts at defiance, the Judges had always devised writs to meet and prevent such contempt of their authority. This was done in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when writs of sequestration were first invented- The hon. and learned Member concluded by expressing his gratitude to the House for the great attention with which it had listened to his remarks, and by stating that, if the hon. and learned Member had moved for these returns without making any observations, he should not have offered the slightest objection to the production of them; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to preface his motion by what he was pleased to call a statement of facts, and that statement had compelled him to show that what the hon. and learned Gentleman called facts had no existence, save in the fertile imagination of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved as an amendment to the first part of the motion, that the return should state not only the number of tithe bills which had been filed in the Court of Exchequer, but the cases in which the defendants had paid the demands either in the whole or in part, together with the number of cases heard, and bills which had been dismissed in hearing.

said the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed anxious to have all the details, and he would therefore suggest to him that it would be more satisfactory if the return stated also the amount recovered, the amount of cost, and the number and names of the attornies employed.

had not the slightest objection to the addition.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite must be aware, from his knowledge and practice in the Court of Equity, that no bill filed since the 1st of August in the Court of Exchequer could have come now to a hearing, nor, of course, could any bill be discussed up to this period. The hon. and learned Gentleman having obtained the return he moved for, and it appearing that a certain number were not dismissed, would probably argue that all the cases not dismissed had been well founded. He thought it his duty to give this explanation in order to put the House on its guard against such an inference.

always differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite with great reluctance; but he was much mistaken if he was not present himself when there was a decree of sequestration in many of these cases.

begged to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was not present at any one decree. He must remember, if he would just recollect himself for a moment, that not one of the defendants would be required to answer till January, and then there was a long stage between the answer and the decree. There were two or three stages between the answer and the sequestration. The return might be amended so as to give a list of the various bills filed from the 1st of August, 1834, to the 1st of August, 1835, and of the decrees of sequestration down to the present time.

agreed to the suggestion.

I shall not trespass long upon the House; but I feel called upon by the very triumphant tone in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged me upon the point of law, totally to disclaim his law. I feel morally convinced that he is entirely mistaken in that law. I do not rise to arraign it as a fault in the Protestant clergy, that they have been filing a great number of bills, by the aid of a thing called the Lay Association; but to show what an irrational cause for a triumph has been claimed over the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, that he did not exactly know by whose direct instrumentality the Lay Association worked, or how many of those suits had been volunteered by the clergy themselves. I do not think that the hon. Member was very culpable in not knowing the one or the other, nor why there should have been such a vehement thumping of the box, because he happened not to be aware of it. I do not know in what of all this consisted the triumph. There are truisms which may be bawled out until they crack the ears of the listeners. It is quite true that we should carry the law into effect. I do not know of any man who will now gravely stand up in any assembly, and say, that the law ought not to be executed. All these things were perfectly true; but the question is, will they apply to the matter before us? Some, indeed, may regret that the Protestant clergy have no better manner of converting their parishioners, than first by going to law and then to war with them. The process of conversion is now 614 bills in equity and a writ of rebellion. This certainly must reconcile the people of that country to the religion of those clergymen; and this is the cause of triumph, to make them thus levy their dues, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has boasted. Now, if the Lay Association, instead of combining to carry on vexatious proceedings against the community, had subscribed money to pay and support the Protestant clergy out of their own pockets, their act might have met with the approbation of every human being. Surely the subscription to such a fund has been praised by everyone who has heard of it; and the act of those who have generously supported the clergymen in. whose doctrines they believe, has been universally approved of. I had imagined, when I was at the bar, that it was taken to be undoubtedly the law, that five or six persons combining together to carry on law suits, were doing an act which was not approved of by law—nay, that any men, or set of men, uniting to carry on what might be the most justifiable claims, were doing that which was punishable by law. That was the law when I was at the bar, and there are persons now to praise such an act! Instead of "maintenance," when I was at the bar, being most laudable, it was condemned, and yet there are now present persons to laud if, and learned Counsellors to boast of it. There is no other topic upon which I would wish to address the House, but for the triumph claimed, in the dignified manner that it was claimed, over my hon. and learned Friend. I never knew, Sir, until this evening, that the Court of Exchequer was a Criminal Court. I did not know until now, that those who sat on the Judicial Bench had a right to exercise all the powers of the Executive; but I have now to learn from his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland, whether by a writ of rebellion the Court of Exchequer can take the command of the military and police force in Ireland. Triumphant as has been the manner of the hon. and learned Member opposite, I do say, that the very contrary position was laid down by Chief Baron Joy, when he was Attorney-General for Ireland; and I do believe that that very opinion is to be found in his own handwriting, with the date and the very time at which it was delivered. I do believe it will be so found by the noble Lord who represents the Government of Ireland. If he should feel it to be his duty to call for the opinion of the Attorney-General Joy, he will find that opinion in direct opposition to the judgment of Chief Baron Joy. I have no more doubt of this than I have of any own existence. I defy the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to contradict me. The Court of Exchequer has Judicial powers; but it has not jurisdiction over the police. There has been a talk of inferior Magistrates having power over the police, and not the Court of Exchequer. The Magistrates take out the police, because the warrants must be obeyed, Now, the Court of Exchequer does not go out with the police; nor does it appoint any one to do so, except a process-server, who is certainly not the most respectable character in society, A common process-server is to take the command of the police? Is that the hon. and learned Gentleman's law? And what is material too, upon this point, the person is named, not by the Court of Exchequer, but by the plaintiff. He is named in the office where the writ is issued, and without the Court's interference at all; then the plaintiff can name the lowest person in the community. The hon. and learned Gentleman's law is, that the plaintiff can name the greatest vagabond, or the worthiest person, he chooses—for he is perfectly free in his selection—and such a person can take out the entire police and military; for if the police are bound to go out, so are the military also. And when hon. and learned Gentlemen talk of the jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, what is its jurisdiction if a murder is committed?—if high treason is committed, what is its jurisdiction? The Court has not the least jurisdiction. And yet the Court that has no jurisdiction in such cases is now to revive a writ of rebellion, and under a paltry pretext, seek to confer such power through means of an obsolete instrument. I, for one, will speak out—I arraign that decision—I say that it was a political decision. I say it was a Lay Association decision. They who made it were parties with the Lay Association, and by an obsolete process they assumed to themselves, in order to spite the Executive, an authority over the police force, which is most formidable to the entire liberty of every British subject should it not be restrained. If it be true (and I should be glad to find whether I am correct or not) that the Chief Baron when at the bar advised Government not to allow the police to be taken out to serve civil process, then I arraign this as a political decision. Then we have, too, the knowledge of Baron Smith, who was sick on the 2nd November, being again the 26th January able to go into Court—I hope he was really well. [Cheers from the Opposition.] What harm is there then in my saying, that I hope he really was well? But, if an imputation be cast upon him, let the fact speak for him. He was sick for two months before, but able to preside at the trial of Mr. Reynolds. I understand the fact to be, that the learned Baron was not in Court from the trial of Reynolds until the decision was given on the writs of rebellion, on the 26th January. And yet hon. Gentlemen opposite seem not to be pleased with me, when I say, that I am sorry Baron Smith was not better. But is it now to be heard of in the British dominions, that a Court of Equity—an inferior class of a Court of Equity—invented for the purpose of collecting the rents due to the Crown, and acting under the fiction, that debts claimed to be due are due to the King; and yet, is it to be said, that a Court of this kind, which is merely-civil in its nature, and. without any criminal jurisdiction, should, by a fiction of law, assume such powers? Centuries ago it was decided that Courts should not invent new writs. I am astonished where the hon. and learned Gentleman has left his law. Such a power it has over and over been decided that Courts should not assume —it has been taken away since, about the time of Magna Charta. [Laughter from the Opposition (in which Colonel Perceval we believe) was distinguished.] Why, the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Perceval) actually imagines, he is so deluded as to suppose, that he knows something of the matter. Writs are at certain times allowed to be made; and the officers of the Court can accommodate writs to particular purposes; but are we now to be told, that a Court of Exchequer is to invent a writ to effect a particular object; and this to be declared to us with all the triumph of boxing the table, and responded to with cheers, as if their opponents were hunting after Whiteboys, or shooting down the non-payers of tithes. Why, I say, there will be some pretence for these heroics, if the Government will give in to the fancies of Chief Baron Joy, Baron Smith, without calculating upon their aide-de-camp, Baron Foster. Until the King's Government advocate a feigned process like this, I shall be of opinion that the Court of Exchequer has no criminal jurisdiction—that it has no power over the police—no power over the military—and that this writ of rebellion has been obtained and granted, rot as a remedy, but for vengeance.

