begged to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, whether he had been able to mature any scheme which would have the effect of relieving the Coopers, and, if so, whether there was any probability of its being brought forward in the present Session?

said, the Government did not intend to propose any reduction of the duty on Staves in the present Session. He had received a good deal of statistical information, which he had no objection to present to the House, which would show that the statements made to the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Coopers had been coloured to an unwarrantable extent.

had on Wednesday last presented a Petition, signed by 5,000 persons at Rochdale, praying that the House would not sanction the raising of a troop of yeomanry in that district. It stated that that force was expensive and needless, as breaches of the peace rarely took place in that district; it also stated, that the members of this troop of yeomanry were all of one political party; that in case of any breach of the peace occurring, the force would be wholly inefficient, as it was notoriously cowardly when brought in conflict with danger.

rose to order. He wished to know whether it was competent to any Member of that House to speak of so valuable a body, and to charge them with cowardice.

was stating what were the allegations of the Petition; it said, that such a force was not only cowardly, but cruel also, as cowardly persons generally were. It said, that the regular force was a better one in all respects, as for neighbours to fire on each other raised ill blood and enmity that might take years to assuage; and that young men were called away from their business and shops to their injury, as they had not the means of affording to play at soldiers in this manner; it was injurious to themselves and detrimental to the district. The question he wished to ask the Secretary of State was, whether the Government had given encouragement to the formation of such troops; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to lay on the Table the correspondence that had taken place upon the subject?

said, that the noble Member for South Lancashire having communicated to him that a number of persons in the district of Rochdale had offered to raise a troop of yeomanry, he referred the communication to the Earl of Derby, the Lord Lieutenant of the county. The reply of the noble Earl was, that he saw no objection to raising such a troop, and on that official opinion he had advised Her Majesty to accept the services of this troop. The hon. Gentleman and the House were aware, that in August, 1842, the manufacturing districts were much disturbed; that property and life were in danger, and an application had been made to him of the most urgent kind for military aid to give assistance to the civil power. Objections had been raised to the employment of yeomanry in the place where they resided. Orders had been sent by Sir W. Wane that the Bolton and Wigan troops should proceed to Preston, yet, notwithstanding this order, such was the state of things in Bolton, that the Mayor set at nought the instructions that had been issued by his noble Friend, and detained the Bolton troop for the protection of the lives of the inhabitants of the town. That was no doubt a great stretch of power, on the part of the Mayor, and he doubted the discretion of it; but nevertheless this yeomanry, which had been designated as "hired assassins," were detained in Bolton for the purpose of protecting life and property. He could not forget what had been the state of things at Rochdale. It was much disturbed, and there was a great, pressure for troops, urgent applications from master manufacturers for military protection. He hoped no such dangers would again recur, and no such precautions be required; but remembering the danger that threatened both Bolton and Wigan, and the applications made for the aid of the yeomanry when the danger was pressing, he was happy to accept the offer of the loyal yeomanry that was made to the Government from the neighbourhood of Rochdale. There were sixty who had tendered their services, and were enrolled. He hoped there would be no occasion for their services; but if the hour of danger should arrive, then he was sure their active aid and protection would be eagerly sought, even by those who, perhaps, did not now feel any gratitude for the services already rendered to them at a time, when they declared their lives and property insecure.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, of which he had given notice. It was with respect to the state of affairs on the coast of Morocco. It was well known that events were taking place in that part of the world which might be in their results of serious consequence, as bearing on very important interests in this country. That this was their character, was not only his opinion, but also the opinion, it was presumed, of Her Majesty's Government, because Her Majesty's Government had already stated that they had had communications with the Government of France on this matter, and that they had received from that Government explanations and assurances which they considered satisfactory. Of course those assurances were to be so considered, as well from the diplomatic form in which they were given, as in their substance and nature. But it was usual, when matters were taking place in any part of the world in which Great Britain had important interests at stake, that the Government of Great Britain took the means, by officers of its own, to secure for itself accurate information as to what was passing. Therefore he wished to know whether, in the present instance, they had employed, or were about to employ, any military commissioners with regard to the transactions that were taking place on the frontiers of Morocco; and whether they had any naval officers or ships on the coast of Morocco, for the purpose of keeping up a regular and authentic report of the course of events as they were passing, or whether they simply trusted to the accounts which might be received from the naval and military authorities of the French Government?

