had to present a petition from Sir Culling Smith, who stated that he was a candidate at the last election for the borough of Pontefract, and that it had long been the practice with the candidates for that borough to give to the voters, after the election had been decided, 3l. each, which was commonly known by the name of head-money. Sir Culling Smith then went on to state, that, at the election in 1830, he had complied with that custom; but that, from the year 1835 down to the last election, he had resisted it, being determined, if returned at all, to be returned upon a purer system. The result was what his friends told him it would be— his defeat. Sir Culling Smith regarded this as a personal grievance, having had to maintain an unequal contest with those who were less scrupulous. He determined, therefore, to bring it under the consideration of the House. With that view he had prepared the present petition, which prayed that the House would be pleased to appoint a Select Committee, before which he (Sir Culling Smith) might be allowed to enter into an investigation of the practices which prevailed at the elections for Pontefract, with the view of introducing into that borough household suffrage and the vote by ballot, as the only remedy for the abuses which at present existed. Having thus stated the substance of the petition, he (Mr. Ward) had now only to move that it be laid on the Table, be printed in the votes, and be taken into consideration that day fortnight.

said, that if he were anxious to bring forward reasons why this petition should not be presented at all—if he were anxious to prevent such a petition from appearing upon the journals of the House, he believed it would be no difficult task; but he proposed acquiescing in the prayer of the petition, at the same time asking permission of the House to offer a very few remarks upon its character and nature. He, for one, could have no objection to the fullest inquiry upon the subject, remaining secure and satisfied upon the simple fact that he individually had not given any head-money. He begged the House to remark, that this petition came forward under two aspects; in one point of view it was to be regarded as bringing large and wholesale allegations against the constituency which he had the honour to represent, and in the other, it was to be viewed as one of those petitions against the Reform Bill which emanated so very freely from the Ministerial side of the House. The House was perfectly aware that the Reform Act reserved a life interest to the scotland lot voters. The voters of that class in the borough of Pontefract had been reduced since the passing of the Reform Act from 800 to less than 400; and it was upon that point that the petition just presented was so insidiously and unjustly silent. Any body who heard the allegations of that petition not knowing the fact, would suppose, that the whole of the constituency of Pontefract had received head-money. One of the allegations advanced by the petitioner was, that he had lost his election in consequence of refusing to give head-money.

reminded the hon. Member that the present could not be regarded as a convenient time upon which to enter into the merits of the question, especially as a day had been appointed, by the hon. Member by whom the petition was presented for taking it into consideration.

felt very much the inconvenience of troubling the House at that moment; but, at the same time, he did not like that a petition of that kind should go abroad upon the journals of the House without some means being afforded to the public of coming to a right understanding of its character and nature. As the best apology he could offer for trespassing upon the patience of the House at all, he would endeavour to confine his remarks to within the narrowest possible limits. Sir Culling Smith declared that his election failed because he did not give head-money; but he could tell the House why and how it was that Sir Culling Smith failed. Sir Culling Smith first went down to Pontefract under Conservative banners and professing Conservative principles, and he was then elected. In 1835 he attempted the same thing under Radical banners and professing Radical principles, and, therefore, as was very natural, was not elected. Whatever course might be taken, whether head-money were given or not, it was impossible that any two persons, professing Radical principles could ever become the representatives of the borough of Pontefract. He would reserve himself, however, until the day appointed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, when the question would be brought forward in a regular and formal manner.

, in bringing forward the motion of which he had last night given notice, would only detain the House by laying before them the precedents which, on searching the journals he had found, and which appeared to him to prove, that both before and since the passing of the Grenville Act, it had been the uniform practice of the House to reject all petitions which were not duly subscribed by the petitioners. It might be considered by some Members unnecessary for him to refer further back than the 10th of George 3d; but there were reasons connected with the ulterior steps which it might be necessary to take in this case, which made him anxious the House should be in possession of all the cases which appeared to him similar, and on which the House had already decided. Three petitions had been presented to the House, complaining of an undue election for the borough of Sligo; these petitions severally purported to be signed by John Wood, James Winterscale, and Robert George Tyler. The signature of Tyler to two of these petitions appeared to be written by the same hand; but his name to the third petition, which was the only one on which recognizances had been entered, appeared to be written in a different hand. The sitting Member was prepared with evidence to prove, first, that Tyler asserted he had only signed two petitions; and secondly, to prove by the evidence of persons well acquainted with his handwriting that the signature to the petition now before the House, and purporting to be his, had not been written by him. The House of Commons by its resolution of 1689, had declared that all petitions presented to it, ought to be signed by the petitioners with their hands or marks, and he would show by the precedents he held in his hand that where this was not the case, the House steadily adhered to its resolution and invariably rejected the petitions; that where any doubt existed as to the authenticity of the signature before the Grenville Act, the matter was referred to the Committee of privileges and elections, to inquire into and report thereon, or else evidence was heard at the bar; and that since the passing of the Grenville Act, if the signatures being authentic were a matter of doubt, a Select Committee was appointed to investigate the truth, and report their opinion to the House. The precedents upon which he relied, and to which he begged to call the attention of the House, were as follow:—On the 12th of May, 1628, the 4th year of the reign of Charles the 1st, it was recorded in the journals of the House that "Mr. Burgess sendeth in a petition, but it being not signed, the House signifieth to him that brought it, (by the Sergeant), that they would not meddle with it in that respect." On the 14th day of November, 1689, the first year of the reign of William and Mary, a petition of the bailiffs, wardens, and assistants of the Company of Weavers of London, was presented to the House and read, setting forth that certain persons had lately presented a petition to the House, and the weavers whose names were thereunto subscribed, had declared that they never subscribed the same, and praying to be heard before any proceedings should be had upon the said petition. It appeared that the petition objected to had been a short time previously presented to the House, and purported to be a petition of Abraham Lovenne and others, whose names were thereunto subscribed, but on examination it was found that the names to the said petition appeared to be written by the same hand; and Lovenne, when examined at the bar of the House, acknowledged that they were written by a scrivener, under his directions, but he endeavoured to justify himself by asserting that he had directions from the persons whose names were thereunto subscribed to put their names down. Upon this a debate arose, and the House unanimously passed the following resolution; viz., "That all petitions presented to the House ought to be signed by the petitioners with their own hands by their names or marks." And the petition was delivered back to Lovenne. On the 3d of March, 1713, a petition of Theophilus Oglethorp, Esq., was presented to the House, and read, setting forth that at the (then) last election for the borough of Haslemere, in the county of Surrey, the petitioner was duly elected, but in wrong of petitioner, that Thomas Onslow, Esq., was, by means of bribery, &c, unduly returned to serve in Parliament for the said borough. The House being informed that it was not believed that the said Theophilus Oglethorp did or could sign the said petition, as he ought to have done, he being abroad beyond the seas, and it appearing to have been delivered to the clerk of the House soon after the election for the said borough by one Mr. Orby; it was ordered "that the petition do he on the table, and that Mr. Orby do attend at the bar of the House." Mr. Orby did attend accordingly, and was examined at the bar, and acknowledged that he had delivered the petition to the clerk of the House, declaring that he had received it from Lady Oglethorp to be delivered, but that he knew nothing as to the signing of such petition. And such petition not appearing to have been signed by Mr. Oglethorp, it was resolved without a division that it be rejected. On the 9th of March in the same year the House was informed that a petition of Colonel John Erskine, which had been a short time before presented to the House, complaining of an undue election and return for the Borough of Stirling, Culross, Dunfermline, Inverkeithing, and Queens-ferry, was not signed by the petitioner. It was, he presumed, known to every Member of the House, that at this period, although it was occasionally ordered that petitions complaining of undue elections and returns should be heard at the bar of the House, yet they were generally tried by a Committee called "A Committee of Privileges and Elections," appointed at the commencement of each Session, and consisting of certain Members of the House specially named for that purpose, but with a proviso that all Members who came to any such trial should have voices. The Committee, upon hearing the evidence, came to certain resolutions touching the disputed election, which were laid before the House with their report, and upon which the House afterwards decided. The last-mentioned petition of Colonel J. Erskine bad been referred to this Committee, but upon being informed that it was not signed by him, the House ordered "that it be an instruction to the Committee of Privileges and Elections, before they proceed on the said petition, that they do examine into the manner of signing the same." The Committee, after having examined all the parties connected with the petition, reported accordingly to the House "that the said Colonel John Erskine did not sign the said petition, but that he had given authority to have his name subscribed thereto." On the 6th of May following, it was unanimously ordered by the House, "that the petition of Colonel John Erskine be discharged, the same not having been signed by the petitioner." On the 12th of March in the same year (1713) the House was informed that the petition of James Barry, Earl of Barrymore, in the kingdom of Ireland, which had been presented to the House, complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Wigan, in the county of Lancaster, was not signed by the petitioner. The House, thereupon ordered "that it be an instruction to the Committee of Privileges and Elections (to whom the said petition had been referred), that, before they proceed on the said petition, they do examine into the manner of signing the same." The Committee reported, "that, in pursuance of their instructions from the House, they had examined Edward Harvey, esq., who had delivered the petition, and also the petitioner, the Earl of Barrymore; and it appeared, that his Lordship had given Mr. Harvey authority to set his name to the petition; and that his Lordship had declared, that he owned the petition, and was ready to proceed upon it." After this report had been read in the House, a motion was made "That the Committee of Privileges and Elections be discharged from proceeding upon the said petition." Two amendments to this were proposed and acceded to by the House; the first, that the following words be added, viz., "the said petition not having been signed by the said Earl himself;" and the second, that a further addition be made of these words, viz., "but having been signed by the order of the said Earl, and owned by him." The motion, so amended, having been put, the question was carried, that the Committee of Privileges and Elections be discharged from proceeding upon the petition of the Earl of Barrymore. A second motion was made, that the Earl of Barrymore be at liberty to present a new petition, signed by himself, and containing the same allegations which were contained in the former petition, and no other; which motion was negatived by a large majority. On the 13th of April, 1735, the eighth year of the reign of George 2nd, a petition of certain persons, inhabitants and free burgesses of the city of Bristol, was presented to the House and read, setting forth that they had heard with great surprise, that a petition had been presented to the House complaining of the return of John Coster, esq., to serve in Parliament for that city, and that their names appeared subscribed to that petition, although they never signed it, nor authorised any one so to do. It was thereupon ordered by the House, that the matter of such petition be heard at the bar. It was so heard accordingly; and on the 22nd of the same month of April, it was ordered by the House, without a division, that the petition complained of might be withdrawn, and the order which had been previously made for the hearing of the said petition was discharged. On the 2nd of December, 1742, the 16th year of the reign of George 2nd, the House being informed that the petition of Nicholas Robinson, esq., complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Wotton Basset, in the county of Wilts, presented to the House on the preceding Tuesday, and referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections, was not signed by the petitioner, it was ordered "that it be an instruction to the said Committee, that before they proceed on the said petition they do examine into the manner of signing the same, and make report thereof to the House." On the 10th of the same month, it was ordered by the House, that Nicholas Robinson, esq., be at liberty to withdraw his petition. It would be tedious to multiply examples; but from the precedents he had quoted, and which were taken from the Journals of the House of Commons, it would be obvious that the House, before the passing of the Grenville Act (10 George 3rd), steadily acted on its resolution of the 14th of November, 1689, and rejected all petitions which were not signed by the petitioners; and when any doubt existed as to the authenticity of the signatures, the House either referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Elections, to report thereon, or received evidence at the bar. Since the passing of the Grenville Act, a more stringent enforcement of the law of Parliament with respect to the signing of petitions presented to the House had prevailed, based on a resolution of the House of the 2nd of June, 1774, which declared the setting the name of any person to any petition presented to the House by any other person to be a breach of privilege. And when any doubt had arisen as to the authenticity of the signatures, it had since been the practice of the House to appoint a Select Committee to take evidence as to the facts, and report thereon to the House; a change which had been rendered necessary by there being no longer any standing tribunal for the trial of election petitions, to which, as before the passing of the Grenville Act, the question might be referred. On the 28th of February, 1774, the 14th year of the reign of George 3rd, a petition was presented to the House from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Barnstaple, for leave to bring in a bill for building a market-house in that borough, and for other purposes. On the 9th day of March following a petition was presented to the House purporting to be from the merchants, tradesmen, and freeholders of the said borough, praying to be heard against such Bill. On the 16th day of May following, a petition was presented to the House from several persons, whose names appeared to be subscribed to the last-mentioned petition, and declaring the same to be without their knowledge. It was referred to a Select Committee, thereupon appointed to investigate the matter and report thereon to the House. On the 2nd June following the Select Committee reported "that the names of several persons to the petition objected to were not subscribed by them, but were set thereto by others without their authority, privity, or consent." The resolution of the 14th November, 1689, was then read, and the House unanimously resolved, "That it is highly unwarrantable and a breach of the privilege of this House for any person to set the name of any other person to any petition to be presented to this House." On the 3rd of June, 1784, the 24th year of the reign of George 3rd, a petition, complaining of the election and return of Matthew Bricklade, esq., for the city of Bristol, appearing to consist of two pieces of paper pinned together, on one of which papers the petition was written, and on the other the petitioners' names, the same was stated by Mr. Speaker to the House; and the Member who delivered the petition in at the table having informed the House, that, upon inquiry, he had found, that the names were written on the paper on which they appeared before it was pinned to the petition itself, and that the petition had not been signed as required by the orders of the House, it was directed by the House, that the said petition be re-deli- vered to the Member who gave it in, which was done accordingly. On the 1st of June, 1809, the 49th year of the reign of George the 3rd, a petition of several noblemen, gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders of the county of Cavan, in Ireland, was presented and read, complaining of the inadequacy of the laws for the prevention of illicit distillation and the protection of his Majesty's revenue. And it appearing, that the signatures to the said petition were all in the same handwriting, the said petition was, with leave of the House, withdrawn. On the 28th of January, 1819, the 59th year of the reign of George the 3rd, a petition of John Moxon and others, regarding the case of Robert Christie Burton, esq., a Member of this House, who had claimed the privileges of the House, he having been elected to represent the borough of Beverley whilst in the custody of the warden of the prison of the Court of Common Pleas for debt, was offered to be presented to the House; and it appearing that the said petition was not signed by the petitioners according to the order of the House, but by an agent only, the said petition was not received. On the 1st December, 1826, the 7th year of the reign of George 4th., a petition was presented to the House, purporting to be a petition of certain persons inhabitants of the borough of Athlone, there undersigned, complaining of the undue election and return of Richard Hancock, esq., for the borough of Athlone. On the 14th of March, 1827, the House was moved, that a petition of James Hannan and others, complaining that their names were forged to the above-mentioned petition against the return of Richard Hancock, esq., presented to the House on the preceding day, might be read, and the same being read, it was ordered, "that the said petition be referred to a Select Committee to examine the matter thereof, and to report their opinion thereon to the House." And a Committee was appointed, consisting of Mr. Hancock and twenty-one other Members (five to be a quorum), to whom the petition was ordered to be referred. On the 25th of May following the Select Committee reported, "that certain signatures to the said petition were not the signatures of the persons whose names were thereunto subscribed, and that Thomas Flannagan was privy to and cognisant of the forgery of such names." On the 14lh June following, the House was moved, that Thomas Flannagan, being so privy to and cognisant of such forgery, had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House, and that he should be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, which was ordered, and the Speaker's warrant issued accordingly. On the 19th of June he was committed to Newgate. On the 15th November, 1830, the 1st yeaár of the reign of King William 4th, a petition was presented to this House, purporting to be a petition of certain freemen (there undersigned) of the borough of Carrickfergus, complaining of the election and return of Lord George Hill to serve in Parliament for that borough at the then preceding election. On Thursday, the 16th day of December, a petition was presented from Lord George Hill, stating that several of the names subscribed to the said petition against his return were forgeries, and praying for inquiry. It was thereupon ordered, that the petition objected to should be referred to a Select Committee, to examine into the manner of signing the same, and that the said Committee should report their opinion thereon to the House. On the 4th day of February, 1831, the Committee reported, "that fourteen out of thirty signatures to the said petition were forged, and that Hutchinson Posnet and John Morison Eccleston were privy to the forgery of such signatures." On the 22nd of February it was moved "that the House doth agree with the Committee, on the resolution reported on the 4th of February;" and a debate thereon arising, such debate was adjourned until Tuesday, the 8th of March. On the 25th of February the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the return or election of Lord George Hill reported that the said Lord George Hill was duly elected, and the debate on the forged petition of the freemen was not resumed. He would not detain the House by quoting any further precedents; he thought that the last two he had mentioned were strongly applicable to the present case; and he certainly did not anticipate any opposition from the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, by whom the petition in the Carrickfergus case had been brought under the consideration of the House, nor from several right hon. Gentlemen opposite, by whom the motion of the hon. Baronet was supported. Thanking the House for the patience with which it had listened to him, he would now conclude by moving, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner of signing the petition against the return for the borough of Sligo, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House.