was not surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman arraign the Court of Exchequer. There was no, respectable body in the empire which, he believed, had not at one time or the other been the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's invective. Some time since he believed the hon. Gentleman had arraigned some of the Members of his majesty's present Government. He did not rise to enter into the subject at large. He was perfectly satisfied by the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend had discharged his duty, find he should feel that he would but weaken the impression produced by his hon. and learned Friend's excellent speech were he to go at length into the subject. He certainly felt surprised to see any Member of the legal profession Stand up in his place to arraign the power of the Exchequer to issue writs in the cases referred to. With respect to the jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, he would quote a high authority on that part of the subject. The hon. and learned Member read an extract from a Law-book, establishing the jurisdiction of that Court in the issue of such writs as had been referred to. This writ of rebellion was not an ordinary proceeding he was free to admit, but would the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that from the foundation of the Court of Exchequer, this writ had been a portion of its process? The Court, on the failure of the primary proceeding, exercised the right of issuing a writ of rebellion, directed to the parties named in the mandate of the writ, and calling on all police officers and all other persons to be assisting against those guilty of the contumely of resisting the first writ. Every Magistrate was bound to be assisting in the execution of this writ. The Sheriff of the county was bound to assist in its execution, and every subject of the King was called on to be aiding and assisting. The Court having issued its original process when the party stood out against the minor process, why should not the Court exercise the privilege of proceeding to a final remedy? Why should not the Court in such a case have the right to call all the parties into Court? Could any man contend, that the law should be fruitless, and the power of the Court be at an end, as would be the case if this right were refused to it? He was surprised how this course should have been taken. He was surprised to hear in Parliament the authority of the Courts of Justice denied, and their proceedings cavilled at. If the power of the Courts to vindicate the law was to be interfered with where was the protection for the safety of society, for the liberty of individuals, or for the rights of the subject. He was surprised to hear such an argument. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had talked as if this proceeding was a revival of an obsolete practice. But it was no such thing. He had had thirty-five years' experience at the Bar, and he had always known that when the Courts Lad had their authority set at defiance, they had resorted to the most effectual means in their possession to vindicate their authority. When defiance was hurled at the law, and when civil rights were invaded, it was right that the law should put all its energy forth in its own vindication, for the maintenance of its own dignity and the protection of those rights. The jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer required this vindication. This authority had been set at naught, and it was its right, and., more than that, it was its duty, to vindicate its authority in the most powerful manner. Great reliance seemed to be placed at the other side upon opinions or advice which had been given to a former Government by the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer when Attorney-General. What did that advice amount to? Why, simply this, that it was not advisable to employ the police force in civil process; but if any case should arise demanding the interference of a Magistrate, the police were then to be called on to interfere. He did not think that this power had been exercised unless where the original process of the Court had been contemned, and he certainly could not conceive, that any blame could attach to the Court of Exchequer for attempting to vindicate its own authority. It had been contended on the other side, that, the power of calling into assistance the police force was not to be exercised unless by the interference and under the control of a Magistrate. But, notwithstanding all that had been attempted to be contended to the contrary, he never could persuade himself that a power would be given to a subsidiary Magistrate which would be denied to one of the high Courts of the country. He would repeat that if this power of calling the police force into exertion for the vindication of the law were placed in the hands of an inferior Magistrate, why should not such power be placed; or why should such power be withheld, when one of the highest Courts in the collection of the King's revenue called for assistance in the execution of its processes, and in the vindication of its authority. He trusted, that it would fully appear to the House that in any proceeding which had taken place, the Court of Exchequer had in no way exceeded its authority, or outstripped the bounds of its jurisdiction; and he felt satisfied, that he would encounter little difference of opinion when he expressed an expectation that the House would concur with him in thinking that in any portion of his judicial conduct respecting the transactions in debate, the learned and eminent person who was Chief Baron of the Exchequer had in no way acted in-consistently with those opinions on which so much argument had been founded as having been expressed by that learned person when he was Attorney-General. In this conviction, he would not offer any further observations.