, in answer to the question which had been put to him by the noble Lord, and of which he had been so good as to give him notice, had to state, that Her Majesty's Government had felt it to be their duty not to be dependent upon French sources of information of the events which might take place on the frontier of Morocco. Her Majesty's Government had given such directions as they had deemed requisite, for the purpose of having correct information from sources over which they had control, and also had adopted those measures which they deemed requisite for the protection of British interests, in case British interests should be affected.

had not, he said, time to give notice to the right hon. Baronet of the question he meant to ask. It was with respect to the accuracy of the statement of a paragraph which he had seen in a morning paper. It was to this effect:—

"The Governor of Gibraltar proceeded to Ceuta on the 12th ult., in the Locust steamer, and repaired forthwith to the Moorish camp. The next morning he sent the British Vice Consul to Tangiers, doubtless with a view to some accommodation; but the Governor of Ceuta and the Spanish Consul General at Tangiers, do not seem to have appreciated his good intentions."

stated, that apparently the question the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have asked was, whether a paragraph in a newspaper were correct? It would be difficult for him to answer such questions. He had to say that Sir Robert Wilson had been to Ceuta, but not with any authority from Her Majesty's Government.

had seen during the past week in the public papers letters addressed to the Protestants of the north of Ireland, cautioning them against violating the law and public tranquillity by originating or taking part in the party processions which were formerly customary about this time, but which were prohibited by the existing Party Processions Act. He found no fault with these friendly and wise admonitions—quite the contrary—he would be glad to see similar counsels of forbearance more frequently producing their effect in Ireland; but there were passages in those letters which induced him to look with something like doubt on the advice given, and which urged him to put the present question. One of these letters bears the signature of Lord Farnham, and is dated, London, June 21; it speaks of the statute as being "insidious and unjust," but calls on the Protestants, to whom it is addressed, "to bear in mind that it is still the law of the land." It requests that they will strictly obey it, "however they may be provoked and aggravated by their opponents to pursue a different conduct." Another letter is signed by Henry J. Johnston, Grand Master of the county of Monaghan, dated Fort Johnston, June 20, 1844, and states the Procession Act is still in force, but adds, "the Act will expire 1st August; one trial more awaits you before the expiration of the Procession Act;" sentences which give the impression of its anticipated discontinuance. Now, much as he felt objection to coercive laws, and desired to see all suppression of these party signs and other causes of dissension arise from the parties themselves, he could not but wish (and in that he was joined by many in Ireland) to ascertain whether or not such impression was well founded. He would, therefore ask, without further preface, the right hon. Baronet whether or not Her Majesty's Government intended to renew the Party Processions Act, on its expiration on the 1st of August?

judging from the experience of past years, had reason to hope that the Protestants of the north of Ireland would, on the approaching anniversaries, abstain from processions as they had so wisely done for several years past. But there were two Acts of Parliament about to expire, both of which were of very great importance. He alluded to the Act for the suppression of Secret Societies and unlawful Oaths, and to the Act for the Suppression of Orange Processions. A Bill was already on the Table of the House for the renewal of the former Act, and it was the intention of the Government, in the present state of affairs in Ireland, also to propose the re-enactment of the Orange Processions Bill. He was, however, happy to say that Government, under all the circumstances, felt justified in limiting the duration of both these Bills to the 31st August, 1845.