felt it to be his duty to move an amendment to the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Roscommon, not for the purpose of stifling inquiry into the allegations of the petition presented by that hon. Gentleman, because he had no doubt whatever of the authenticity of the signatures to the election petition; but he was induced to adopt this course for the purpose of preventing great inconvenience and unnecessary expense to certain parties connected with the case in question. It was, therefore, his intention to move that a witness should be called to the bar of the House and examined on oath, that the House itself might decide as to the course which was proper to be taken after hearing the evidence of that witness. He could not but express his regret that his hon. Friend did not give him a few days' notice of this petition and its contents, because in that case he should have made it his business to produce at the bar of the House the three persons who had signed the petition. It was true that his hon. Friend had told him, more than a week ago, that he would present a petition bearing strongly on the case; but he did not intimate its purport, and he believed that his hon. Friend was not then aware of the subjects of which the petition would treat. He now, therefore, on the part of the petitioners, and as the representative of the county of Sligo, complained that the materials, or purport, or subjects of the petition had not been made known to him before, or he would have secured the attendance of the subscribing petitioners at the bar of the House. He thought he had a right to complain, because now at the eleventh hour, this petition was brought forward for the purpose of stifling investigation into the merits of the election petition. It was now the 13th of February, that this petition, and the motion founded on it, were brought under the consideration of the House, while the order of the day for the ballot for the committee on the original election petition was fixed for Thursday next, the 15th of February. The consequence would be, that if this motion, were agreed to, the time must be extended, and the witnesses who had been brought up to town in support of the case of the petitioners, would have to be retained here at a heavy and an unnecessary expense. He was the last man in the House who would attempt to stem the current of fair justice, but he would ask, was it justice to come down at the eleventh hour with such a petition as this, proposing to do that which the House was already fully competent to do if it thought proper? He should be able to satisfy the most scrupulous that the names of Robert George Tyler, John Wood, and James Winterscale, attached to the petition were the genuine signatures of those persons. He should be able to prove that by the evidence of a professional gentleman of Dublin, who was present when the petition was signed, and at whose desk Mr. Tyler signed it. If necessary documentary evidence consisting of letters and other papers could be produced in confirmation of that testimony; under the circumstances of the case, he thought the House could not hesitate to adopt the amendment he would propose, namely, that Mr. John George Moffat be forthwith called to the bar and examined. The witness was a professional gentleman, as he had already stated, and was known and respected by many hon. Members around him. He was in attendance, and ready to be called in to prove the handwriting of the parties.

was understood to say that the course proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo was not perhaps the most convenient, and that the party who had denied the authenticity of the signatures was the party who should begin, and who should be prepared with evidence to prove his allegations. If it could be proved that only one of the signatures was genuine, he apprehended that the petition would be valid.

said, that in the case of the Carrickfergus petition, which had been referred to, the petition which was from the sitting Member, stated that a number of signatures to the petition which had been sent in against his return were forgeries, and prayed the House to inquire into the allegations, and that the petition against his return might be forthwith discharged. The House granted the first prayer, but refused the second. In the present instance, the House was called on to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of examining into the allegations of the second petition, and to report thereon. Upon that motion his hon. and gallant Friend had proposed a very simple amendment, namely, that a certain individual be called to the bar of the House, who, on being sworn, would give evidence that he saw the petition signed by one of the parties. It was said that evidence could be produced to verify the signatures of all the parties, but proof of the genuineness of one would be sufficient. He saw no reason why the inquiry should be postponed, since the necessary evidence was at hand.

thought, all parties were agreed that the subject matter of the complaint was such that the House was bound to inquire into it, in order to satisfy their own minds. The only question between the hon. and gallant Officer opposite and his hon. Friend behind him, was, as to the mode in which the inquiry should be conducted—whether by an examination at the bar of the House, or by a Select Committee. It remained, then, for the House to say whether it was disposed in matters of this kind to bring more questions under the immediate cognizance of the House, than it had been customary for Parliament to do. It was a better mode, he conceived, to have this subject examined before a Committee, than to call witnesses to the bar of the House. That had been the usual practice. A Committee of five or seven Members would be able to collect the evidence on all the allegations, in a satisfactory manner, and then to report thereon to the House.

had been informed there was a witness ready to depose that Tyler had told him that he had not signed the petition. If one of the signatures should prove to be spurious, the whole petition would fall to the ground.

agreed with an hon. Member opposite, that it was perfectly competent to the Committee under the Grenville Act, to inquire whether a petition had been properly signed or not, and if not signed by the proper parties, they had the remedy in their own hands, and might saddle the offending party with the costs of a frivolous and vexatious petition. He did not wish to interfere and stop a due inquiry into the transaction, but at the same time he was averse from permitting preliminary statements to be made of such a kind as must necessarily to some extent prejudice the deliberations of the Committee. If there were an allegation that the party did not sign, and such a statement or charge of fraud was made a day or two before the merits of the petition came on to be tried, and a Select Committee were granted thereupon, such a course of proceeding must inevitably tend to postpone the petition inquiry, and would virtually operate to repeal the Grenville Act. If the Select Committee were to wait for witnesses from Ireland, they might have to morrow an application for the postponement of the election petition, instead of a resolution of the committee, unless it was understood that the proceeding of the Select Committee should not interfere with the Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition.

was disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that election petitions should not be impeded by useless delay, and that the petitioner ought to be able to make out his case before the ballot took place, as otherwise the order to take the petition into consideration might have to be discharged.

said, that in the present instance, the House should not devolve its powers of inquiry upon a Select Committee. The facts of the case were these:— a petition stood over for consideration on Thursday next, the day after to-morrow. A petition was presented on the Tuesday, two days before the ballot should take place, the hon. Gentleman who presented it having ten days ago intimated to the sitting Member that a petition would be presented, but not having stated what that petition was. Two days before the Committee is to be nominated, the hon. Member presents this petition, alleging that he is prepared to prove that one of the signatures to the original petition complaining of an undue return is not authentic, and that he has reason to believe that the two other signatures are also not authentic, but that one signature at least is not so he is prepared to prove. The inquiry must, therefore, be brought to a close to-morrow, because the Committee will be ballotted for on Thursday. Let the House beware of establishing as a precedent the instituting of. a preliminary inquiry, which may possibly have the effect of rendering it impossible for the Election Committee to proceed with their inquiries, or at least oblige them to postpone their inquiries for an indefinite time. The Select Committee may entertain doubts—they may wish to consult the House. He thought it better that the evidence should not be brought on that evening, because the sitting Member may probably not be ready with his witnesses, but that it should stand over till tomorrow, in order to place both parties in an equal situation. If the election had stood over till Thursday week, then no inconvenience could arise from appointing a Select Committee. As time was pressing, it was of great importance that the House itself should proceed with the inquiry, as being better able to form a judgment than the Select Committee. The willingness of the House to entertain the question would be more likely to guard against the inconvenience of presenting petitions of such a kind just before the ballot. If he heard from the chair the House was competent to do so, it would be satisfactory to him. If, however, there was any doubt upon the subject, his impression was, that they ought to-morrow to proceed with the matter.

said, that Mr. Moffat, being one of the sureties, could not be examined before the Select Committee. By referring it to a Select Committee, they would therefore be depriving the sitting Member of his evidence. He thought it would be more convenient to follow the course recommended by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and examine the witnesses to-morrow. At the same time, he wished, that Gentlemen would endeavour to satisfy themselves by an inspection of the signatures. He did not know himself in which of the petitions the signature was disputed, as three of them appeared to be in the same character and handwriting.