stated, that having been appealed to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy), he could not allow the debate to close without offering a few observations to the House. He did not deny that the practice of issuing writs of rebellion existed; but then he would say that even in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, a person writing against the practice of that Court, so long back as the year 1770, called it even then an obsolete process. The Court of Chancery in Ireland had abolished it. Though he admitted the existence of the process in the Court of Exchequer, he did not know of its being executed but in one or two instances. He stated this as a fact which could not be contradicted, that in any report of any law case there could not be found a precedent for such an order as the Court of Exchequer made in the case then under consideration. It was not the mere issuing of a writ, and the arresting of a party, that the public had a right to complain of; but it was this—that the Court of Exchequer had not merely ordered it to be executed, but it had taken upon itself to commit two individuals who had declined to take part in the execution of that writ—one of those persons living at a distance of eighty miles from where the other was called upon to assist in its execution. The question was not as to the issuing of the writ, but whether that House was prepared to sanction a Court in declaring this:—that it would attach for contempt every man who refused a bailiff named by the plaintiff, to go and assist him at any time, and under any circumstances, to execute this writ. This was a question which affected the liberty of every individual; because if it were to be held that the police constables were to be attached for not obeying the summons of a Commissioner in a writ of rebellion, there was no person in the community safe—nay, the Chief Baron himself might be attached for similar conduct. The police in Ireland, as the House knew from a discussion which took place in an early part of the evening, owed their origin to an Act passed in the year 1822. That body of police now consisted of upwards of 7,000 men. The expenses of supporting them was defrayed half out of the consolidated fund, and the other half was paid by a tax levied in the different counties in which they were employed. Under the Act of Parliament, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had the power of framing rules and regulations, not merely as regarded the internal regulations of the police, but stating precisely what the duties were which the constables had to perform. In 1823, shortly after the passing of the Act, rules were framed pursuant to this power, and the Lord Chief Baron, who was then Solicitor-General, admitted in Court, when he was pressed upon the subject, that he had framed the rule which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Tipperary, and in that rule it was distinctly laid down that the police were not to interfere in the execution of civil process, unless called upon by a Magistrate, or the Sheriff in person. In 1823 this rule was framed by the Chief Baron. A question arose, both between the Sheriffs and Magistrates and the Government upon this subject. The Sheriffs insisted that the police should aid them in the execution of these writs. The Government, however, insisted that the police constable was only to be a preserver of the public peace. In 1823, the Government having been applied to for the aid of the police in the execution of tithe-warrants, the Chief Baron gave this opinion:—"It might be right to advert to the impropriety of employing the police to assist in the execution of tithe warrants—the interference of that body in assisting in the first instance in the execution of civil process being most improper," [Cheers from the Opposition Members.] Hon. Gentlemen had better reserve their cheers; he would presently state facts which would show that they had not much cause for cheering. This opinion proceeded;'—"If any breach of the peace is committed by resistance to civil process, then, and not till then, can the interference of the police be warranted, and this for the purpose of apprehending the offenders." The Lord Chief Baron then advised that the police should only interfere after a breach of the peace, and even then but for the purpose of apprehending the offenders. In 1823 the Sheriff of Limerick called for the aid of the police in the execution of civil process; and, when they considered this case, the facts of which he would state presently, he would ask, could any person contend that when assistance was refused to the Sheriff, it should be given to a bailiff named by the plaintiff—that the first and most responsible officer should be refused, and that every person named in this obsolete writ, no matter who he was, should have such aid? If the police went out under the Orders of a Magistrate, the law protected them as long as they acted under the orders of that Magistrate; they all knew, from sad experience, what unhappy conflicts had taken place when they had been so called out; and would it now be said that it was the duty of the Government to allow the police to go without a Magistrate or a Sheriff with any person, no matter what his situation in life might be, unknown, irresponsible, the mere bailiff of the plaintiff; that under the orders "of such persons they were to break open doors by day or by night, and arrest any person whom their Commission might point out? Would the House sanction any such doctrine when it recollected the numerous conflicts between the police and the people, even when the former were acting under the orders of the known and responsible authorities? He said, that in 1823 the Sheriff of Limerick applied for aid, and this was the answer given:—

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, and having, by the Lord-Lieutenant's desire, consulted the law adviser of the Crown, I am to acquaint you that he is of opinion that, except in a case of actual breach of the peace, the police cannot be employed by you in the capacity of Sheriff."

The Sheriff, not satisfied with this answer, inclosed a copy of the opinions of Mr. Saurin and Mr. Pennefather, stating that they considered the police could be taken out as part of the power of the county, and requested that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be taken with reference to those opinions. He stated that his county was under the Peace Preservation, as well as the Insurrection Act; and that he could not, without imminent danger of life, attempt to execute the King's writs. This was the application of a Sheriff; and he would read now the answer of the Solicitor-General Joy; he was warranted in calling it so, for the original was in his handwriting:—

"December 24th, 1824.

"SIR,—I have received and laid before the Lord Lieutenant your letter of the 19lh inst., soliciting the aid of the police in the execution of writs, and I am to acquaint you that it is no part of the duty of the constables under the 3d Geo. IV., c. 103, to assist in executing such writs, and his Excellency, therefore, cannot give the order which you require; but if the persons properly authorised to execute them are obstructed or resisted in the execution of that duty, the constables will be bound, on informations as to the circumstances being sworn before a Magistrate, to apprehend the persons concerned in such, obstruction or resistance, for the purpose of bringing them to punishment."

This letter appeared to be signed by the Under Secretary for Ireland, To it was appended this:—

"The new constables are to be employed in arresting any of the persons who can be sworn to have been guilty of the attack on the Sheriff". As to assisting the Sheriff to execute civil process, they are not to be called on except as part of the posse comitatus, from which service they are not exempt.

"January 24, 1825."

The Magistrates and Sheriffs were not satisfied with this, and the case was laid before the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. The opinion given by them was:—

"We have already, on full consideration, given our opinion, that the proper duty of the constables appointed under the new Act is to act in the execution of Magistrates' warrants in cases only where a breach of the peace is committed; in all other cases, the Magistrates are at liberty to proceed as they have hitherto done, the power of appointing constables for such other purposes remaining unaffected by the late Act, The Magistrates, therefore, will direct their warrants as usual, but should not deliver them for execution to the new constables.

"W. C. PLUNKETT.

"August, 1824." "HY JOY."

This was in 1824, and, in that year, such was the opinion given by the present Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Chief Baron. In 1824 another application for assistance was made, and this answer was also returned under the direction of the Chief Baron:—

"I have had the honour of receiving, and submitting to the Lord Lieutenant, your letter of the 29th ult., representing, by desire of the Justices of the Peace acting in the barony of Clanwilliam north, and county of Limerick, the difficulty in which they are placed in consequence of the police not being employed to execute warrants for the recovery of tithe. I am directed by his Excellency to inform you that, alter the most mature and repeated consideration of the subject, it is considered, that the employment of the police, in the first instance, in the execution of civil process, would lend mainly to defeat the great object of, their institution; but, that if any breach of the pence should be committed in resisting civil process, the employment pf the police to ap- prehend the offenders would be quite consistent with the purpose for which they were established; and would be highly proper."

He had to state now, that another application was made by the Sub-sheriff of the county Clare, who applied to the High Constable Watkins, to give him some mounted police to assist in the service of writs. He would refer presently to the answer then given by the then Secretary for Ireland, who was, subsequently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "The application to the chief constable is reported by him in the following letter:—

"Sir,—I have to report the conduct of Mr. Benjamin Green, Sub-sheriff of this county: this day he had' three mounted men out executing a warrant, and on his return said to Serjeant Ryalls that he would require four mounted men in the morning to go close to O'Brien's Bridge, there to protect him in performing his duty. On my return from Tulla, Serjeant Ryalls acquainted me with his wishes. I sent my compliments to Mr. Green (by Serjeant Ryalls) that the duties to be performed were out of ray district; that he could get men at O'Brien's Bridge. He replied, I was very impudent for sending—such a message, and that he should have the men. When Serjeant Ryalis returned, he reported Mr. Green's reply. I was going down to call on Mr. Green, but met him in Gaol-street. I called him one side from the party he was speaking to, and, on my commencing to speak to him, he commenced abusing me in a most violent manner; said he should have the horses to go where he pleased, that they were there for his use, and many other things I cannot call to memory. I replied he should have the horses, but that I would report the circumstance to you; he said I might do so, and was so very intemperate as to collect a mob about us. I have now, Sir, to beg the favour of an inquiry into this case. If I have been in error, it will be the means of preventing a recurrence; if, on the other hand, it will appear I have not been in error, I trust you will have the goodness to take such steps as you may think best, so as to protect me in the execution of your orders; the place Mr. Green is going to is Doonass, two miles from O'Brien's Bridge, and one from Clonlara; at the former station, is Lieutenant Bendon and party; at the latter three men at present. It is twenty-three miles from Ennis. It will also be necessary to acquaint you, that on Monday all the horses were at the fair of Quin, and much worked up; this day, as I said before, he had three of them out. One man was with me at Tulla, and one ill, leaving but two not employed. I conceive that forty-six miles would be too much for the horses in a day, and particularly when men and horses are so convenient. He asked me if I thought he was to go out of his way to order those horses. I cannot describe the abuse he gave in the presence of many persons."

