rose to call the attention of the House to what he considered to be a breach of privilege. It consisted of the following extract from a petition which had been presented to that House, and which had been signed by the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. O. Gore), for Carnarvonshire (Mr. J. R. O. Gore), and for the borough of Carnarvon (Mr. W. B. Hughes).

"Early in the present Session a petition was presented to Parliament, entitled The Petition of the undersigned landowners, and others, of the county of Carnarvon,' which bore the signatures of John Williams, high sheriff, the Lord Newborough, the Members for the county and borough, twelve justices of the peace, the mayor, and various other residents at Carnarvon, and which contained the following passages:—' That the interests of various landowners along the existing mail coach line through North Wales are deeply affected by the projects at issue; and that persons enjoying property at Holyhead, and in the island of Anglesea, have the deepest stake in the inquiry. That, under these circumstances, the strictest impartiality was called for, both as to the persons to be selected and the proceedings to be adopted in carrying the Address of the House of Commons into execution. That such impartiality in the choice of persons appears to your petitioners not to have been exercised, and that, under all the circumstances of the case, there is every reason to believe, that any report these persons may make in favour of a particular harbour and line of railway will be deemed by the public prejudiced and unsatisfactory. That the grounds upon which your petitioners have been induced to form the belief stated are as follow. That various public meetings and other proceedings took place before the address already cited was moved, at which the relative merits of Holyhead Harbour and the Harbour of Port Dynllaen, for the purposes intended, were canvassed and discussed. That at sundry meetings of this kind great pains were taken on the part of Lord Stanley, of Alderley, who is reputed to possess considerable property in the town of Holyhead and the island of Anglesea, and whose son, the hon. William Owen Stanley, represents the county in Parliament, to show that Holyhead was the fittest harbour for communicating with Ireland, and that a line of railway from Holy- head to a point in the London and Birmingham Railway was superior to a competing project from Port Dynllaen. That it appeared at one meeting (of which the hon. William Owen Stanley was the chairman) that Captain Beechy, R.N., had, for or at the instance of the parties interested, surveyed the Harbour of Holyhead, and reported upon its fitness for the intended purpose, and that his opinion in favour of Holyhead, had been delivered in and was quoted to the meeting by Captain W. J. Deans Dundas, Secretary to the Ordnance. That, under such circumstances, and after the decided part taken in the matters in dispute by the promoters of the Holyhead line and the Secretary to the Ordnance, the appointment of the said Captain Beechy, R.N., who had already given judgment professionally in favour of that conclusion which so greatly served the purpose and interests of the interested parties, was not, in the opinion of your petitioners, consistent with that impartiality and that perfect fairness to all persons or interests concerned or affected, which ought to be inseparable from the proceedings of Government acting on behalf of the Crown upon a public question of the very greatest importance."

He had made enquiry, and he could not find that any such petition as was here referred to had been presented to that House, but he found that such a petition had been presented in the other House of Parliament; and he held it to be a breach of the privileges of this House to allude to a petition which had not been presented. He must also complain of want of courtesy, in the fact that a petition which alluded to him by name had been presented without his receiving any notice of it.

said, that admitting all that had been said by the hon. Gentleman, he did not see in what way a breach of privilege had been committed. He wished the right hon. Gentleman, the Speaker, would give his opinion upon the point.

said, he had no hesitation in stating that he did not understand the petition in any way to involve a breach of privilege. The words referred to by the hon. Gentleman could only be taken as part of a petition that had been presented to that House. The petition certainly reflected upon the conduct of persons employed by the Government, and of Members of that House; but it referred to them in their private capacity, and not to their conduct as Members of that House. If any breach of privilege had been committed, it had been a breach of the privileges of the House of Lords.

objected to the third reading of the bill on several grounds. He had resisted the measure in every stage last Session, but he had been foiled in his endeavour to exempt the towns that had a police force, and the present bill remained in its original objectionable form. The bill gave unqualified dissatisfaction to men of all parties in the towns, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals. If, however, this bill were rejected, the Act of last Session, which was not liked, would still remain. He hardly knew whether he ought to divide against the third reading; he felt inclined to give the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox Maule) a chance of re-considering his opinion, and to agree now to a clause exempting the large towns.