rose to move for an address to be presented to her Majesty for a copy of the correspondence between England and France relative to the occupation of Algiers by the latter power. He hoped the House would support him in his endeavour to obtain the information which appeared to him to be required. He would ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether he was prepared to lay that information before the House? When the Duke of Wellington was, in 1830, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he stated that the Government was in communication with the French Government upon the subject, and that the most satisfactory explanations, and such as this country had a right to expect, were given; and he trusted that the House would call upon her Majesty's Government to communicate to hon. Members the nature of these explanations. He, for one, viewed with no jealousy the possession of Algiers by the Government of France; he saw with pleasure the seeds of civilisation sown on the barren sands of Africa; he was delighted to see Algiers freed from the corsair band which for upwards of three centuries had filled that country; but still France ought to give some security to the commercial interests of this country that in the suppression of the piratical state of Algiers, the kingdom of France had no view of national aggrandisement, and that it had conquered that country, acting only on the large and comprehensive idea of relieving the distressed, and supporting the great cause of humanity. Undoubtedly, the first conquest of that country was undertaken on those large and liberal grounds, but he regretted to say, that, in his opinion, the cause of humanity had been rather retarded than advanced by the result. He had conceived from what had been stated, that France had promised to consult with the other great powers of Europe on the mode of occupation of the colony, but no such consultation had taken place, and the French had proceeded to deal with their conquest as they thought fit. For his own part, during a period of peace, he would much rather that France should possess Algiers than that it should be allowed to remain as a piratical state; and some hon. Members would, he knew, go one step further, and be quite willing that the whole coast of Africa should be given up to the possession of the French. To that length he, however, was not prepared to go. They could not expect that France would relinquish the colony after the lavish expenditure of blood and money which had taken place there, but still they had a right to ascertain that there was to be no war of aggrandisement, and he trusted that Ministers would lay on the table the communications which had in 1830 been made on this point. Not only ought her Majesty's Government to let the House know what were the expressions with which the noble Duke had stated himself to be fully satisfied, but he hoped that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would go further, and state what communications had taken place between this country and France since that period. The conquest of Algiers had opened a new and enlarged channel for commerce, and this might be valuable in the time of peace; but in case of a war he doubted whether it would be for the general good that France should retain its possessions on the coast of Africa. He knew when Lord Exmouth's expedition was sent out much doubt existed in the minds of military men as to the strength of Algiers, some thought that it would require an expedition of great magnitude to conquer that town, whilst others undervalued the natural advantages of its position. He believed that the Government of that day and Lord Exmouth steered a middle course, and were successful; but it must also be recollected that his Lordship was, in his expedition, greatly favoured by the elements, and it was the opinion of many able men that if the elements did not favour an attacking party, it was a place of great strength. They all knew that unsuccessful expeditions had been seven times sent out by Spain against it. He thought, therefore, that it was not a matter of indifference to this country as to the persons who held possession of it; for, though the harbour and the town might be of no great value, yet there were many perfectly secure harbours on the coast, from which might issue, during a time of war, vessels with letters of marque even more dangerous to commerce than the piracies which had been previously committed under the Algerine flag. He was more anxious upon this subject because, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, although he had been able to give only a qualified support to her Majesty's Ministers, he had the good fortune entirely to concur in their foreign policy. It behoved him also, at that period, to bring forward the question, because the subject had been discussed in the French Chamber of Deputies, and expressions had been there used which ought not to pass unnoticed. In the speech of the King of the French, in opening the Chambers, he found described in glowing terms the glorious success of the French forces before Constantina. He was not surprised at the use of such terms of praise by a monarch to a gallant nation on such an event; but then his Majesty added, that "the success would show to the natives the inutility of further resistance." He ought not, however, to infer from this presumed in utility of resistance, that the King of the French did not intend to continue active military measures. The President of the Council, in moving the address, had said more distinctly, "we are, as it were, but beginning in Africa;" and though this expression had been afterwards somewhat softened down, and it had been said, that he meant only a beginning of civilisation, yet the two speeches taken together showed a design to continue the present system of warfare. He was far from thinking that France should be called upon to relinquish her possession, but he would rather hope that it would induce this country to cultivate friendly relations, not only between the governments, but also between the people of the two countries, and it was peculiarly necessary for those who sat on that side of the House, and who advocated liberal opinions, to assist in the spread of liberty over the world, and for this purpose they should call in aid of the good cause a nation so far advanced as was France. Still, however, the French did not as yet set so high a value on commerce as did the English; they were more strongly imbued with military ardour, and the colony would, perhaps, act as a safety valve for the military genius of that country. But it was not the interest of the French to engage in a war of aggression against the natives of Africa, and he hoped that they would discover the value of cultivating the arts of peace, and of rendering their administration rather happy than glorious; that they would promote the cultivation of commerce and the arts; and if, after full consideration, France should still wish to retain her possessions in Africa, that she would endeavour to found an empire in which her sway would be preserved more through the kind feelings of the natives in favour of the arts, of commerce, and of general acts of beneficence, than by the force of arms. He moved "an address to the Crown, praying for a copy of the correspondence between the Governments of England and France relative to the occupation of Algiers."

I consider this question, Sir, to be one of very great importance. The sentiments of the country are not yet pronounced on the subject, and there can be no doubt, that the opinions given in this House will go abroad, and may have considerable influence on the community, enabling the public mind to come to a decision on a question which has, in fact, been dormant, with the exception of occasional remarks in the public papers—remarks, however, which have not drawn from the public much attention. In the year 1833, a discussion took place on the Algerine occupation by the French troops, in the House of Lords, and some papers were moved for and granted by that House. The debate, however, did not enter into the merits of the case. In the Chambers of Peers and Deputies in France, the question has been often agitated, and the discussions which have arisen have elicited various opinions. It seems to be a subject on which the public mind in Great Britain requires to be informed, and it appears that no decided sentiment has yet been formed by the public. In proportion, therefore, to the weight and attention given by the country to the deliberations of this House, in the same proportion will be the importance of the observations made here this evening to the country. I am, therefore, desirous to avoid all declamation, and in as brief a manner as the subject will admit me, to lay my sentiments on this very important point before the House and the country. It is absolutely necessary before entering into the question, to advert briefly to the state of the town and government of Algiers previously to the year 1830, when it fell under the dominion of France. Little seems to have been known of the condition of the country about Algiers, further than that the community there consisted of various tribes of Moors and Arabs with Jews and slaves. The population of Algiers in 1830, before the arrival of the French troops, has been estimated at about 30,000 souls. Of this population about 12,000, speaking in round numbers, were Moors, 6,000 Jews, 2,000 negroes, and 4,000 foreigners, and the remaining consisted of about 5,000 or 6,000 Turks who kept the entire and supreme power in their hands, tyrannised over all the others, and held the population in subjection. These Turks were bred up in like manner to the Mamalukes in Egypt, and had, in fact, no connexion with the people they bad under control. They did not colonise or mix with the natives who were considered as a conquered people. The Aborigines, therefore, did not enjoy any rights or liberty, nor were they possessed of the slightest political power, but, as already observed, they were entirely under the control of these 5,000 or 6,000 Levantine Turks, who, although professing themselves Mussulmen did not owe the slightest deference to the Sultan at Constantinople, or pay any obedience to his order. So independent were these pirates of the Sultan, that they scrupled not to seize and make slaves of Greeks sailing under the Turkish flag. The wealth and resources of the Dey's government arose chiefly, if not entirely, from acts of piracy and robbery, committed at various times on almost every nation that sailed in the Mediterranean, but principally on the weaker powers occupying the northern coasts of that sea. These freebooters being independent of the Turkish power, formed their own government. They elected their Dey. The late Dey had been a waiter at a coffee-house, and exchanged the napkin for the sceptre. The vizier, or prime minister had been a wrestler, and before this time, would probably have tripped up the heels and taken off the head of the Dey, if their government had continued. The lord high admiral was originally a burner of charcoal. These points are of little consequence, except that they prove that no sovereignty whatever was exercised or possessed by the Porte at Algiers, and that the Dey's despotism there and sway of these men, was the usurpation of a set of pirates and banditti who were neither appointed by any acknowledged power, but their own will, and were independent of any other power whatever. The several complaints of the British consuls, the insults they experienced from the Deys at different times, and the endeavours of this country to bring them to reason by the squadrons under Lord Ex-mouth, and at a subsequent period under Sir Henry Neale, are well known. There never was any, it was not likely, and it seldom occurred, that any respect was paid to treaties or to the laws of nations by such a government, and for ages the nations of the Christian world had to complain, either that slavery on Christians was continued, that ships were seized in times of peace, or that consuls and public agents were insulted in despite of treaties and engagements. France at length was roused by some outrage of these barbarians on their consul, and, at an enormous expense and great sacrifice of men succeeded in achieving the destruction of that nest of piracy which many powers of Europe had attempted at various ages, and with different success, but none before had been able to accomplish. For this act France was entitled to the gratitude and thanks of Europe; and this act, I say, France had a right to perform in accordance with the rights of men and the laws of nations. The intended capture of Algiers was known long before it took place, from the extensive preparations made in the ports of France on the Mediterranean, and it does not appear that either Turkey or any other state opposed an attempt which could not but prove beneficial to the different states of Europe, and to the entire civilized world. France, it must, therefore, be admitted, having occupied Algiers, having remained in possession of that place for several years, had as much right to proceed against Bona and Constantine as we had, in India, to wage war, and to occupy the territory of the Burmese. I do not mean, in making this assertion, to justify the aggression of one state over the other, or to bring in Grotius or Puffendorf or Vattel, to sanction, to justify, or even to excuse those attacks of a powerful nation on a weaker one, which for centuries are recorded in the page of history to the disgrace of former governments, and the degradation of human nature: I mean to assert, that we, the people of England, have acted in such a manner that we are precluded from opposing our neighbours who imitate our example. By some individuals in England, it is true, apprehensions were entertained that a settlement on the coast of Africa by France, might, in time of war, prove injurious to the trade of the Mediterranean by the advantage gained to the French of possessing a sea-port on the African side. By others it has been said, that such a position might become injurious to our Indian possessions, by opening to France the way to Egypt, to the Red Sea; in short a variety of dangers either to the maritime or colonial influence of England has been conjured up, and advanced on the subject; let us for a moment consider whether any of these are really of any importance. The apprehension excited from Algiers being in possession of France, are stated, I believe, to be the possibility of penetrating by Egypt to India; and the possession of an harbour in Africa, in the event of war, by our neighbours on the Continent. With regard to the former, the distance between Algiers and Egypt is far too great to admit of the possibility of French troops marching overland; if France was inclined to make an attempt on Egypt, it would be done by landing at once near the Nile, not by the circuitous route of going to Algiers, and then proceeding by land to Egypt and India; the apprehension, in fact, of such an attempt is quite absurd, and needs no further comment. In regard to the annoyance that might arise from privateers or steam-vessels, sheltered in Algiers to our commerce in the Mediterranean in case of war, it cannot but occur to every one, that if our naval superiority enabled us to blockade Algiers by the squadrons under Lord Exmouth and Sir Henry Neale, the same naval superiority might enable us to blockade again with equal facility, whether Algiers was in possession of France or the Dey. From the various sources of information that I have been able to obtain from distinguished naval officers, I cannot say, that much apprehension is entertained by them on the subject. Let any hon. Member also who doubts this assertion, refer to the debates in this or rather the old House of Commons, on the treaty with France and Spain, for giving up of Minorca in 1782; he will there find, that the harbour of Port Mahon, as was said in the Debates of that day on the cession of Minorca, was one of the finest harbours in the world, capable of holding with safety the entire navy of England, where ships could anchor in perfect safety sheltered from every wind. If such a port, situated in the centre of the Mediterranean sea, could be given up to our enemies for the sake of peace in 1783, shall we run the risk of a war on the subject of Algiers being kept by our allies in 1838, and perfect security afforded to our commerce and that of the rest of the world by the destruction of piracy? Port Mahon, in every point of view, was superior, as a naval station, to Algiers; it was given up, and in the subsequent war that took place in 1792, did we find our commerce annoyed by its occupation? Much the same may be said of Algiers. It cannot be denied that some vessels might be sheltered under its mole, and have an opportunity of slipping out and giving annoyance to our single merchantmen. In time of war ships sail in convoys; and now that steam may be used in warfare, should hostilities ever take place, which I trust is far from probable, it is evident that steam-vessels could be fitted out from the various ports of Spain and France, which would be much more annoying to our commerce than any that could cross the Mediterranean from the African coast, where no coal could be obtained or the requisite for the repairs of steam. No good reasons, therefore, appear to be formed which can induce the people or the Government of Britain to view with jealousy the occupation of Algiers by France. If this is admitted, and from the little sensation which the capture and occupation of that place occasioned in this or any other country, the impression of danger arising to our commerce from such a cause may, I think, be entirely abandoned, and no fear need be entertained by the British people of the extension of territory and of power by the French colonization of the country round Algiers. Some persons have expressed a doubt whether the French power could not extend itself along the south western coast of Africa, and in time be able to command the valuable gum trade of Senegal. If any one, however, will take the trouble to cast his eyes on the map of Africa, and see the immense distance from Bona or Constantine to the confines of Senegal, such an impression cannot long continue on his mind. Looking, however, at the situation which the two great nations of Europe, England and France are placed, I confess I can see little probability of a war breaking out between them. We cannot look in this case to former times for a precedent; the situation of the two countries with regard to each other have entirely changed, the political occurrences of late years have altered the state of things in both countries. The people are made their own governors, and the beneficial result of interchange of commodities of every description that lakes place daily, and which hourly increases, must prevent the Executive Government of either, even if inclined to enter into hostilities against the wishes and interests of the people. The consequence is, that the probability of future wars is lessened, and if the general communication from the use of steam continues to increase, the increase of communication will be such as to render the chance of war every year less probable. Unless, therefore, the ambition of some power should lead to overt acts of aggression, there is little probability of any war breaking out, and Russia is more of a defensive than attacking power. Russia in a war with England or France could do them no real injury, and would herself lose her trade altogether, her landed aristocracy would suffer so severely as to prevent the Emperor from entering into one. How far the superabundant populations of the old states may lead to a different result in process of time is not for me to determine; and such is not to be apprehended as long as a vent is found for colonization in the wilds of Africa or the plains of America. There is always to be found an active, restless, and discontented set of individuals, with little to lose and much to gain, in all social communities—these are not so common in newly-formed countries, but their number is found to increase in every civilized and fully-peopled country, always prepared for sedition, and ready to promote confusion, in hopes of participating in the general scramble, which ought not to be overlooked. However, under the present government, France seems to have little to apprehend. Some have said, that the Mediterranean would become a French lake; this will not happen sooner than the Baltic becoming a Russian lake; the chance of the latter is quite as great as the former, and, of the two, the former would by me be preferred, but both are at present unlikely. To Britain, the colonization and partial civilization of Northern Africa, could not prove otherwise than beneficial. Wherever a new channel of trade is opened, the possible demand of our manufactures, or commodities may be created: whatever tends to increase a demand for any branch of our trade, it cannot be doubted that such a result would be advantageous. Every colony made by France is a pledge of peace given to Britain, and surely it cannot be a matter of indifference to England which has so often been obliged to have recourse to arms from apprehension of the power and ambition of the rulers of France, to find the same active and warlike population of that country directing their energies and capital to the arts of peace, to colonization, to augment their commerce with other nations, to increase their wealth and progressive improvement in lieu of the former attempt at universal conquest and dominion over part of Europe. The more France addicts herself to internal improvement and external colonization, the more adverse will her population be from war. Let any one who has before visited Paris, reflect on the extraordinary improvement in the condition, wealth, and enjoyment, of the people that is daily taking place. Under the wisest and most enlightened monarch that ever swayed the sceptre of France, she enjoys, at present, a prosperity never before known in the brightest days of her history; it cannot be denied that she has the power and means, and will endeavour, to turn to some advantage the uncultivated plains of Numidia. The result would be beneficial to all nations engaged in commerce, and to the welfare of Europe, and quicken the progress of human happiness and civilization throughout the world. In her declaration to European courts, France intimated as follows:—That she would turn her preparations to the advantage of the Christian world by securing 1. The complete destruction of piracy. 2. The total abolition of Christian slavery. 3. The suppression of the tribute which Christian powers pay to the regency. By the conference held in London it was agreed between France, England, and Russian, that in the countries of the East, no increase of territory at the expense of Turkey should be made by either of the above powers. Now, Sir, I beg distinctly to state, that the conduct of France has been in strict adherence to the above treaty. The territory of Bona, the town of Constantine, have no more relation to Turkey than they have to the county of Middlesex. If any infraction of the terms of the treaty has been made, the infraction has been not by France but by Russia, who has taken advantage of the weak state of the Ottoman Government, and whose influence is at present paramount at Constantinople. The treaty has been adhered to by England and France. Now, Sir, the only argument that I have heard against the extension of territory in Africa by the French, is an assurance made by the present Government of France, that it would fulfil and ratify all the treaties and conventions made by the former Government, but, in looking over the treaties and conventions made with France, I see no stipulation whatever regarding Africa, and if some conversation was held with my noble Friend, the former Ambassador at Paris, by Charles the 10th, on the subject, I do not see how such can in any manner influence the present Government of France. Vattel, in his War of Nations, says, "Those assertions made by Kings of themselves, are personal in their nature, and expire of course on the death of the King, or the extinction of his family. [Vattel, book ii. chap, xii.] If you admit the right of France to take and hold Algiers, which has been admitted, it is childish to say, she cannot extend her territory in Africa, or depress the attacks of the Arabs or Moors. What should we think of the French, if they interfered in our war with the Burmese, or if the French Chamber had remonstrated against our repelling the attacks of the Caffres, whose discomfiture was as repugnant to humanity as the repulse of the Moors at Bona, or the capture of Constantine at a subsequent period? I fear I have dwelt too long on this subject, from a conviction of the importance of the question to the best interests of Britain and of the civilised world. I may have entered into details which might be deemed unnecessary; but I hope I may be excused for so doing. The chains of slavery in Europe have been broken by France, nearly at the lime that the chains of slavery were broken in America by England. The occupation of Algiers and its surrounding country by a powerful and highly-civilised European power is likely to benefit that power, to civilise benighted Africa, and to promote the welfare of Europe in general, and of England in particular: not only by opening and extending a vast field of demand for European industry, but by gradually ameliorating the situation of our fellow-creatures, and by annihilating a system of piracy most injurious to the trading nations of the world. The question, therefore, is, are these benefits to be sacrificed to a paltry jealousy entertained by us of our neighbours, on the groundless apprehension of any molest- ation in time of war. I believe there are few thinking persons in this House, in this empire, or in Europe, who can entertain any doubts on the subject, or do not feel much gratification at the security now experienced by Christian nations that navigate the Mediterranean, who do not rejoice at the prospect of the abolition of piracy, and of the chance that the wandering tribes may gradually civilise, who can look forward without feeling a strong interest at the prospect of improving and colonising Numidia—that fine and productive portion of the globe. The advantage arising to mankind, and the benefits bestowed on society, by the chance of colonisation taking place in the northern coast of Africa, need not be here repeated. They must be apparent to every one, in a moral, religious, and political point of view; the prospect is cheerful; the idea is agreeable and favourable to humanity. In the course of years, the plains of Numidia, instead of being trodden underfoot by a barbarous, ignorant, and wandering banditti, may be turned up by the plough, and afford to an agricultural population the comforts, the luxuries, and the love, of civilised society.