The then Secretary for Ireland sent the following instructions to the chief constable:—

"I have submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant your letter of the 13th, stating the case under which the Under-sheriff for the county Clare had required the attendance of the mounted constables for his protection, and requesting instructions as to the course to be pursued by you in the event of such demands being repeated. I am commanded to acquaint you, that the constables cannot legally be employed by the Sheriff or his deputy, in the execution of civil process, and as it is essential that this should be distinctly understood, it will be necessary that all applications for this purpose should be withstood. In the execution of criminal process, or for the maintenance of the public peace, the Sheriff has a legal power of requiring the service of the constable."

Here the police would not be given to the sheriff of Clare when calling for their assistance in the execution of the King's writs. This was the advice given by the Chief Baron, who now said that it was a contempt in constables to refrain to aid a commission of rebellion. There was no lawyer in the House, or out of the House, who would contend that a writ of rebellion was any thing more than a civil process to enforce civil rights; the treason was purged by the paying the plaintiff's attorney his bill of costs; upon that being done, "the rebel" was pardoned. The process was to enforce an appearance; but it never was contended, by any lawyer, that it was a criminal process. In the month of December, 1824, another gentleman from a different part of Ireland, that was described as being exceedingly peaceable, thus describes the state of the peasantry. This letter was from the Sheriff of Fermanagh, and dated the 19th of December, 1825.

"SIR—Having in my hands at this moment several of the King's writs, at the suit of the very rev. Dean Burrows, against a number of persons residing on the school lands in the barony of Glenawly, in this county, and been hitherto opposed in the execution of my duty by large armed parties, riotously assembled together, bearing flags and otherwise apparently determined to commit a breach of the peace, should I have persisted therein, I am thus reluctantly obliged to call upon his Majesty's Government for their directions how to obtain aid in support of the civil power herein, prior to my again attempting the execution thereof.

"I should not thus intrude myself on your notice, but that without a Magistrate's warrant he police of this county will not obey any but the High-sheriff person, or the military, unless at the moment of opposition; neither of which would I call on except in a case like this, where I have been myself a witness, and a number of affidavits have been made that both lives are likely to be endangered, and a breach of the peace apprehended, should I go to those lands unprotected.

"Your advice and immediate attention to this matter will materially facilitate me in my duty in this behalf, as also remove the awkward manner I am placed in as to my power of calling on the police without a Magistrate's warrant, (which cannot at all times be procured,) or the High-sheriff attending in person. And I am, Sir, &c."

The answer to this letter was to this effect, from Mr. Gregory:—

"The men will, on no account, interfere in the execution of any writ, decree, or civil order, or in driving for rent, tithes, or taxes, unless called out by a Magistrate, or the High or Sub-sheriff in person, and then they wilt only consider it their duty to protect those persons in the execution of their office."

Acting on this authority the Sub-sheriff went out on the 19th of January, and met with the same hostile resistance; an account of which he thus gives:—

"Enniskillen, Jan. 20, 1826.

"SIR—In pursuance of your letter of the 24th December last, given in reply to mine, stating the necessity of my being protected in executing civil process on the school lands in the barony of Glenawly, in this county, from the armed parties which before opposed me, which letter refused me the aid and support I solicited from his Majesty's government, I repaired on the 19th (yesterday) January instant in order to execute certain of the King's writs, when the same party attacked myself and my men, rescued cattle, and the persons themselves against whom I had orders were opposed to me, and gave orders and directions to a number of men armed with guns, bayonets, forks, sticks (of all kinds), and stones, who, in the most savage manner attacked and beat myself and four men whom I had with me, three of whom are now lying in their beds under medical care, and myself unable to leave my room). The party being all strangers to us we cannot identify any; but both my own and my men's examinations have been taken as to general rescue and beating, and I have sworn against one man, against whom I had a writ, and whom, on my desiring him to deliver himself as a prisoner, ordered the party (which consisted of about 200) to kill me, who, subsequent to which, and as I believe by such directions, did knock, me down and strike me with forks and stones, and would have accomplished their object but for a respectable man who protected me, by desiring them to desist or he would inform on them every one, and have reason to believe he knows numbers of them, but fears to give the necessary information. Lord Enniskillen, in whose neighborhood this affair occurred, came very promptly forward, but too late for anything effectual to be done. I write this hurried account, as I conceive it my duty, on such an important affair to the general peace of the country, and for the information of his Majesty's government, and to assure them that unless with a very strong force, and perhaps the loss of lives, the laws cannot be carried into effect in that part of this county, and against which I am sorry to say I have many processes to execute.—I am, &c.

(Signed) "J. R. MAYNE.

"Under-sheriff for county of Fermanagh."

In reply to this statement a letter prepared by Chief Baron Joy was sent as follows:—

"The new constables are to be employed in arresting any of the persons who can be sworn to have been guilty of the attack on the Sheriff. As to assisting the Sheriff to execute civil process, they are not to be called on except as part of the posse comitatus, from which service they are not exempt.

"January 24, 1835."

It was all very well to talk of their being called out as part of the posse comitatus; but was ever a case heard of in which a party was attached for refusing to serve under such circumstances? He might be indicted and punished on conviction, but he could not be attached. From the period at which the police force was formed, the Government, acting under the advice of Chief Baron Joy, were of opinion that the constabulary force ought not to be used in this way. In the year 1826, the Magistrates again insisted that they would compel the constables to execute their warrants, and a constable who refused to execute one of these warrants was fined 5l. for contempt. The Government was applied to on the subject by Major D'Arcy, the Inspector-general, who represented this as a proceeding on the part of the Magistrates to force the constables to act contrary to the rules settled by the law-officers of the Crown, and Mr. Goulburn wrote the following letter, directing the remission of this fine:—

"Dublin Castle, Oct. 30, 1826.

"SIR—I have received your letter of the 19th instant relative to the fine of 5l. imposed on chief constable Given for not executing a warrant issued under the order of the Magistrates assembled at Downpatrick sessions. And upon consideration of the circumstances I am directed by the Lord-Lieutenant to ac- quaint you that his Excellency has been pleased to remit the fine, and, desires that the amount shall not be stopped from Mr. Giveen.