said, that although the Act of last year might be required in some counties, yet the desperate remedy proposed was not wanted in several; and, therefore, it was that he had introduced his own bill. As a remedy for the defects of the existing Act he did not object to the present bill.

said, there were many magistrates in Hertfordshire who had acted with great credit, who would consider this clause a great stigma cast upon them; and as he thought no such implied censure ought to be passed by the House, he would oppose the clause.

having withdrawn the clause in obedience to what he deemed the general feeling of the House, although he retained his former opinion of its utility, could not now consent to its re-introduction.

said, that if this clause were inserted, they would lose in Kent the valuable services of the chairman of sessions in West Kent, and he could not consent to its introduction.

assured the hon. Baronet that the town which he represented would be very glad if his amendment were rejected. If the hon. Baronet would move to exempt Brighton alone he would vote with him, but he could not agree to a general clause, which would exempt all large towns.

thought it unadvisable to adopt this clause, because it was not desirable that a town situated in the centre of a county should have a police differently governed from that by which the county was watched. There was a broad distinction upon the case of an incorporated town, because in that case the officers by whom the police was governed were selected by the inhabitants.

thought that large towns, being without corporations, had a right to be placed upon the same footing as incorporated cities.

submitted that the House had already expressed an opinion upon a clause exactly similar in its provisions, and that it was out of order to discuss and decide upon two clauses of the same description.

was of opinion that there was a sufficient difference between the two clauses to render it competent to the hon. Member for Brighton to persist in the present motion.

objected to the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to state at once what modifications he proposed to make in the customs duties. It was most desirable that the country should be made acquainted with them. The more regular course would be for the right hon. Gentleman to move the schedule of duties in committee.

said, that was undoubtedly the proper course when it was proposed to increase any duties. But in the present case they did not propose to increase a single duty, only to reduce some duties.

objected to the introduction of so important a measure so late in the Session as the 16th of July. Serious injury might be sustained by the various interests in the country by the delay. In his own part of the country parties were suffering very severely from the uncertainty which existed with regard to the intentions of Government.

would at once state, that the only alteration in the existing duties that could at all affect the agricultural interest, was one on the duty on mustard seed and mustard flour.

could not consent to omit any part of the clause.

said, some provision of the sort was necessary, unless measures were taken for carrying the Police Act thoroughly into effect.

opposed the motion, and said he should divide the House against a measure which proposed to do away with trial by jury in cases of offenders under fourteen years of age.