had no objection to a return being ordered of the papers which formed the subject of this motion, premising that the correspondence sought was that which had passed between the Governments of France and England in 1830 with respect to the occupation of Algiers—a correspondence which had been laid before the other House of Parliament in 1831 or 1832. As it had not, however, as yet been laid before this House, it was perfectly proper that this should now be done. It could not be expected that he would at that moment enter very fully into many of those topics which had been suggested both by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and by his hon. Friend, who had introduced the motion. It was not his business to inquire into the effect which the occupation of Algiers would produce upon the interests of this country, in many of those respects which had been suggested by both those hon. Gentlemen, nor into the degree in which it was likely to affect the interests of France herself, in the cases which they had supposed. He must, however, say, that there existed a difference of opinion between him and the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, upon one point, which was with regard to the rights which the Porte had over Algiers. That hon. Gentleman was in error when he asserted that Turkey had no right over Algiers, however qualified. The fact was, undoubtedly, that Turkey did possess those rights, qualified by certain restrictions, according to the interpretation of England and France, but less limited according to the construction of Austria and other European powers. He would not enter into the question whether England had the right to interpose when France demanded an explanation of alleged injustice and aggression sustained from the Algerine Government. With regard to the pledges or assurances which before the undertaking of this expedition were given by France to England and the other powers of Europe, they would be found in those papers upon their being printed, and the House would then be enabled to see how far France had complied with those engagements. With reference to the other point to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, as to the possible designs of France upon other portions of the coast of Africa, he could positively inform the hon. Gentleman that the strongest assurances had been given to the English Government by the Government of France, that whatever might be the result of their attempt to occupy Algiers, no aggression would be made by them upon Tunis on the one hand, or upon Morocco on the other. Upon a matter of this kind—standing as the question did, both with reference to communications that had taken place and deliberations that were now passing in France itself between the Government and the Chambers—he thought he should best consult his duty by abstaining from expressing opinions which it would be neither useful nor convenient for him to express. In one sentiment, however, of his hon. Friend he would take the liberty of saying he most cordially concurred. His hon. Friend had expressed a hope that the people of this country did not feel as much desire as he believed the people of France still felt for military glory, which was only obtained by rushing into unnecessary and unprovoked wars. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend on that point, and he also hoped that the time might come, and that it was not far distant, when civilized and Christian Europe might partake of the sentiments of his hon. Friend—when nations might feel that there was no real glory to be obtained by entering into wars of aggression and tyranny—and Christian nations be convinced that there was no honour to be derived by them from the slaughter of thousands for the purposes of invasion and oppression—and when those trophies, which were erected by the hands of conquerors who invaded the rights and liberties of others when they' should be endeavouring to preserve those of their own country, would, instead of being monuments of glory, continue to the latest period to redound to their disgrace.

begged to know if, as was stated by the noble Lord, Turkey had been in occupation of Algiers, how it was that the two expeditions which had been sent out from England to demand reparation for the injuries that had been done to British commerce, did not go to Turkey, but direct to Algiers?

repeated, that there was no doubt that the Porte held rights over Algiers. France and England, whenever they had to complain against a particular power, used to go, without disputing the right of Turkey, to that particular power itself. Other powers used to hold the Sultan responsible for the acts of the Barbary States in Africa, and apply to him for redress when an injury had been done.

felt the delicacy of the subject, and did not intend to enter upon the discussion of it; but, as the noble Lord had stated that satisfactory assurances had been received from France disclaiming all intention of aggrandisement, on the one side, as regarded Morocco, and, on the other, Tunis, he thought it would be desirable that the noble Lord should give the dates of these assurances, and state whether they were in such a form that they might be added to the other papers moved for.

said, that those assurances had taken place within the last few months; that they had been chiefly verbal communications, but that such papers as had been received he should prefer not laying before the House.