"I am, etc.

(Signed) "HENRY GOULBURN.

"Major D'Arcy, Belfast."

Now, whether that order were right or wrong, they were not here to discuss; but it was rather unfair to accuse other persons of setting up themselves against the laws of the land, because in conformity with the first law authority in the land they had advised that the constables were not bound to assist in the execution of this process. He could, if necessary, refer to many other cases in which the aid of the police had been refused, under the advice of him who now said that it was a contempt of the Court to give such advice, and would again say, and challenge contradiction, that until the Court of Exchequer made the decision in question, there was not in England or Ireland to be found any authority in support of the doctrine now contended for. If that doctrine should be upheld, every soldier in his Majesty's service, no matter how employed, must, on the summons of a commission of rebellion, disobey his officer's orders, neglect all his other duties, and march off whenever the high functionary, the Commissioner of rebellion, required to arrest any body who may be pointed out; he might say that he was subject to certain rules fixed by his Majesty or his representative, and would be dismissed if he violated them. That would not avail him. The high dignity of the Court would be offended if he did not obey, and an attachment would be at least awarded against him. If he did obey what was he to do? To break open any house, to search for and seize the rebel even on a Sunday; and all this under the command of a bailiff. Was that, he would ask, a state of things to be endured? He thought it right to notice one or two remarks which had fallen from the learned Sergeant in reference to proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. He thought it mattered little whether the bills were filed by the Lay Association or not (upon the legality of which he thought the learned Sergeant had not given a sound opinion); it mattered little whether the number of bills so filed were filed as the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) had stated—by the Lay Association or by their solicitor, be he who he might, or by per- sons acting under him. Whether in the whole 617 bills there were six attorneys or more, mattered not. In most instances they were filed for sums under 2l.; in many cases defendants were sued for sums so small as 2s. to 3s., where the costs with a decree, obtained without defence, would amount to upwards of 90l. This fact he stated from a return in his hand. In two suits for tithes the amount sought to be recovered in one was 19l. 5s 11d., the costs were 93l. 6s.—in the other case the sum to be recovered was 20l. 18s., and the costs came to 94l. 4s. The amount for which these 600 bills were filed was a little less than 20,000l., and the expense could not be less than 100,000l., if the parties proceeded to a decree in all. Now, in his conscience, he did not believe that those rev. gentlemen who were entitled to these tithes were cognizant of the proceedings which were taken in reference to them; 20,000l, was the outside of what was sought to be recovered by these bills. In the Assistant Barristers Courts in Ireland, in which a great deal of business was done, and which had worked well for the country, any sum under 20l. was recoverable by a civil bill. The whole of this money could have been recovered by the Civil Bill Court, and execution served by the Sheriff, who would have the free command of the police; his warrant could go against the person of the debtor or his goods, and the Government had intimated that the aid of the police would be given to effect the service of civil' bill process, because the parties could not obtain in the Civil Bill Court, though they could in any of the superior Courts, the aid of the Sheriff in the service of process. Far be it from him to throw blame on the clergy; but between the 1st of August last and 1st of February, 600 bills had been filed in the Exchequer, and in most cases for sums not more than 20l. or 30l. In fifteen cases out of twenty the claims were under 5l. or 6l. He would say if the constables had erred, the head of the Court of Exchequer had erred. If the police had erred, they had done so in consequence of the rule of the Lord Chief Baron himself. That Judge was reported to have made some declaration respecting Major Miller, and to have said, that if Major Miller shifted the responsibility on others, the Court would deal with them, and mark at last the original adviser; he hoped the learned Baron would adhere to that rule, and acting with that judicial firmness and integrity for which he has been so justly praised, award an attachment against himself.