, in stating his intentions with respect to the Bank of Ireland, felt that it was necessary to explain the object of the bill which he proposed to ask for leave to introduce. The charter of the Bank of Ireland was granted for a certain time, which terminated in 1837. After that period the condition was, that it should continue, but be terminable at a year's notice. At the present moment, the charter would cease at the end of twelve months, after notice duly given by the Government. There were two sums of money lent under different conditions by the Bank of Ireland to the Government. One of those sums amounted to about 1,000,000l., which bore interest at five per cent. That sum was payable upon the termination of the charter. There was no power on the part of Government to repay that sum before the charter of the Bank terminated. If the Government desired to repay it, they could not do so until they had dissolved the charter. The other sum amounted to l,615,000l., and was originally repayable in 1838, but the repayment had subsequently been postponed from year to year, and had not as yet taken place. It was this sum, still unpaid, that rendered it necessary for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to come to Parliament. As far as regarded the charter, no Act of Parliament would have been necessary; but as this sum of upwards of a million and a half was repayable on the 1st of January next, it was necessary that he should come to Parliament, either to postpone the payment or to obtain the means of effecting rt. This was the position in which the question now stood; and he had felt it necessary to explain it, because he found, that a very erroneous impression existed with respect to the terms on which the charter of the Bank of Ireland was now held. He would now call the attention of the House to the points which he proposed to effect by the bill he sought to introduce. First, with regard to the charter itself. It was a question whether it were desirable, under present circumstances, to bring in any measure that would make a permanent provision with respect to the charter. His noble Friend, who preceded him in the Exchequer, originally proposed that up to the time when Parliament had it in its power to terminate the Bank of England charter, the same arrangement that existed with respect to that institution should apply also to the Bank of Ireland. That view, however, was abandoned. Soon after the commencement of the present Session, the House appointed a committee to inquire into the whole question of the monetary circulation of the country, and amongst other matters that came under its consideration, the effect of the issuing of notes payable by the Bank of Ireland was necessarily one. That committee was still continuing its inquiries, and one of the reasons why he had deferred till this late period of the Session the bringing in of any measure relating to the Bank of Ireland, arose from the circumstance, that he had waited to see whether it was likely that the committee would report during the present Session, or offer any opinion or suggestion which might serve as a guide to him in introducing any bill which he might think it advisable to call upon the House to adopt in reference to this question. From the advanced period of the year, however, at which he was now speaking, it was quite clear that no such recommendation could come from them during the present Session, as could be of any service to him in dealing with the subject. It was necessary, therefore, that he should lose no further time in making such an arrangement as, under the circumstances, should seem to be most desirable. It appeared to him that, with the inquiry still going on before the committee, it would not be advisable to come to any decision with regard to this question which might afterwards interfere with the permanent arrangement to be made in reference to the Bank of Ireland charter. Whatever opinions he might personally entertain upon the subject, it appeared to him that it would justly be open to the strongest objection if any permanent arrangement of the points to which he had referred were proposed whilst a committee expressly appointed by the House to investigate the whole matter was still prosecuting its inquiries. The various points connected with this subject, such as whether they should content themselves with the present machinery of the Bank, or whether it would be expedient to extend the circulation, or whether they should continue in existence a partial monopoly—on all such points as these it clearly appeared to him to be absurd to come to any decision while the committee were still pursuing their inquiries. The charter of the Bank of Ireland continued in force unless Government gave a year's notice to the contrary. This was a provision which, he thought, might fairly be allowed to remain till Parliament had all the information they could get before them. It was not necessary, therefore, to introduce any new enactment in respect of the charter, nor was it his intention now, or at any other time, to give such a notice without first bringing the case before Parliament. In reference to the sums lent to the Government, the one which bore 4 per cent, interest was payable on the 1st January next. He had stated that these sums were not connected with the charter, and might be payable without affecting rt. He thought, however, that the present conditions annexed to the charter gave rise to much inconvenience and uncertainty, to which he did not think any establishment like the Bank of Ireland ought to be subject. He proposed to consolidate the two sums. The one bearing interest at five per cent, was payable on the termination of the charter; but if Parliament, under all the circumstances, thought it advisable to continue the charter until they received the report of the committee, he could not conceive that they would be told that they could not make payment of this money without putting an end to the charter. Under these circumstances he proposed to take a power to repay the whole of the money now advanced upon the condition of giving the Bank six months' notice of their intention, to repay them the sum. Between the present time and the 1st January he should have frequent opportunities of communicating with the parties, and it might not be necessary to give the six months' notice before the repayment. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by asking for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the repayment of certain sums advanced by the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland.

rose to make the motion of which he had given notice relative to the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor in York Castle. That treatment had been so atrocious that he would venture to say no Member of that House would stand up in defence of it if the truth was only known. Mr. O'Connor was a man who was undergoing a most severe sentence, and was entitled to have the truth sifted. He begged the House to remember that the visiting justices had not dared to deny the treatment which Mr. O'Connor said that he had endured. All that they said was, that he was not now subject to the same treatment. If it turned out to be true that Mr. O'Connor was subject to the most menial services, besides being treated as a common felon, he hoped that this would form some foundation for the House agreeing to an address to her Majesty for some remission of those sufferings which the law never before recognised. Mr. Crawford had been sent down to inquire into this subject in consequence of the motion which he (Mr. Aglionby) had formerly made, but why was that Gentleman's report not produced? The House ought to have the whole of the information which he had received. It was not to be tolerated, that a gentleman moving in, Mr. O'Connor's sphere in life should be treated as a common felon, and his petition withheld from that House; it was not to be tolerated that he should continue branded, on the authority of an inspector, as a person of no credibility when the documents which would prove his credibility were in the Home Office. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a

"Copy of any examinations, reports, or other papers received from any inspector of prisons or other person with regard to the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor in York Castle; also, of any correspondence that has passed between Mr. Feargus O'Connor and any inspector of prisons, or any visiting justice, on the same subject; and also for any medical certificates, affidavits, or correspondence sent to the Home Office by Dr. Thompson, and by Messrs. Jago and Cooper, surgeons, with the dates thereof.