said, that before he made the motion which was on the paper, he should take the liberty of presenting to the House a number of petitions which had been intrusted to him, and which had reference to the case of the Glasgow cotton-spinners. He believed, that there was no subject which could have been brought forward in that House likely to be so unpalatable as that to which his motion had reference; but he trusted, that the character of the House would not suffer in the eyes of the country from the fact of there being only one individual who was prepared to come forward and argue a question which was regarded with a feeling of hostility by all hon. Members. [No, no!] If the opinion intended to be conveyed by this expression of "no" really existed, he was glad of it, but he must say, that the public mind was most firmly disposed to entertain a feeling of prejudice against the unfortunate cotton-spinners of Glasgow. Nor was this prejudice the effect only of recent disclosures; for at the time of summoning the jury, many of those who were called upon to act had written to the officer requesting that they might be exempted, and declaring their belief that, from the prejudice which then existed, they would be unable to give an impartial verdict in the case, although they were to be sworn to give such a verdict only as would be warranted by the evidence which should be adduced before them. From the very moment of the assassination of the unfortunate man, Smith, in Glasgow, the press and the authorities of the place had striven to cast a prejudice on the cotton-spinners, and to point them out as the persons by whom the murder was committed; for after the death of the unfortunate man, certainly in a most deplorable manner, a proclamation was issued, offering a reward of 600 guineas to any one who should give such information and evidence as would lead to the apprehension and conviction of the offenders; and also at the same time declaring, that there was every reason to believe, that the cotton spinners had committed the murder. Thus at the very outset, the parties were prejudged, and the formation of a conviction was induced in the public mind, that the assassination was, in truth, the act and deed of the union of the cotton spinners. Now, what was the history of the case? In 1836, the working men in Glasgow, the cotton spinners, considered that they were under paid, and he believed that it would be admitted by hon. Members that they were entitled, in consequence, not only to enter into a consideration of the subject, but also to combine to protect themselves. It was on the 22nd of July last that Smith was shot, as he was returning home between eleven and twelve o'clock, and it was on the following Wednesday that the proclamation was issued. On the 3rd of August, the Sheriff of Glasgow, with a posse of constables, visited the committee of the cotton spinners, and they seized eighteen persons, and took possession, in addition, of all the papers and documents found in the room. The individuals seized were all consigned to a gaol, and from that time until the 10th of October, the public prosecutors, it was to be supposed, were engaged in collecting evidence against them. Their trial, however, was postponed from time to time, and the indictment which was at first delivered to the agents of the prisoners was withdrawn, and a second served, through which it would have been imagined that it was impossible for the prisoners to have escaped, and the trial, at length after various further postponements, came on in the first week in January. The Lord Advocate was public prosecutor, and was therefore present at the trial, and he was glad to see him now in his place, because the learned Lord would be able to give a distinct account of all the transactions which had passed in court under his own notice; but the House, in receiving those statements from the learned Lord, must not forget the character in which he appeared at the trial, and could not expect that he could entirely divest himself of the feeling which he must have entertained there; the position in which he was placed being that of counsel for the crown, and, in fact, he being in that House in the same capacity, and to defend his own conduct, and that of the individuals who had acted under his advice. He was unacquainted with the nature of law proceedings of Scotland, and he was much rejoiced at it, if the proceedings in this case were to be taken as a sample of the manner in which they were carried on. But it was said that the law was so made, that large flies should escape while the little insects should be caught in the meshes of the net set for them. This appeared to have been the case in the present instance; but it was extraordinary how the prisoners had escaped the full punishment of the law. The indictment contained twelve counts, on three only of which had the prisoners been found guilty, notwithstanding, at the trial, the witnesses had been allowed to state facts connected with meetings which had taken place years before, at a time when none of the prisoners were more than six or seven years of age, and with which the witnesses themselves were acquainted only by hearsay; but such a mode of trial was utterly inconsistent with justice. In the indictment there was a count for vitriol throwing, a count for arson or fire raising, a count for murder, and others, which alleged crimes to have been committed, of which, if the prisoners had been guilty, they might well have been thought the vilest culprits who were ever brought into a court of justice. The first count was, that the prisoners agreed to use intimidation, molestation, and threats, to spinners, and deter them from taking work; the second was, that the guard committee and the prisoners agreed to set upon the spinners, and assault and molest the new hands employed; the third count was to the same effect, and alleged the molestation and assaults to have been on the return from work of the spinners; the fourth count alleged that the prisoners and others had conspired to set fire to Messrs. Hussey's factory, and hired a person to carry that object into effect, to whom they offered a reward of 20l. to complete the act, by throwing a packet of combustibles into the yarn room. The fifth count was, that the prisoners and others appointed a secret Select Committee, who were hired to send threatening letters to employers, and to set fire to a cotton mill, and forcibly to invade the dwelling house of a spinner, and to commit assaults on spinners, and to shoot and murder a spinner, and that these acts were done and committed. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh counts set out the various acts alleged to have been committed in the fifth count, and the twelfth count alleged the murder of John Smith. These men, then, were grievously and foully calumniated, for they were only convicted of a conspiracy, to raise wages, and also for assault, for which a most severe sentence was passed upon them. He should now proceed to call the attention of the House to what was said by the judge who summed up the evidence and passed sentence on the prisoners. With regard to the charge of murder, it was most emphatically stated, that if the evidence of Christie was not believed, the prisoners must be acquitted. It was also stated that the charge against the four prisoners of hiring Maclean was deficient in proof, With respect to the charge of murder against Maclean himself, he gave no further opinion than by saying that if they believed the witnesses to the alibi, Maclean could not be the murderer. With respect to the threatening letters, he said, "As to the charge against Macneil of writing and sending the threatening letter to Mr. Arthur, it was not proved." Although, then, the judge said that the charges could not be believed as to the murder and threatening letter, he intimated to the jury at the conclusion of the summing up, that with regard to the charge of threatening letters, the jury would judge from what quarter they would come, but from persons taking the most lively interest in the association, and so with regard to the attempts at fire raising; and such observations on the part of the judge were called the system of justice in Scotland. Again, on passing sentence on the prisoners, the Lord Justice Clerk said, "It is for the purpose of deterring others from persisting in their evil courses, and of bringing that part of the community with which you are connected back into a state of order, &c.'' Lord Mackenzie said, "We must keep in view the distinction between the crime proved, and that which was charged and not proven." He could not help saying, that it was a remarkable thing that a judge should make such observations. It was, in fact, passing sentence for a crime of which they had not been found guilty; they had not been found guilty of murder or writing threatening letters; but the language of the judge was to the effect that they were guilty. Lord Moncrieff said, that the indictment stated two distinct instances of intimidation and assault on the part of the guard committee. In the first indictment, the two assaults he had alluded to were not mentioned. He should like to know under what statute or what law a misdemeanour of the kind these persons had been found guilty of could be punished with seven years' transportation. An hon. Gentleman below him, said, by the common law; but he (Mr. Wakley) contended that the common law of England did not admit of such a punishment for a simple misdemeanour. In 1825, the Legislature passed an act for the repeal of the combination laws. In one of the sections of this act it was stated that "combinations of workmen had taken place in England, Scotland, and Ireland, often to a great extent, to raise and keep up their wages, to regulate their hours of working and to impose restrictions on the masters respecting apprentices or others whom they may think proper to employ, and that the laws have not hitherto been effectual to prevent such combinations: that it was expedient that the statute laws that interfere in these particulars between masters and workmen should be repealed, and also that the common law under which a peaceable meeting of masters or work, men may be prosecuted as a conspiracy, should be altered." The common law had not been acted upon since the appointment of the Committee in the year before the act was passed. Of that Committee, his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny— to whom the working classes, for his indefatigable and able exertions in their behalf must ever owe a debt of gratitude —was chairman, and drew up a most able report on the subject, to which he begged to direct the attention of the House. He denied, according to the act he had just referred to, that the combination at Glasgow was illegal. There might be certain acts committed by certain persons connected with the combination, which were illegal; but he had the highest legal authority for saying that the combination itself was not illegal. But even in cases of illegal combination what was the punishment under this act? In one of the sections of it, it was enacted, "that after the passing of this act any person found guilty of violence towards any person or persons or property, or by threats or intimidation forcing, or endeavouring to force, any workman or journeyman to depart from his hiring or leave his work, or preventing or endeavouring to prevent, any person not being hired or employed from accepting by threats or intimidation any work or hire, shall be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a period not exceeding three calendar months." He might be told that this act did not extend to Scotland. He would ask why it did not? It appeared, however, that the usual clause for this purpose was not in the act, and the common law was revived with regard to Scotland. If any parties in England were found guilty of the charges these persons were found guilty of, and which was called conspiracy in Scotland, they would be liable to only three months' imprisonment; but in Scotland they were, it appeared, liable to have a sentence of transportation for seven years passed on them. Seeing the nature of the evidence adduced on the trial, what he then intended to call for was a full inquiry into the nature of the Cotton-spinning Association. He did not intend to propose the two resolutions which he had given notice of, but should confine himself to the first of them. He intended to do so because he thought that it would be more prudent to withdraw his second resolution, relying as he did, on the friendly feelings of Members, and even on the good feelings of those who even if they had committed errors in their proceedings, had done so from ignorance. He brought no charges against the executive government — he brought no charges against the Lord Advocate, or against the other legal advisers of the crown, for he believed, that if he had been situated as they were situated, and with the nature of the statements laid before them, he should have acted in the same way that they had. It was, indeed, impossible, that they should not pay some attention to the representations made as to the circumstances alleged to be attendant on the proceedings of the Cotton Spinners' Association. After the alarming statements made to them, it was the duty of the Government to make the most rigorous search and investigation into the alleged proceedings. The question, however, was whether the feelings and imaginations of the authorities had not been excited by the supposed proceedings of this Association, and whether a more severe punishment had not been passed on these men than the circumstances of the case required. He, therefore, on these grounds, made no charge against the executive Government; but he asked, he implored, them not to send these men from the country until the whole case had been fully investigated. When a case was before a court of law it often happened that the matter turned upon some technicality. If the case were alluded to in the House, it was instantly met with the objection from Gentlemen on one side of the House or the other that there was no precedent. He did not think that it always happened that a court of justice was the most favourable place for investigating such charges as had been brought forward with respect to this Association; but before a Committee of that House the whole matter would be investigated in the fairest and most favourable manner, He would ask whether the House or the country would gain anything by sending these men out of England? If they awarded the punishment which was imposed by the statute they could not award more than three months imprisonment to these men, but according to the law authorities on the other side of the Tweed the offence was to be punished with seven years' transportation. A few years ago the six Dorchester labourers were, in the opinion of many Members of that House, most properly sent out of the country for having taken an illegal oath; but was there then a single Member in the House who was not convinced that those men were most hardly and severely punished, on being convicted under the 57th of Geo. 3rd of taking an illegal oath? That was the only breach of the law of which those men were guilty, and for which they were sent out of the country. The sentence on those men had been rescinded, and one of them had returned to this country, but the other five men had not been heard of. He warned the House against acting in anything like a spirit of hostility to the working millions of Englishmen. Such a course could not but be attended with the greatest danger, and he would tell hon. Gentlemen opposite not to suppose that they could long uphold the conservative institutions of the country when the feelings of the people were against them. He begged the House to recollect that the working classes were not the ignorant body that they were formerly said to be, but that knowledge and intelligence were extensively spread amongst them. That large body was not represented in that House, and indeed they had created a peculiar qualification which prevented the working men from sending any of their own class into that House, and in addition to that, the franchise given by the Reform Bill excluded the larger portion of them. [Hear, hear!] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered, but were they when they appeared to think with him that the Reform Bill was not a perfect or sufficient measure, prepared to go further—would they support a proposition for universal suffrage? He was sure that the result would be, that the working millions in this country would force their demands on the attention of the House until their just claims were heard with success. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had given notice of an amendment to his motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he was favourable to inquiry. This was all that the members of the trades' unions demanded; they said that they were most anxious for the fullest investigation, so that they might have an opportunity of removing the imputations which had been cast on their characters. In consequence of what had taken place in the sister island his hon. and learned Friend had made an attempt to disabuse the public mind of the working classes as to certain transactions connected with the combinations, and as to some unfortunate effects they had had on the trade of Dublin; in consequence of this he was charged with being hostile to the interests of the working classes, and an attempt was made to excite the feelings of the people against him. He believed that the charge was without foundation, and that nothing of the kind was true—indeed the hon. Member's whole life was an answer to the charge. Whether the House agreed to the inquiry on his motion or on that of his hon. and learned Friend was immaterial; all that he required was, that the inquiry should be full and complete, and that the unfortunate men who had been convicted in Scotland should be retained in this country until the investigation was at an end. Because the combination laws had been repealed hon. Gentlemen thought that the working men acted improperly if they made any provision for a future time out of their weekly wages. So far from this, he thought that the working man deserved credit for making provision out of his wages, to apply it when the day of want came; and it was quite immaterial whether this was done by union amongst the working classes or otherwise. Indeed it was a question with him whether the law should not do a little more than it did at present for the protection of the interests of the working classes. The fact was, that there was nothing but combinations amongst the rich from one end of the country to the other. He had no hesitation in saying that there was a trade union in that House. The landed proprietors in that House constituted the large majority, and took care to prevent any alteration in the law which would make corn cheap. By doing so they thinned the blood of the people and kept down plethora among them. He trusted, therefore, that Gentlemen in that House would be more chary for the future in making such charges against the working classes. His hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, condemned the workmen of that city because they did not allow each tradesman to have more than a certain number of apprentices. He did not, however, condemn a similar practice which existed in his own profession, for no attorney was allowed to have more than two apprentices; and they not only had an arrangement amongst themselves, but they got a statute passed for the purpose. That rule, therefore, which was highly approved of with regard to lawyers was most strongly condemned in other trades. Again, had they not a trade union in the Temple. Had they not in that place a recent and remarkable instance of conspiracy against the genius and abilities of the extraordinary man near him— which had prevented him acquiring that station and wealth in the profession which his talents would have insured to him? When there was such a remarkable instance of the preventing the acquisition of rank and wealth in a liberal profession, by a combination of a detestable clique in the heart of the metropolis, they should not make such loud complaints of combinations of working men at distant places who had such difficulties to contend with. They ought not to sanction such a state of things in the law, and punish with the utmost rigour poor and unfortunate men who attempted to gain an addition to their scanty earnings, and to obtain bread for themselves and families. This was the system that was pursued with regard to the working classes; and he would ask any hon. Member whether he would not blush if he thought that those men were his countrymen, who could patiently submit to the infliction of such hardships on them as the working classes had been subjected to? When the same class of persons fought the battles of the country, no praise that could be bestowed on them was too great; there was no limit to the applause bestowed on their brave soldiers and gallant tars; and the class whose cause he thus advocated, were possessed of the same feelings and habits, and were the fathers and brothers of those upon whom praise was so lavishly bestowed. He knew not how to treat the question before the House in any other manner than that which he had stated. He knew that there was the greatest repugnance to discuss questions in that House which involved anything like an appeal from the decision of a court of law. It was the common custom to state that it was inexpedient to make that House a court of appeal from courts of law; but he would ask to what other tribunal could they appeal? Where could matters of this kind be so properly discussed as in that House? It should be remembered that the judges were not the masters of the public but the servants. He did not wish to make any remarks on the conduct of the judges in any court of law; all that he was anxious for was securing the confidence and respect of the people. He would ask the learned Lord Advocate under what English statute these men could be transported. He was aware that under the 9th of George 4th it had been maintained that if they conspired to commit assaults, they could be capitally indicted. They were not, however, indicted under this statute, indeed no mention was made of it; he therefore thought the indictment was framed under the common law. All the papers of the Association were seized by the Sheriff when the documents of the committee were taken by surprise; and he would ask what internal evidence these documents exhibited of the existence of an illegal association? But suppose that these persons were present when the assault was committed, did it justify them in passing on the prisoners a sentence of transportation for seven years? After the enactment in the Act of Parliament which he had read to the House, he was of opinion that the highest punishment that should be inflicted on the prisoners was imprisonment for three months. By taking an analogous case he thought that a great light might be thrown on the subject. He intended to direct the attention of the House to the analogous case of the Orange Association. He knew that some hon. Members might object to any allusion to the Orange Association, but he did so, because it would show in what a different manner the law was administered to this exalted body, and to the humble association of workmen. It was well known that the Orange Association was an illegal body, and it was rendered so by the oath taken by its members. With respect to the Glasgow Association, it was asserted that an oath was administered: three of the witnesses for the Crown denied that there was such an oath in that body; again, four of the witnesses for the Crown denied that there was any secret committee in connection with the Association. Such, indeed, was the contradiction on the part of the witnesses for the Crown, that it was surprising that the counsel for the prisoners thought it expedient to call any witnesses for the defence. If this had taken place, he thought the Lord Advocate would have felt, that he had been placed in rather an awkward situation. He would proceed to make a few remarks as to what had taken place before the trial. He had already said that 600l. had been offered for information which would lead to conviction. But how were the witnesses treated before the trial? The four chief witnesses for the Crown were confined together in one room. These men were members of the Association, were confined together in one room, and they were in expectation of receiving the 600l. if their evidence should convict the prisoners. Need he add, that by pursuing this course, the witnesses had every opportunity of agreeing to the evidence they should give, and of framing it in away which was most likely to lead to conviction. On the trial no objection was allowed against the testimony of these witnesses, although they had lived together; but the judges refused to receive the evidence of two witnesses for the defence, because they had, previously to the trial, signed a declaration that Macneil was not on the spot when the murder was committed on the night it took place. He did not understand how the impartial administration of justice could be promoted by receiving the evidence on one side, and refusing to receive the evidence of witnesses for the defence, for the simple reason he had stated. But he might be told that the witnesses were put into gaol for protection; there was no necessity however, for putting them in one room; there was no necessity for cooping them up in one narrow spot where they could have an opportunity of conversing together on the evidence they would be called upon to give on the trial. He should now return to the Orange Association, and what he wanted to establish was, that if the law was to be administered to the people, it should be administered with strict and undeviating impartiality. It had been elicited by the Committee of that House which inquired into the nature of the Orange Association, that oaths were taken by its members, yet had any of the nobles and right honourables of the land, who were the leaders of that Association, been prosecuted or punished? Not one: and why, then, inflict this severe punishment on poor men daily struggling for their bread, and who, if they had sinned in this matter at all, had not sinned because they were vicious. If justice were to be administered, let it be with an even hand. And what was the oath taken by this Orange Association, which boasted that it could raise 150,000 men at a minute's notice, through the influence and interest of those who were its heads, and than which a more dangerous Association, more rife with peril to the Crown and to all the institutions of the country, never existed in any state? Its organization was most complete, and the oath which it imposed on its members the most solemn and binding that could be framed. What was that oath? "I, A. B., do solemnly swear that I will, to the best of my ability, defend the present King and Royal Family,"—yes— "defend the present King and Royal Family, so long as he and they support the Protestant ascendancy." So that here were 150,000 men taking a qualified oath of allegiance. And who were to be the judges as to whether the King supported the Protestant ascendancy? Why the heads of the Association. Well, just so long as the King, in the opinion of these parties, supported the Protestant ascendancy, and no longer, did the Association pledge itself to defend the King. Then came a paragraph having reference to the secrets of the Association:—"And I do further swear that I will always conceal, and never reveal, any part or parts of what is now about to be privately communicated to me till empowered to do so by the authorised heads of the Association," &c. And who were among the heads of this Association? The noble Member for Bucks, opposite, the Duke of York, the Duke of Cumberland, the Bishop of Salisbury, ''the lord prelate of the order," Lord Lowther, Lord Kenyon, Sir Robert Peake—not Sir Robert Peel—the Marquess of Thomond, and other nobles and great men of the land, too numerous to mention. But it might be said, this was a religious Association, established only from the purest of motives; but he had shown that it was a political institution, and he had also shown that its members took a qualified oath of allegiance. One of the persons examined by this Committee was a Mr. Whittle, a maltster, of Rochdale, who stated that he had been an Orangeman for twenty years, but had been expelled in 1835, by the Grand Lodge held at Lord Kenyon's, because he had voted for the Liberal candidate for Rochdale; and, further, that several other Orangemen had been expelled on similar grounds. The Orange Association was, therefore, not only in the highest degree a dangerous Association, but it was an unlawful one. Seeing, therefore, that it was an unlawful Association, and that some of the greatest men in the land belonged to it, what must be the feelings of the working millions of this country, when they found that no prosecution had been instituted against any one Member of that Association, while people were sent hunting and peering about the country for the purpose of discovering any persons who might have been guilty of violating the law in these trades' unions. What he asked was, that these men should not be sent away until an inquiry had been made into this Glasgow Cotton Spinners' Association. He asked for no inquiry into the trial. It might, perhaps, be said, that there was no parallel between the case of this Association and the case of the Orange Association—that no serious outrages had arisen out of the Orange Association. But this was a mistake. Near Glasgow itself, serious outrages had been caused by Orangemen, in one of which, a constable, was shot by an Orangeman. The murderer was taken and executed, and here the question arose, if the assault at Mile End could be traced to the leaders of the Cotton Spinners' Association, merely because the parties committing it were connected with that Association, how was it that the leaders of the Orange Association were not prosecuted for the murder committed on the constable by one of their body? If there was culpability in one case there was criminality in the other. This was a mode of administering the law which would be productive of the most frightful consequences. If they wished the Crown to be respected, the courts of justice to be beloved, they must keep the fountain of justice free from all impurity and corruption. The hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he should only move the first resolution of which he had given notice, which the hon. Member read as follows:—"That this House is of opinion that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the constitution, practices, and effects of a society which has long existed in Scotland, under the title of 'the Association of Operative Cotton Spinners of Glasgow and its neighbourhood.'"