said, he felt ashamed at seeing the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland coming forward to impugn not only the King's Judges in Ireland generally, but in particular the King's Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. There might, however, be some excuse for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for in attacking these distinguished personages he was probably defending himself. It was remarkable, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bandon had observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary said, he should not adduce that part of his motion, on which he principally relied, without further notice—and yet the hon. Member had broken his faith, and endeavoured to lake them by surprise. The right hon. the Attorney-General then followed up the attack, armed at all points. He should not further remark on this singular concurrence between the two hon. and learned Gentlemen. As to the point which adverted to the inconsistency of the Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer in pronouncing a decision contrary to his previous opinion as the Legal Adviser of the Crown, he supposed that such was not the fact—nay, he could prove it; but even if it were such, why should not that Judge have the firmness to act against any opinion of former times which his more mature judgment perceived to have been given without due deliberation? It was, to use a gentle phrase, a pure fiction to say that an attachment had been issued against a gentleman, at a distance from the scene of action of eighty miles, because he did not come forward to aid the clerical attorney. It certainly was true that the writs from the Exchequer Courts had been levied on the most respectable and solvent parties, because they were unwilling to incur useless costs against insolvent defendants, and also from a motive of humanity, they wished to save the misled individuals from suffering for the wickedness of others. The right hon. Gentleman said, the writ was never a civil process. He was not anxious to put his legal knowledge in competition with that of the right hon. Gentleman, but he defied any one to deny that, in those cases wherein it was issued, the circumstance did not bring it within the original meaning of the Act. It was a writ of the most comprehensive nature, issuing from the King himself, not only to the Sheriff of the county, but to all officers and persons within the realm, and attaching; the body of the defendant, not in a civil case, but as a rebel, and for contemning the law—and also authorising the officer to execute it even on a Sunday, and to break open doors. In fact, all peace officers and other persons, unless able to show special exemption, were bound to assist the Commissioners in executing a writ of rebellion. He could not censure the right hon. Gentleman for making use of the papers of his predecessor in office, although he endeavoured to throw odium upon him. He only hoped he had not misunderstood them. [Cheers from the Ministerial benches, in which Mr. Sheil joined.] He was glad to see the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary was himself again after the castigation he had received from his Friend, the Member for Bandon. But it was most unfair to bring; forward those documents without giving notice to him, (Mr. Shaw) or any other person in the habit of communicating with the distinguished Judges impugned. He hoped the time would never come when the Judges in Ireland would be afraid to do their duty. He apprehended that the period was approaching when they would be called upon to assert the independence of British Judges; and he had not the slightest doubt but that they would act uprightly, and discharge their functions intrepidly, notwithstanding the threats of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, supported and connived at by his Majesty's Government, when they themselves had not the manliness to come forward. Another insult on the judicial character in Ireland, was the appointment of Sheriffs without consulting the Judges, a thing that had not been done for a period oi upwards of twenty years. He should not have found fault with the Government for not appointing the names selected by the Judges, but at least those personages should have received the usual courtesy of being allowed to nominate in the first instance. In several other cases the verdicts of the Jury had been set aside, and male factors liberated from incarceration, without asking the opinion of the Judges Still he was sure the Judges would be firm in upholding the dignity of their station and firmly discharging their duties, notwithstanding the weight of power and rank opposed to them. But he must add one word in reference to the Lay Association, and that was to protest against the statement made by the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland. The Lay Association had never sent about copies of bills about to issue from the Court of Exchequer—they never employed a solicitor but for the purpose of selecting the best cases, in which, if the parties acting under their advice were unsuccessful, they were to reimburse them. And so prudently and cautiously had they proceeded under the direction of the solicitor, that his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bandon, had overstated when he estimated the number of bills issued from the Court of Exchequer at between fifty and sixty. The Lay Association never urged a party nor instituted a case themselves. They always required the clergy to have and consult with counsel of their own before they would give any assistance; but they never commenced any proceedings. If the legal conduct of any person connected with the Lay Association was impugned, he stood forward in that House ready to meet the accusation. Notwithstanding rebukes from the Government or hon. Members in that House, or parties in any other quarter, the Lay Association would never flinch from the duties it had undertaken. He little thought the time would come, as it now seemed to approach, when an attempt would be made to oppose the Protestant gentry of Ireland' for coming forward to support the clergy of their own religion in recovering their just rights, after a conspiracy of five years against the law, which, if not openly encouraged, was at least connived at by the Members of the present Administration.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had called on his Majesty's Government to give an opinion, and he, as a Member of that Government, would declare a distinct and decided opinion for himself, and he believed he might add for his colleagues. It would then be for the House and the country to decide between them and the right hon. Gentleman. But first he begged, in the name of his right hon. Friend, (Mr. O'Loughlin) to repel the insinuation of having acted with disingenuousness, or of having, on the present occasion, done anything beyond vindicat- ing his own conduct and the acts of the Government to which he belonged, in a Parliamentary and constitutional manner. It had been said, that some finesse had been exhibited in the alteration of the motion. All he could say was, that till the hon. and learned Gentleman closed his speech, he and those around him were totally unprepared for any change; they knew nothing about it; and what right, then, had Gentlemen opposite, before the Commons of England, to accuse them of acting basely and disingenuously? The right hon. Gentleman was, however, light in one respect, in saying that his learned Friend had come down armed at all points; his weapons had been felt—they had inflicted wounds which would not soon be forgotten. Had they not done so, would the right hon. Gentleman have led them astray, in a wild goose chase, on matters not relating to the question before them? Would he have endeavoured by invective to induce the House to believe that the Government had been acting on the principle of defeating and overthrowing the authority of the King's Judges in the King's Court? Would he have alluded to the Judges' nomination of the Sheriffs, or would he have dragged in the case of Reynolds? When the time came for discussing that Question, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was ready to take upon him before the House, and before Ireland, the defence of the Government—not defence, but he would say, the credit and the responsibility. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite were really determined to grapple with facts—if he had documents and authorities to support him—why to take a term from the sporting world—why by a "false drag" take us off from the real scent, and seduce us from the consideration of the real question? The right hon. Gentleman says, it is a new sight to see the Attorney-General for Ireland impugning the judgment and integrity of the King's Judges in Ireland. He denied that his right hon. and learned Friend had done so. His right hon. and learned Friend had done merely that which was his bounden duty. He was called upon by the other side to give his opinion upon the motion arising out of the notice of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary; and, having been thus called on, he would have been unworthy of the place of trust and confidence which he now tilts if he had not answered it fully and fairly. As to the Judges of the land, not they alone, but the King's Government was upon its trial. With regard to the question of tithes, for months past, in every paper, and in every speech of one particular party, Ministers were described as being unwilling to afford, or, rather, determined to withhold, the protection which it was their duty to afford not only to that but to every species of property. The right hon. Gentleman, by his not merely insinuation, but by his direct attack, censured the conduct of Government. Was Government, he would ask, to lie under these imputations? When challenged, were not they called on to meet these accusations? The authorities that were stated, and various Acts which the Chief Baron was instrumental in introducing, proved that the police functionaries alluded to did no more than they were authorised by the taw of the land, and the usages regulating the conduct of all the officers of Government. The hon. Gentleman opposite had used a private letter to carry his point. He acknowledged the talents of the hon. Member, but he did not think that the confidence and security of private life should be abused to carry a political end. Why should a private letter, written in perhaps an unguarded moment, be used as an instrument against a political adversary? He would quote from a document that the hon. Gentleman opposite would not, he was sure, object to—an extract in support of his proposition and the doctrine of the Attorney-General for Ireland—he meant a letter from Mr. Gregory to the Sheriff of Limerick. The letter stated that, except in case of breaches of the peace, the police were not to be used. The fact was, that the police were not to be employed except in cases of extreme emergency to keep the King's peace. He would ask the gallant General opposite whether he knew of any such case of prohibition issued by the Irish Government? Did he recollect of any such instance?

said, that he did not recollect such a case; no such one was brought under his notice. There might be papers in the office relating to it which he did not recollect.

did not like to use private letters; it was very improper to make public charges out of them, He was a Member of a Committee to frame a law, and was partly the author of a law that prevented any officer from being employed by Magistrates for enforcing the collection of revenue, or the collection of tithes. The police were not intended to be made the agents for such purposes; their duty was to prevent any infraction of the peace, to suppress crime, and to enforce the Jaw. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that if a writ of rebellion were to issue from that House that the Speaker was to be called on to enforce it? A writ of rebellion was applied to a civil process, it was not meant to extend to criminal cases. This argument of a writ of rebellion, and the inferences attempted to be drawn from it, only misled the House, and drew off its attention from the true consideration of the question. A person against whom a writ of rebellion issued could be discharged under the Insolvent Act. [Mr. Wynn: there is a special exemption.] Then let the right hon. Gentleman say what is rebellion, and to what case the writ applies. If the right hon. Gentleman doubted his interpretation, though this was a point to be discussed hereafter, let the right hon. Gentleman introduce some measure that would make the matter clear and intelligible. It was not right on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the Bench, to say that the constabulary must be employed to enforce the mandate of every Court of law, and yield to every authority that calls on them, and show that the Government were by the lawful and just disobedience of the police officers, instrumental in the resistance to tithes? The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the danger of destroying confidence in the administration of justice. He felt fully that danger; but he would say that while the public owed much to the bench, the bench owed something to the constituted authorities of the realm; and, in his opinion the course which had been pursued of holding out to the people of this country that there existed a conspiracy abetted by the Government—an organised conspiracy extending down to the very constabulary, for the purpose of defeating the administration of the law, and destroying the ties which bound society together, was much more dangerous than any observations which could be made in that House. He thanked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sergeant O'Loghlin) for his able defence of the conduct of Government; and he assured the House that if the Government had not been challenged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), and if he had not been called on, he would not have offered a single observation on the question before the House. That challenge he accepted, and in defiance of it, expressed not merely his own opinion but that of his colleagues.

explained that he violated no confidence in reading the extract from the letter alluded to; he found it on the file of the Court.

said, he would trespass on the indulgence of the House for a few moments. There were two reasons why he did not speak before; the first was that the question involved so many legal niceties and subtleties, that could be better handled by experienced lawyers, and the elucidation of which he could safely leave in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland. The second was, that as reference was made to his own conduct he wished to defer any observations of his till the result of the decisions of the Court of Exchequer were known. He should rejoice at the degree of impunity which he enjoyed still, for he was not unfrequently told that from the case of Knox v. Gavin that impunity he would not enjoy long; that an attachment would issue against him as the chief agent. The House were aware that an attachment had issued against chief constables Miller and Malone. But they had only acted on his instructions, the warrant for their guidance was signed by him. He would say—

"Me—me adsum qui feci—In me convertite ferrum."