seconded the motion. He could not conceive upon what principle it could be opposed. Conciliatory attempts to settle the question had been made, and he was sorry to say had failed. The House had resolved not by any act of its own to interfere. If the hon. Under Secretary refused to allow Mr. Crawford's report to be produced he must bear the odium. Nearly three hundred persons were now confined in prison for political offences—that was for merely expressing their feelings in strong language. He had received a letter from Mr. O'Connor, describing his treatment, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. [The hon. Member read the letter.] He had not read this letter on a former occasion, because he had hoped that the Government would relent, and see the propriety of altering the treatment to which Mr. O'Connor had been subjected. He had hoped that the Government would have reprobated such conduct, and that they would have laid before the House every document that could have thrown any light upon the subject, that hon. Members might form a fair judgment as to who was to blame. He cordially seconded the motion.

could not assent to the motion. Mr. O'Connor had been condemned for the publication of a political libel, not of a common description, but one of such a nature that the Attorney, general had told the jury—a fair and impartial jury of Englishmen—that if they did not consider it was calculated to stir up and inflame the minds of the people, they were bound to acquit the prisoner of the charge. The jury found Mr. O'Connor guilty of publishing an inflammatory libel, and for that offence he was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench to receive judgment. During the interval he was confined in the Queen's Bench Prison. The sentence was, that he was to be confined in York Castle. However, upon receiving accounts that the removal would be injurious to the health of Mr. O'Connor, the Secretary of State did not insist upon his removal on the Saturday morning, but deferred it until the Monday. During that time other applications were made, but not of a nature to induce the Secretary of State to interfere. Had Mr. O'Connor not been in a fitting state for removal on Monday morning, the Marshal of the Queen's Bench would have been responsible if he removed him. The Marshal took that responsibility upon himself, and Mr. O'Connor arrived at the end of his journey at two o'clock on Tuesday, not the worse for his removal—so little indeed, that he spent the afternoon in viewing the town of York, the Minster, &c. &c, and it was not until ten at night that he arrived at the prison, and Mr. O'Connor was not on his first reception placed in confinement which was not fitting for him. As soon as the circumstances that were afterwards complained of came to the knowledge of the Home Secretary, he sent down to the magistrates, recommending a mitigation of Mr. O'Connor's treatment. After that he was allowed every indulgence, except, indeed, that, he was not allowed to carry on and conduct the publication of that paper for the publication of a libel in which he had been already condemned. But as doubts still existed in the minds of some as to whether those instructions for mitigation had been carried into effect, the Secretary of State in order to remove those doubts, and to ascertain whether the indulgences had been granted, sent down a person to make the necessary inquiries. The only report made to the Secretary of State by that person was that the indulgences set forth in his instructions had been granted to Mr. O'Connor; and that he was then, as far as the visiting justices could carry out the wishes of the Secretary of State, enjoying the benefit of them. As to the examinations moved for by the hon. Member, the only examinations that had taken place were not conducted by Mr. Crawford at all, but by the visiting justices. All the report from Mr. Crawford would be a simple negative or affirmative to the question he was sent to resolve. With respect to the correspondence between Mr. O'Connor and the inspectors, Mr. O'Connor might certainly have written to Mr. Crawford as well as to any other gentleman, but he knew of no such letters, and the Secretary of State had no power to call for them. As far as regarded medical certificates, he did not see what they had to do with Mr. O'Connor's confinement in York Castle. Those medical gentlemen had not, as far as he was aware, visited Mr. O'Connor there. The certificates were confined to the point whether it was right or wrong that he should be removed from the Queen's Bench prison to York Castle. The marshal of the Queen's Bench had supplied him (Mr. Fox Maule) with an account of Mr. O'Connor's dietary and exercise while confined there; and with regard to the latter he could inform the House that rackets formed a part of Mr. O'Connor's amusements. The marshal had stated also that he had not observed any symptoms of Mr. O'Connor being in the sickly state that had been described, and there was no doubt that, if called upon, the marshal would give a certificate to that effect.

said, this was the first time that any public officer who had been sent by the Government to institute an inquiry into a case of a public nature, had made merely a verbal answer; but as that was the case, of course the House could not obtain any return.

replied, and the House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 19: Majority 7; but there not being a sufficient number of Members present to constitute a House, the Speaker left the Chair, and the division went for nothing.