was bound to acknowledge the perfect courtesy with which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward this question. But while he acknowledged this personal courtesy to its fullest extent, he must regret that, in reference to other persons, not present to defend themselves, the hon. Gentleman had made some observations which he conceived to be totally unfounded. He referred to the opinions alleged to have been delivered by the learned Judges, and he must say, that, with the exception of one particular allusion only, no such opinions had been delivered by them—and before he concluded the observations he had to make, he would direct the attention of the House particularly to an opinion of one of the Judges in a case allied to the present, and which he should submit to the House as expressing sentiments honourable to any Judge in any country. But when the hon. Member complained that an observation had fallen from one of the Judges to the effect that the guilty persons were punished for the sake of example, and not because of what they had done, it might be asked what punishments at all were adjudged in any part of these realms but as an example? In no case was punishment dealt out on a criminal in satisfaction of the vengeance of the prosecuting party, but for the good of society alone, for the repression of crime; on such grounds alone was a judge justified in pronouncing the sentence of the law against any individual. Such a sentiment as this was doubtless uttered by the learned Judge, but in every other respect the imperfect and erroneous view which had been given by the hon. Member of the opinions delivered by the learned Judge, showed that he had been entirely misinformed as to the real facts of the case. He regretted that he had not been present when the hon. Gentleman first brought the question before the House, but he had had no idea, from the feeling which prevailed in Scotland respecting these proceedings, that they were likely to engage the attention of the House during the short interval between the assembling of Parliament and the recess. Had he been at all aware that it would be brought forward, he would have taken care to have been in his place. As it was, the hon. Member would do him the justice to admit that since the re-assembling of Parliament, he had manifested no desire for delay in bringing the question under the consideration of the House. On the contrary, he much rejoiced that it was now before the House, so that the whole matter might be fully considered, and the justice of the laws of Scotland vindicated. It had been stated, that many of those summoned on the jury were confessedly so prejudiced as to be unfit to try the case, but how stood the fact? That every advantage had been in this respect, as in others, given to the persons accused, and had been fully exercised by them. Not fewer than twenty-five challenges were made to the jury by the prisoners, while not one single challenge was made on the part of the Crown. Indeed, it had seldom happened, except in cases of treason, that the privilege of challenging had been carried so far, and he might add, that so far as he knew of the public opinion of Edinburgh, very few persons there were prejudiced on the subject. The question before the House had been in some degree placed by the hon. Gentleman on a more favourable footing than some other cases, where the object was to have the trial reviewed and the judgment amended, but this was disclaimed by the hon. Gentleman, and, being so disclaimed, he had no occasion to make any further remarks, except, indeed, this—that no tribunal was less fitted to try a case of this nature than either a Committee of the House, or the House itself. He did not, however, mean for a moment to dispute but that if any flagrant wrong had been committed, that if the law was in anyway defective, or if the public officer had failed in the discharge of his duty, the House might very properly give redress in such a case by amending the law, or addressing the Crown to remove the person who had acted in a manner unworthy of his situation, and he would say at once, that, in his opinion, any individual would be most unworthy of that high station who should manifest any feelings adverse to the industrious classes, any man would exhibit himself equally deficient in all the qualities of heart or head, who had not as much regard and affection for, as much joy and pleasure in, the prosperity and happiness of those classes, as in that of persons of station and wealth, The hon. Gentleman had observed, that he considered himself fortunate in not having been in a country where such laws were in force. In comparing any new system of law, it would be most unjust to take any one particular detail of one system, and draw conclusions upon the whole from that only, and not from the other parts of the system which balanced it. It should be always recollected that the law of Scotland was far more favourable to persons accused than the law of England. He did not say that the law of England in this respect was bad, or ought to be changed, it had very great merits, it was suited to the country, it gave great security to life and property, it lived in the hearts and feelings of the people; but in considering these or any other laws, they must be taken into consideration one with the other, in order to see how far they were perfect or otherwise. The law of Scotland, he would repeat, gave great advantages to persons accused which they did not possess here. In the first place, and this should be attended to, as the circumstance led to some of the peculiarities which had occasioned much remark out of doors—in the first place, by the law of Scotland no crime, whether of great or small importance, could be proved against any person without the evidence of two witnesses at the least, or of one witness supported by circumstantial evidence confirmatory of his evidence. Take the case of a person of the highest character, who had brought forward his evidence that he had been robbed or assaulted, or otherwise aggrieved by any other inferior offence, however clear and direct his evidence, however unimpeachable his character, unless the public prosecutor could call some other witness, or prove some circumstance to confirm the evidence, the jury would be directed by the judge unanimously to find that the offence was not proven. Nay, a very high authority, Judge Hume, had expressed the extreme opinion, that the evidence of one witness only, though this witness was a particeps criminis, would not be sufficient to prove an offence. Whatever might be thought of this rule, it certainly gave a great advantage to the persons accused, and persons accustomed to the administration of the law in Scotland were frequently surprised at seeing in English criminal courts persons adjudged guilty on evidence on which a conviction could not be obtained in Scotland. This rule had led to the giving verdicts in the different forms of "guilty" or "not guilty," "proven" or "not proven," because it would be most unreasonable to require of a jury, convinced by the unimpeachable testimony of one witness of the guilt of an accused person, to pronounce him not guilty, while the law of the land forbade them to declare him guilty, except on the evidence of two witnesses. In such cases it was left to them to declare the offence "not proven." Another advantage was, that the accused person had a copy of the indictment furnished him fifteen days before the day of trial, containing a narrative of the facts to be proved against him, and thus-enabling him to prepare his defence. There was also at the same time furnished him a list of all the witnesses against him, while here a copy of the indictment was only furnished to the prisoner on the very day of trial. These were great advantages to the accused person. Another peculiar advantage which the accused person possessed in Scotland, the policy of which was less clear, was, that after the public prosecutor had concluded his case and examined his witnesses, the prisoner was entitled to reply, to have the last word, and might call evidence as to alibi or any other fact in his favour, while the public prosecutor was not able to recal any witness in explanation. The hon. Gentleman had contrasted the evidence of one person on the trial, who stated, that on a particular evening a secret meeting had been held, which evidence had been contradicted by another witness, who stated, that he was in the chair on the evening in question, and that the meeting was only an ordinary one, which broke up at half-past nine, whereas, if the public prosecutor had been allowed to recal his witness, he could have shown that the secret meeting he deposed to, took place the same evening after the ordinary meeting, which broke up at half-past nine. The hon. Gentleman had asked under what statute this trial had been had. The answer was, under no statute at all—no statute was mentioned. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the law respecting combination applied to Scotland? Undoubtedly, yes, there was no person who was not liable to punishment for combination. In England this offence, if accompanied with violence or menaces, was punished with three months imprisonment; in Scotland this offence was tried by the justices of peace or the sheriffs. But this was a different case from simple combination, or of working men casually committing violence against other working men. This was a conspiracy formed during a long course of years — a conspiracy seeking to accomplish its object by deeds of violence, by systematic outrage, and giving alarm to the whole community where it existed to that extent that, besides the ordinary police of the place, it had been found necessary to employ an additional force of 100 armed men to keep the peace. According to the law of Scotland, a conspiracy, as defined by the Act, was one of the most formidable crimes that could exist. That a conspiracy bad existed in this case was proved by the atrocities that had been carried on for a series of years, by the terror that had been resorted to, by the domination that had been practised, by the despotism that had been exercised over all. The hon. Gentleman complained of the partial administration of justice, and referred to the difference between the course pursued in the present case, and that which was adopted in reference to the combinations and riots between the Roman Catholics and Protestants. On that subject he begged to refer to the cases which arose out of the riots at Airdrie in 1835. It was then necessary to try both Roman Catholics and Protestants who had committed riots; the Roman Catholics were transported for seven years, and the Protestants, whose crime was considered greater, were transported for fourteen years. These were, in their circumstances, the same cases as that of the association at Glasgow; the punishment awarded was not greater, and the persons were of the same description as those to whom the hon. Gentleman had alluded. He did not think it desirable to go into all the details of the evidence in this particular case, but there were one or two points to which he felt it his duty to allude. The hon. Gentleman asked were these five individuals, the president, the secretary, and the others, present on the occasion when the riots took place? No, they were not, and he would say, that the crime was greater, was more serious and dangerous, of hiring, maintaining, and directing the individuals whom they excited to riot, than it would have been had they exposed their own persons to the consequences of the grave offences that were committed. Tranquillity was much more endangered, and far greater terror was produced, when designing men laid their plans, and in secret advised and excited their weak and deluded victims to carry them into execution, and expose themselves to the just vengeance of the law. There were some minor details, arising out of the adjudication of this case, which the hon. Gentleman had referred to, and which he could not pass over, because his doing so might create an impression unfavourable to the administration of justice in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman spoke of witnesses for the Crown having been imprisoned for a considerable period of time before the trial. Now the great difficulty of this case was attributable to the terror under which the witnesses for the Crown laboured. The fact was, that they themselves had solicited to be put into prison. They had positively refused to give any information unless they were lodged in a place of security. At a subsequent period, the sheriff was obliged to meet them in remote parts of the town, it being declared and believed, that if they were seen to go to the sheriff's, their lives would not be safe. That they should all have been confined to one apartment was a circumstance he regretted, but that fact would not surprise the House when they recollected how crowded the gaols of Scotland unfortunately were. These prisoners could not, under the circumstances, be placed in a better situation, there were no means of providing them with a separate apartment. The present condition of the gaols was certainly a great evil, which he hoped would be redressed, it was universally acknowledged, and he trusted that the Bill brought in during the last Session of the last Parliament would pass in this, and provide the Crown with the means of disposing of the prisoners properly. The propriety of prosecuting the leaders in these combinations was particularly apparent when the situation in which the ignorant and distressed were placed by them was considered. In such cases the uninformed, being perhaps out of employ, and suffering from extreme destitution, were made to feel that while they committed crimes, they were sure of their reward from those with whom they lived and associated, but if they refused to be parties to the criminal proceeding, or if they gave information, they were certain of per- secution, and exposed themselves even to the danger of losing their lives. Such being the difficulties in the way, he always felt extremely uncertain as to what would be the nature of the evidence that might be given. It was evident that the prisoners had the means of using an influence far greater than that which any public prosecutor could exercise. This state of things could not be disputed, for crimes were committed in Glasgow and its neighbourhood sometimes under cover of the night, and sometimes in the open day, and though large rewards were offered for their detection, no person came forward to give evidence. It could not be expected, that in such cases the evidence would always be clear and overwhelming, but in this instance a feeling of remorse on the part of many, and a desire for the restoration of tranquillity on the part of others, who regretted the violence that had been committed, occasioned them to come forward for the purpose of establishing the facts. The hon. Member for Finsbury had asserted that the law of Scotland punished offences of this nature with far more severity than that of England, but he was sure the House would not think transportation for seven years too severe a punishment for a crime so grave, or that the punishment inflicted on the Airdrie rioters was disproportioned to their offences. The law of Scotland, while it subsisted, must be administered, and he hoped the House would support the judges of the land in the discharge of their duty. The hon. Member had observed, that punishment was awarded on three only of the acts charged, but the tenth charge of employing persons to enter the house of a cotton-spinner, named Donaghey, at night, had been found by the jury to be proved. The court, however, had declined to pass any sentence regarding this charge, on account of the failure of one of the previous charges. So far, therefore, from any undue harshness or severity being used towards the prisoners, they had all the advantages which the leniency of the law could allow them. It was impossible to forget that the charges on which they were convicted were distinctly proved against them, or that the offences might, if unpunished, be followed by consequences the most dangerous to the welfare of the inhabitants of the populous district in which they were committed. One of the individuals whom the prisoners were sus- pected to have employed, was apprehended and brought to trial at Glasgow for the outrage he had committed at the very time the trials in Edinburgh were going on. What followed? As was frequently the case as regarded crimes committed under the authority of the association, the man pleaded guilty, thinking it, no doubt, better to do so, inasmuch as the offence could be easily proved. Thomas Riddle was the prisoner's name. He begged to read to the House the judgment Lord Cockburn passed upon the prisoner. The learned Lord read as follows:—