He would avow himself the author of the instructions on which they acted, and he would defy the enmity or assaults of his accusers, which were worse than the Rutilian spear. He would not lead the House into the hallucinations of the Chief Baron when he was Solicitor-General for he was not deserted by other, and as good, authority. The hon. Member opposite had recourse to private papers, and he (Lord Morpeth), too, had some private papers to produce, and without any breach of confidence. He would refer to the first Commission of rebellion that was issued in modern times. It was addressed to Mr. Ogle, Sheriff of Meath, against Clarke.—and was as follows—

"William the 4tb, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, defender of the faith and so forth, to Thomas Williams, Henry Ogle, John Sheridan, greeting, because, by public proclamation, by the Sheriff of the county of Meath, in divers places of the said county, by virtue of our writ to him directed, it was commanded that Hugh Clarke, on the peril of his allegiance, to appear before the Barons of our Exchequer at the King's courts in Dublin, at a certain day passed; yet he has manifestly contemned our commands therein, therefore we command you, that you omit not, by reason of any liberty, but to enter the same, and attach the said Hugh Clarke, where so ever he shall be found within our kingdom of Ireland, as rebel and contemned of our laws, so that you or any of you have his body before the Barons of the Exchequer, at the King's Courts, Dublin, on Monday the 13th day of April next coining, to answer those things which then and there shall be objected against him, and further to do and receive herein what our said court shall order; we also command that all and singular our sheriffs, mayors, bailiffs and all our officers and liege subjects whatsoever, firmly enjoining them that to you and each of you in the execution hereof, they be aiding and assisting. In testimony whereof, we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

"Witness, Henry Joy, Esq., Chief Baron,

Jan. 15 1835.

J. FARRON.

"R. W. Osborne, attorney."

The next was a copy of a letter from the Magistrates in Petty sessions, county Meath, to Sir Wm. Gosset, dated 23rd March, 1835. viz.—

"Navan Petty Sessions, March 23, 1835.

"Sir—We have been this day applied to in Sessions to direct the Police to assist in the execution of a writ, the copy of which we inclose; not being certain of our jurisdiction in the matter, we are anxious to be directed as to the course we should pursue.

"We have, &c.,

(Signed) "P. P. METGE, J.P.

"R. P. Q. HAMILTON, J.P."

"Lieut.-Colonel Sir Wm, Gosset."

He had some difficulty in reading the reply, because it proceeded from a gentleman who, although he (Lord Morpeth) could not say that he was not present, was nevertheless not in a situation to answer for himself. It was as follows;—

"Dublin Castle, 26th March, 1835.

"GENTLEMEN—I have received and laid before the Lord-lieutenant your letter of the 23rd instant, inclosing the copy of a writ, in the execution of which you have been applied to in sessions to direct the police to assist, and requesting to be instructed as to the course you should pursue, not being certain of your jurisdiction in the matter. In reply, I am to acquaint you that the law adviser does not think that the police should be employed to execute process of this nature, nor have you any Jurisdiction to direct them to do so. If their interference be necessary to preserve he public peace, a proper case must be made out by affidavits.

"I have, &c. (Signed)

"W. GOSSET.

"The Magistrates at Petit Sessions, Navan."

Now that answer was not by the authority o Lord Mulgrave, but Lord Haddington—not from the "O'Mulgrave"—the Radical Lord, but the true Protestant and Conservative Lord-lieutenant. Into what error or criminality, then, could he (Lord Morpeth) be led by following the advice of Mr. Baron Joy, or the example of Lord Haddington?

said, the Jaw of the case was clear that the Court of Exchequer was right. It was the general opinion of the whole legal profession that an act of rebellion was both of a civil and a criminal nature; and that the Court was authorised to enforce its authority respecting it even, in a case of costs. He could not repress the expression of his utter surprise that the King's Attorney-General could be found in Parliament attacking the Judges of the land. Was it already come to this, that the authority of the Courts of Law was to be set at nought, and the Judges vilified, and vilified, too, for not the most honourable of purposes—for party purposes? He thought that the Irish Government was bound to attend to the opinion of the Judges, instead of thwarting and deriding it.

, in reply, said, that he owed it in the first place to himself to state such facts as would at once relieve him from the imputation of having unexpectedly, and contrary to a previous intimation given by him, moved, in addition to what appeared on the face of the paper, for a return of the amount of bills filed since August last, for the recovery of tithes. He Mr. (Sheil) had, on a former occasion, moved without notice, for a return of the number of such bills, and also moved for the names of the attorneys by whom they had been fled. On that occasion the Recorder of the City of Dublin objected to the Motion, because the names of attorneys ought not, as he alleged, to be included. He (Mr. Sheil) then withdrew his Motion, and gave notice of it. He afterwards allowed it to drop, in consequence of the pressure of other business which preceded it, and told the learned Sergeant opposite, and the Member for the University of Dublin, that he should not move it in their absence. Accordingly, in their presence, he had added the Motion of which a notice had been originally given, and he left out the names of the attorneys, because their production had been at first objected to. Nothing could be more remote from his intention than to take the Gentlemen opposite by surprise, and it was obvious that taken by surprise they had not been. The learned Sergeant (the Member for Bandon) had come with at least the materials of a speech, and with a private letter of his in his pocket. The learned Sergeant who complained that he had not had notice, never gave him notice of his purpose to use that letter. He had a few moments before the debate met the learned Sergeant above stairs, who had entered into conversation with him, and had asked him where he (Mr. Sheil) could procure a copy of the printed Report of the Case of "Knox v. Gavin; and yet the learned Sergeant, having his private letter in his pocket, never told him that be meant to avail himself of it in the debate. It was idle for the learned Sergeant to suggest that the letter was not private, because it had been referred to in a bill filed against him (Mr. Sheil). By whom was that bill signed? Let the House mark the fact: the bill adverting to his letter, was signed by the learned Sergeant himself. So that the learned Sergeant first had his letter laid before him in his study, refers to it in his professional capacity in a pleading, and then, having thus divested it of its character of privacy, reads a part only of the letter in his Parliamentary capacity, and declines, when called on, to read the rest. This was scarcely fair dealing on the part of the learned Sergeant. That letter had indeed been made use of, very much to his (Mr. Sheil's) surprise in a Bill filed against him, and the Evening Mail had copied an extract from it, apologising, however, for doing so, and stating that the letter was on the files of the Court of Exchequer, and, therefore, was no longer private. But here (said Mr. Sheil) is the copy of the letter produced by the learned Sergeant, and handed to me; and on the outside of it—what appears? It appears to be inclosed to the learned Sergeant from Dublin; and the post-mark is upon it, so that the learned Sergeant, who had no notice of this motion, gets my letter from Dublin, keeps it in his pocket, never mentions it in private conversation with me, and then employs it in the House. But look at the endorsement. It is marked outside "Lay Association." So that the letter was delivered to the "Lay Association," and employed by them in sueing me, and comes from the archives of the society for the purposes of this debate. On the outside these further words are endorsed, "Shell's letter;" and the name of "Orpen" is added underneath. Mr. Orpen is the Solicitor to the Lay Association, and I never stated that Mr. Smith acted in that official capacity; but I do believe that Mr. Smith, under the superintendence, and with the co-operation of the society, has filed a great number of bills. I do not blame him for so doing; I acquit him of every charge; and only refer to the number of bills filed, as evidence of the frightful scenes of litigation which have been got up in connection with political contests in Ireland. As to my letter, I will, without hesitation, read the whole of it to the House; and, indeed, as an extract has been employed, the House owe it to common justice, that the whole should be read. It is addressed to the rev. Mr. Thompson, the clergyman of the parish in Tipperary, where I reside, and I cannot help saying, that I did not think it necessary to mark "private, and confidential" as an inducement to him not to furnish it for such purposes as those to which it has been applied. But let the House judge, without any comment from me, how far the rules which regulate private intercourse, have been observed. The letter is in these words:—