"Thomas Riddle, it is impossible not to be sorry, as well as surprised, at seeing a person of your appearance where you are. But you have committed a very great crime, and in order that neither you, nor anybody else, may have any pretence for not understanding its atrocity, I shall tell you the facts, as stated in the indictment to which you have now pleaded guilty. The indictment sets forth that you had struck work. But this is not your crime—it is not even a part of it. The law now entitles you, and every man, to strike work when he pleases. Your labour is your own, and you may sell it as you please. So may every other man by law. Whether there be certain persons who won't let this law be acted upon we shall see immediately. The indictment also states, that you struck in concert with a number of other operative cotton-spinners. But this is no part of your crime either. The law not only allows every man to demand what wages he pleases, and to refuse working if he does not get them, but it allows him to arrange and combine with others, in order that by concerted strikes, they may make their joint demand more effectual. Masters may combine against workmen, and workmen against masters. By law the market of labour, like that of capital, is free. Would that the workmen of this country had always shown themselves worthy of the recent removal of the old restrictions on the power of demanding what wages they chose, and of uniting to enforce this demand. But your crime is this—namely, that you, along with some of your associates, invaded the house in which a person lived who chose to be satisfied with lower wages than you and they were holding out for; that you did this under cloud of night, and when the inmates were in bed; that with sticks, stones, and menaces you broke open the door, and even shook bricks from the partition in which it was fixed: that you threw the inmates into a state of great terror and alarm; and that you compelled the workman you were in quest of 'under terror of personal violence, and in fear of his life, to swear or promise, that he would leave the cotton-mill in which he was then working.' Now, all this is bad but its chief guilt consists in the motive and object for which it was all done. This object is set forth to have been 'for the wicked and felonious purpose of compelling a workman to leave his employment,' in order that you might thereby give efficacy to your own demand. This is your crime: that you tried to deprive that man of the disposal of his own particular labour—that, not content with the liberty of selling your own strength and skill at your pleasure, you denied that liberty to another; and attempted, by violence, to dictate to that man the terms on which he should sell his. For this crime, and for its attendant circumstances, you are to be transported for seven years. If you think this punishment severe, this can only be because you choose to shut your eyes to the wickedness and to the plain consequences of what you and others have been doing. The labour of a poor man is his principal property; and he who robs him of this makes him a beggar. Yet there are masses of people who set themselves up as the dictators of the market of labour, and who have the audacity to band themselves together in defence of this tyranny. These persons not only abstain from working themselves, which the law leaves them at perfect liberty to do, but they proclaim that nobody else shall work for less; and if their insolent mandate be disregarded they enforce it by violence, and then declare themselves the friends of free trade. How anything so iniquitous and absurd should ever enter the minds of the educated people of Scotland has always appeared to me incomprehensible."

He referred the House to this address, which he believed to be accurarely reported, as a fair exposition of the opinions of the judges on the subject. He should not consider it necessary for him to dwell further on the details of the law of this case, if it were not that elsewhere there had been statements made impugning the conduct, nay, attacking in the most violent terms, the conduct of those who had instituted the prosecutions in Scotland. It was said, elsewhere, that these prosecutions had been conducted in the most bungling manner, that there had been every sort of blunder committed, and that in consequence of those blunders the trial had been delayed, and the individuals had been subjected to a long and severe imprisonment. His answer was, not merely that the statement was on the whole not true—but that it was the very opposite of anything approaching to truth. With respect to the indictment, his answer was, that lawyers of great ability had it for a long time under their consideration, and the result was, that the court unanimously sustained it. On what ground did any noble and learned Lord, in any place, consider himself entitled to assert, without saying what it was, that there was any defect or blunder—on what ground did he consider himself entitled to make such an assertion, not only against the whole of the authority of the professional persons who had been engaged, but in opposition also to the authority of the court? It was not a little extraordinary even if there had been mistakes—if in a case of such great interest there had been some oversight. Was it not novel with those who had belonged to the profession of the law to talk in that tone, and with that feeling of the proceedings? But when there was no foundation whatever for the remarks, when it was quite clear that there was none, it was extraordinary that any individual who had filled a high legal station for years with honour and credit should make a statement, not only reflecting on lawyers of the highest eminence, but even without the least foundation in point of fact. The statement was, that the trial had been delayed. Now, before the trial came on, and before its result could be known, he had explained that the reason why the trial had been delayed was, that the public prosecutor had received some fresh information. And was he not justified in obtaining all the important information that he could? He entered the court with a belief that the trial would come on, but after the argument of counsel accounts from Glasgow were received from the sheriff, stating that some important documents, which before it had been impossible to recover, had been obtained, with other important evidence, and it was left to him to say whether the trial should go on or not. Now, in a case of this sort, in which murder had been committed, would any public prosecutor have hesitated to delay the trial, in order to avail himself of the fresh evidence. He desired the sheriff to pursue his inquiries, which he did, though with the greatest difficulty. He could not see the witnesses except by stealth, without exposing them to the persecution of the association; and was it to be told in the high places that this trial was delayed in order to recover blunders and errors—blunders and errors that existed nowhere but in the fancy of the noble and learned Lord who thought proper to make that statement? He supposed that the noble and learned Lord could not be aware that he had stated the ground on which the trial had been delayed, because he could not imagine that if he had been aware of that statement, he would have made the observations he did in reference to a person whom that noble and learned Lord had known for forty years, whose character, however inferior it was for talent and ability, had at least been not less distinguished for straightforward conduct and veracity than even that of the noble and learned Lord himself, honourable as he believed his character to be, but in that humble and low attribute to which all men might lay claim, he thought he was not guilty of any remarkable presumption in saying that he considered himself his equal. Whatever had been remarked about his own abilities as a lawyer was comparatively of small importance, but the charge made affected not only himself. He did not suppose that it was meant to attack him personally, but, fearing that it might affect other persons, particularly a very able and rising man in his profession, when it was charged that there had been gross delay, he felt it to be his duty to come forward and prove to the House that this case had been conducted not only with perfect fairness, but he trusted with zeal, humanity, and moderation. He considered that the explanation he had given was due to the Government, which had been attacked on account of these prosecutions, for the misplaced confidence which they were said to have reposed in those who conducted them, but above all, to the country, who have a right to expect that in such matters as this, concerning the freedom, the rights of property, and the lives of a large and valuable portion of the community, justice should be zealously, humanely, and impartially administered.

said, that, in his judgment, it had been proved that the prisoners were rightly found guilty, and that the punishment was not greater than was necessary. He had looked over the evidence with the utmost attention and that suspicion which such evidence induced; but it did appear to him on the evidence, without feeling any bias from other causes in operation on his mind, that he could not have voted for the motion of which the hon. Member for Finsbury had given notice, but had since, as he understood, withdrawn, for an address to the Crown, praying the commutation of the sentence which had been passed on the fire con- victed cotton-spinners. It appeared to him that no case had ever been investigated with more attention. No advantages had been taken, as far as he could find, against the prisoners in any particular, while the atrocity of the offence was greater probably than any of which man could be guilty. There was no crime, and the fact was never shown to a greater degree of clearness than in this case, to which combination rising into conspiracy could not instigate. A more atrocious case, he must say, he could not conceive; and that the law had not been exercised rigorously in it he felt himself bound to declare. The system of combination which prevailed was worthy of the best attention: in the case in question, it appeared that, the sums expended on the part of the association exceeded in amount 10,000l., and while the workmen were going into this expenditure hundreds and thousands of persons dependent upon them were thrown out of bread. When the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wakley) said that that House was not sufficiently sensible to the interests and wishes of the lower orders, he answered for himself and for hon. Gentlemen near him, and he believed that there was not a Gentleman in that House who did not sympathise with every true interest of the poor, and he believed that he who could prevail upon them to lay aside their combination would prove their best and truest friend. As to the hon. Gentleman's remark of the harshness of these proceedings, he would say, that the harshness of these combinations and the excessive cruelty was such, that if the law inflicted the one-thousandth part of it, there would be no end to the complaints that would be made. Upon the whole, he had come to the conclusion, that the evidence justified the verdict, and that the sentence which had been passed ought not to be commuted under the peculiar circumstances.