"To the Rev. Mr. Thompson.

"Long Orchard, Oct. 12, 1835.

"MY DEAR SIR.—It is perfectly true that I wrote to you that in the event of the Government expressing a determination to abide by Lord Stanley's measure, I could not complain if you adopted proceedings against me.

"The Bill proposed last session has been rejected by the Lords, but that some such adjustments of the unfortunate tithe question will be brought forward at the commencement of next session (whatever party be in power) seems obvious The Government have not intimated any intention to retain Lord Stanley's plan; a great change is inevitable. Under these circumstances, I submit to your consideration whether the delay of a few months on the part of he clergy be not more advisable than die immediate exercise of their existing legal right to tithes. I am not insensible to she hardship of their condition produced by the contentions of the great rival parties in the State; but, on the other hand, by what possible means can those who pay tithes at this juncture succeed in recovering them from their own tenants?

"Parliament must meet early in February, and the question must then be settled; no legal proceedings could be effectual before that period. It will be for you to decide how far it will be advisable to involve yourself and me in litigation injurious to both of us, when the settlement of all demands by the Legislature is so close at hand.

"At the same time I think it but justice to add, that in the event of your proceeding against me, I shall not regard such a step upon your part as a severe or unjustifiable one; although being myself unable to collect tithes, and being placed in peculiar political circumstances, I indulge in the hope that you will not consider it unreasonable that I should have recourse to such expedients of procrastination as the law supplies.

"You must be aware that as Member for the county of Tipperary, I must elect between the payment of tithes and the loss of my seat; perhaps this consideration may induce you to delay for some months longer.

"I really do not know to what extent I am liable to your demands; most of the leases were executed before Lord Stanley's Act; and—property, in your parish, has been so subdivided, that to determine who are, and who are not liable, would be a task of some difficulty.

"Whatever course you adopt, I trust that no interruption will take place in the kindly feeling that ought to exist between neighbours, and that our legal differences will not be embittered by any personal animosity"

"Your's, very truly,

"R. L. SHEIL."

Sir, I own every sentiment in this letter not meant for the public eye—the effusion of sincerity, and the result of no unkindly feeling. It is free, I hope, of all political and sectarian animosity, and exempt from that bitterness which, when our moments of public contention are past, ought surely, in private life, to be laid aside. I do not want to deprive Mr. Thompson of his tithes; I only requested him to delay his proceedings for a few months, and I do this with the courtesy that becomes me in addressing myself to a gentleman, for whose privations I felt the sympathy which I expressed. All that is stated in that letter is true, and nothing more true than that the clergy are made the victims of the rival parties in the State; their nominal auxiliaries have proved their most formidable foes. But, indeed, indeed, the learned Sergeant, with whom I am upon terms of Familiar professional communica- tion, ought not to have used this letter. I shall say no more of it, I have been informed by the Recorder for Dublin that the learned Sergeant has given me a severe castigation; If so, I shall bear it with a just philosophy; but I must say, that the castigation consisted principally in giving a flat denial, which I thought that the learned Sergeant had a vocabulary sufficiently rich to convey in some more skilful periphrase than such words as "utterly unfounded," and the rest of those very polished sarcasms to which the learned Sergeant had recourse. But I turn to the learned Recorder himself. He defends, and most appropriately, the purity of the Bench. I did not attack its integrity; I said that, under the influence of strong feelings, men the most conscientious might be hurried into a mistake. I acquitted all parties, judges, solicitors, attorneys, of all moral blame. But it is delightful to listen to the learned Recorder's vindication of his brother Judges. He is himself so immaculate, so free from all factious emotion, so much above all partisanship, that he cannot even conceive how a Judge can be an agitator; how a man filling-that high and sacred station can descend to the excitement of popular passions, enlist himself with a party, and be placed by a faction at its head. The learned Recorder, as I have thus conferred on him the meed of my respectful panegyric, will, I hope, pardon me if I presume to suggest to him that it would have been as well if his own name had not appeared as a member of the Lay Association for levying tithes. What! a Judge before whom a tithe case may be tried in which the Lay Association might institute the proceedings. [Mr. Shaw; No tithe case can come before me.] The Recorder is surely mistaken. He is imperfectly acquainted with the extent of his jurisdiction, although, he has so lively a sense of his moral judicial duties. He can try a civil bill for tithes, and I challenge him to deny it. It is therefore most unfortunate that his name, his right honourable and judicial name, should appear the second on the Committee of the Lay Association, instituted in order to carry on the most formidable proceedings in our courts of justice, and constituting what there is reason to think a most illegal, as well as a most oppressive confederation. I have been in the course of this night contradicted on many points, but on this remarkable circum- stance I have not been encountered with a negative. I stated that the Lay Association set forth in its advertisement in The Standard newspaper the names of its trustees, and the names of the trustees I read:—" Lords Roden, Enniskillen, Bandon, Lorton, Farnham." Has the leading and principal post taken by these noblemen been denied? Who are they?—Orangemen. And will it be said that to every member of the Society the old proverbial saying, noscitur à sociis, does not apply? Will it be said that between the Orange Society and the Lay Association there is no communion and no sympathy? The Orangemen are generally frank, direct, and candid. To the Orange Society I am disposed to apply Arbuthnot's epitaph (I wish one could apply to them an epitaph) on Chartres: it has "every vice except hypocrisy;" but he Lay Association cannot claim this exemption, and pay what Rochefoucault calls the unconscious homage that vice pays to virtue.