said, that before the amendment was put, he would beg leave to state to the House, in the absence, from indisposition, of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, what course the Government intended to pursue on the present important question, and he felt satisfied from all the observations he had heard during the evening, that that course would be consonant with the views of all parties. This was a subject of all others that required the unanimity of hon. Members, that the public might know that the House was about to legislate for the benefit of the whole community, and he thought it would be expedient that hon. Members should merge minor differences, and at once go to the principle of the question. Although he thought the House would generally agree with the views of Government, he did not calculate on the support of the hon. Member for Finsbury, whose original proposition was for a Select Committee to review the judgment of the Court of Justiciary. [Mr. Wakley: I disclaim such an intention.] If the hon. Member's present motion had not the boldness of that of which at first he had given notice, it still contained all the objectionable matter. His inquiry was not to be general, but in reference to the particular case of the five convicts. He hoped the House would enter into the inquiry generally which Government were about to institute free from any warmth or party exasperation, but in that spirit of anxiety for doing justice between master and man which had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He would beg leave, in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) to move as an amendment, "for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the 6th of George 4th, and into the general constitution of trades' unions, and also of the combination of workmen and masters in the United Kingdom, and to report to the House thereon." It was important that, as the three countries were blended, the inquiry should apply to all. He wished again to state on the part of his noble Friend, that the object of the Government in moving for the Committee was not to work any wrong or injustice towards the working classes—it was not to impose any fetters or disabilities upon them, but its object would be to protect them in their just rights and interests, and to secure to them the free use and exercise of their powers. If there were any countries in which that protection was more necessary than in others, those were Great Britain and Ireland; in Great Britain, where mechanical means interfered with the increased demand for human labour, it was necessary, because the same spirit of combination which was directed against the employment of workmen also acted against the use of machinery, and in Ireland protection was necessary to secure to the working man his capital—his labour. He should greatly neglect his duty if he did not take this, the earliest opportunity that had been afforded him, of saying (and he was sure all who heard him would concur) that the late efforts made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who had risked his own popularity, who had exposed himself to all sorts of misconception on the part of those of whom he had so long been the great popular leader, who had placed all these considerations at risk by the discharge of a great public duty, were deserving of the highest applause. No individual had ever given a more splendid example of the strict performance of a public duty, or who had conducted himself more firmly in his endeavours to convince his fellow-men of the errors into which they had fallen. Such he knew to be the feelings and sentiments of those in Ireland who differed most materially on other subjects from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he hoped it would be the opinion of hon. Members opposite, who were disposed to treat this subject fairly. Under all these circumstances, he should move, in place of the amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, the amendment which he had already read to the House. At the same time he must state, that whilst it would be presumptuous in him to allude to the Scotch cases which had been matter of allusion in the course of the debate, still he could not avoid congratulating his learned Friend, the Lord Advocate upon the opportunity which to-night had been afforded him, and of which his learned Friend had so ably availed himself of answering the many attacks which had been made upon him in his absence, and of doing justice not only to his own conduct in the transaction alluded to, but to the conduct of those with whom he had acted. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his amendment as already stated.

was certain the working-classes only desired justice, and on their behalf he trusted that the inquiry proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be allowed to take place. He thought that if his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, persisted in his motion, it would be said that he attached himself to one particular class, whereas he was sure his hon. Friend had in view the interests of all classes. He thought much blame and many of the evils might be ascribed to the masters, and he therefore was most anxious that the inquiry should be directed also to them. He rejoiced, however, that the Government had come forward to take up the general question. Allusion had been made to the repeal of combination acts; he begged to state, that since that repeal and the enactment of the existing law the evils of combination had not been one in twenty so numerous as compared to what they were before, and he regretted that from a mistaken policy the masters had not joined in and encouraged those combinations which were under the law most strictly legal—namely, the combinations which, in fact, afforded the best means of improving the condition of both masters and workmen. He thought that the expressions of the House to-night would convince the working classes, that while the House would support them in the assertion and maintenance of their legal rights, it would enforce the laws which had been so much violated, and that it would not countenance such tyranny as had been exercised by the working classes towards their own brethren. On these grounds he cordially supported the general inquiry under the management of her Majesty's Ministers. He therefore recommended his hon. Friend to withdraw his motion, and permit the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to be assented to.

approved of the amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in preference to the original motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury; at the same time he thought that amendment would not lead to any useful result; and he was also of opinion that the amendment proposed by the Government was much too narrow, for if the object of the House was a full, honest, and efficient inquiry into criminal combinations, it was important that all the circumstances which fostered and engendered those combinations should be subjected to full and ample inquiry. The inquiry as proposed by the Government, however, was limited, and if it was not intended as a prelude to future measures to affect the interests of the working classes, it was indispensable that the inquiry should be directed into all the circumstances and all the existing laws which affected the prerogatives and the property of labour. He should be delighted to hear that it was within the scope of the proposed inquiry to consider how existing laws, affecting not merely the wages of labour, but the means of subsistence, operated. He would not even exclude an inquiry into the operation of the corn laws. He presumed such was not the intention, and therefore he said this was not intended to be an honest inquiry, and therefore he should, after the Committee had been appointed, move an instruction to that Committee to inquire into all the existing laws affecting both the rights of labour and of property. A subject had been mentioned in the course of the debate to-night, and which induced him to ask what would be the use of this Committee. The Committee would doubtless furnish a ponderous report, and after examining witnesses from England, Ireland, and Scotland, it would suggest that something ought to be done, and it would do no more. Upon that report nothing would be done, and why did he say this? Why, because he heard hon. Members talk of a man plundered of property and robbed of station by a combination; because he had heard that the chairman of a committee who had reported in favour of the man so injured— that chairman a lawyer himself, wearing deservedly in his own country the distinction of his monarch—call that combination which had so robbed and plundered the individual alluded to of 100,000l. by a cruel combination; still that report had been allowed to remain a dead letter; nothing had been done by the House to vindicate one of its own Members who had called for that inquiry; neither had the officers of the Crown nor the Government had the courage to come forward and vindicate the result of that inquiry. If he had been a member of that Committee, he should have been ashamed to have allowed so long a time to elapse without taking some steps to vindicate the report. He had called upon the Government either to move his expulsion from the House, or to take some steps to crush the combination from which he, after twenty years' service, had suffered. Neither the House nor the Government had had the courage or honesty to vindicate the Report to which he alluded; and so it would be with the Report of the Committee now moved for.

was afraid, that if the subjects to be brought before the Committee were of a general nature, it would be attended with the "no result" which the hon. Member for Southwark seemed to anticipate. He feared that the distinction was not always observed, by those who advised the people between meritorious acts of combination and the conspiracies which led to the particular results which lately occurred. He himself knew the case of an engineer who came up to London from Glasgow, and was deprived of employment in which he had saved 20l. and supported his family, because if his employer continued him in his establishment, every other engineer would leave him. He rejoiced at the spirit which was manifested in this debate, and he trusted that the inquiry would be attended with the best results.

responded most cordially to the opinions pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was no period at which the opinion of Lord Cockburn quoted by the learned Lord Advocate was more apposite than at present. The opinion to which he alluded was, that no greater despotism could be exercised, not only over the country, but over the interests of the individual workmen themselves, than that which had been attempted. He was most anxious that this inquiry should extend to combinations of all sorts. It was impossible to shut our eyes to the fact, that the spirit of combination had existed in Ireland under many forms for several years past, and had manifested itself by preventing individuals from one party in that country acquiring land in another, by fettering the exercise of the elective franchise, and by affixing the symbols of death to the habitations of those who voted in a different manner to that in which their persecutors wished. When such combinations were encouraged it was not wonderful that the same spirit should induce men to perpetrate actual murder. He was, however, gratified at the general reprobation of these practices which had been expressed, and he trusted that if any measure should result from this inquiry it would not only affect tradesmen but include the acts of others, whether they related to the taking of land or the exercise of the franchise.

felt, that it would be a subject of regret if any impression should go abroad from that debate, that it was intended to restrict the labourer in his power of carrying his labour to the best market. He was convinced, that the proceeding which was intended would not have the effect of restricting any power which the labourer now enjoyed, but that it would only prevent him from exercising a most mischievous tyranny over his fellow men. When he heard statements relating to Scotland and Ireland, showing the crimes which arose from combination, he asked, what was the foundation of these things? It was because the people did not understand their true interests. They supposed they would improve their condition by the restrictions which they placed on their fellow-men; and, instead of doing so, they drove trade and the profits in which they shared from those places where they lived. It was truly stated, that the proportion of demand to supply regulated the wages of labour. It was utterly impossible to alter the natural demand, and nothing was more important than to impress upon the minds of the working people that they were attempting to accomplish an impossibility. It was absolutely essential to their own welfare and that of the country that the working men should be educated on these points.

rose to move that the debate be adjourned. It was a singular feature in this debate, that though the question concerned operatives, not one Gentleman who was in the habit of employing operatives had spoken. Had he risen earlier, he should have stated the result of his experience since the year 1825. He should then merely content himself with expressing the pleasure which he felt at having the subject taken out of the hands of the Government. It was most important that this inquiry should not have the appearance of an attack on the trades' unions. The trades' unions were to a certain extent beneficial, and to a certain extent injurious. He trusted that some salutary regulations would be determined upon, and that the inquiry would give entire satisfaction.

observed, that from the excitement which prevailed on this subject, nothing was more important than the appointment of an impartial Committee. If such a selection were made as that of the Poor-law Committee, that excitement would be increased, no satisfaction would be given to the country, and the most dangerous consequences might be expected. He should say a word on the sentence which was pronounced on the Glasgow cotton-spinners. It was the opinion of many Members of that House, and it was responded to out of doors, that the Government ought to pursue a course of forbearance respecting these men pending the inquiry by the Committee. If they were banished before that inquiry ended, it might become a ques- tion whether they were not unjustly treated, and whether they were not less to blame than others. It should always be recollected that these men were convicted only by a majority of one, and that if they bad been tried in this country they would have been acquitted. If they were sent away, then, before the whole conduct of the workmen was investigated, a strong impression would be made that they had been dealt with unfairly.

replied. He certainly felt some surprise at the state of society which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had described as existing in Ireland. He had been given to understand that, under the present Government, all was peace, prosperity, and tranquillity in that country; but it now appeared, that every day brought its concomitant outrage. Whether these practices proceeded from the tradesmen or others it was impossible for him to explain; but as a great deal of blood had been spilled in Ireland, as assassinations and murders were so numerous, he wished the inquiry to be as extensive and comprehensive as it could be made. There were many combinations in Ireland and England. In Ireland there had been the Orange combination, and more blood had been spilled in a single tithe affray in Ireland than could be laid to the charge of all the trades' combinations. If the rich had been instrumental in producing that sacrifice, let it be ascertained by the minutest investigation. Let there be an examination into all the combinations and monopolies established by charters and Acts of Parliament for the benefit of the rich, and opposed to the welfare of the poor, whose food was raised in price by partial and unjust legislation. What opportunity had the labouring man to obtain the best market for his labour but by combination? Were it not for the unions in London those who were engaged in them would be obliged to sell the produce of their skill at thirty or forty per cent. less than they now did. Let them give the poor the same means of protecting themselves that the rich enjoyed, and he would be satisfied. With respect to the immediate question before the House he would gladly avail himself of the proposition of his right hon. Friend, and withdraw his motion. When he opened the case of these unfortunate individuals he had staled, that there were circumstances that showed they were not guilty. Into these circumstances, however, he would not then enter. It was a fact, however, that he did not believe that one of them was more guilty of the charges alleged against him than were the nobles in the Orange lodges. He would take some opportunity of calling upon the Attorney-General to prosecute the latter. Certainly, he did not expect to get a vote from the other side on such an occasion. It was impossible to persuade the Gentlemen opposite to be liberal. They were utterly indifferent to the wishes of the people. Their case was entirely hopeless. He begged to call the attention of the House to the fart, that these persons were found guilty on only three counts of the indictment—that of illegal conspiracy, and two of assaults. But it did not appear that they were present at any of those assaults. There was nothing in the copy of the evidence which he had seen which connected them with the outrages in question. He would adduce in mitigation, not of the offence, but of the punishment, this fact, that the distinguished barristers in the Court of Justiciary who had defended the prisoners had taken the strong and unusual course of presenting to the Queen a memorial praying for a mitigation of punishment. He held in his hand the memorial, with the four signatures. The jury of fifteen found nine counts of the indictment not proven; and on the three counts which were declared proven the division was eight to seven. The minority of the jury signed a memorial declaring that in their opinion none of the charges were proved, and humbly begging for mercy to the convicted. He was, however, perfectly ready to leave the case in the hands of her Majesty's Government; and he begged leave to withdraw his motion.