said, be would take the opportunity of moving, that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Irish Registration of Electors Bill be now read to explain, as far as it was in his power to do so, the course which Her Majesty's Government proposed to pursue with respect to those Bills which had been already submitted to Parliament, and were now waiting the sanction of the House. Upon looking at the Orders of the Day which stood for Thursday, Wednesday, and today, he believed that they included all the Bills which were at present awaiting the decision of the House. There were, however, some Bills which were not yet introduced, but which he had reason to hope would cause very little trouble or debate. He was sorry to say, however, that a vast mass of business still remained to be transacted, there being a great number of Bills which the Government thought it necessary to proceed with. With regard to the majority of these, however, he hoped that there would not be found to exist any great difference of opinion. He would, however, go to the paper for Thursday. There was, first of all, the Poor Law Amendment Bill. It was the intention of the Government to proceed with that Bill. There were also two other Bills, of a most salutary nature, having reference to the Duchy of Cornwall, which it was most desirable should become law as soon as possible. These Bills he believed met with general approval, the object of them being to facilitate the settlement of long pending suits in the Duchy of Cornwall. With regard to the Metropolitan Buildings Bill, his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests proposed to proceed with that. On Wednesday there were two Bills under the charge of the Government, and with those also it was the wish and intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed. These were the Bill for the regulation of Joint-Stock Companies, and the Joint-Stock Companies Remedies at Law and Equity Bill. Then, with regard to the business on the paper for the day—there was first the Registration of Electors (Ireland) Bill. He had already given notice that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed beyond the second reading of this Bill, as it would be quite impossible that it could pass into a law to become operative during the present year. There was next the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Bill; he was surprised to hear that any objections was entertained to it, as the object of the Bill was to extend the provisions of the English Municipal Corporations Act to Ireland. But as it was so connected with the Registration of Voters Bill, that in the opinions of many persons connected with Ireland they should be both proceeded with simultaneously, he would not press the Municipal Corporations Bill during the present Session, though he regretted the necessity for delay. With respect to the Railways Bill, which was a very important measure, he was sorry to say that it was likely to meet considerable opposition from parties connected with existing railway companies. The Government felt, however, that it was of importance, with regard to railway Bills now before the House, and those which would come before it next Session, that the intentions of Parliament should be known with respect to their future legislation on railways. With regard to the Savings Banks Bill and the Land Tax Commissioner Bill, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would proceed with these Bills. With regard to the County Courts Bill, he would rather postpone making any final announcement upon it till this day week, by which time he expected that the opinion of the House of Lords would be made known with regard to two Bills now before them, particularly in regard to the subject of imprisonment for debt. The Superior Courts Common Law Bill and the Small Debts Bill were not Bills of which Her Majesty's Government had charge, but which the hon. and learned Member for Chester had under his care. The Chaplains to Hospitals (Ireland) Bill, and the Courts of Common Law Process (Ireland) Bill, were Bills under the charge of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Cork, and which he, therefore, could not be responsible for. With regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, he had to announce on the part of Her Majesty's Government that it was not their intention to proceed with this Bill, as from the mass of business before the House, and the opposition which the Bill was likely to receive, seeing they had not yet passed the first Clause through Committee, it was not likely that they could pass it during the present Session. As had been announced by his right hon. Friend, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill, and also with the Copyholds Enfranchisement Bill, which had come down from the Lords. The next five Bills on the list it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with. The Customs Duties Bill it was intended to proceed with. With respect to the Bank of England Charter Bill, he hoped that the Report would be received to-morrow, and that no further opposition of any importance would be made to it. He must say that he was very sensible that no factious or vexatious opposition had been made to this Bill. It had been very fully discussed, and, from his experience of the manner in which the opposition to the Bill had been conducted, he had every reason to hope the future stages of the Bill would be allowed to pass without opposition. Her Majesty's Government proposed to proceed with the Education Bill, the Linen Manufactures (Ireland) Bill, and the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill. The Aliens Bill he believed was under the charge of the hon. Member for Hull. Her Majesty's Government proposed to proceed with the Protection of Purchasers (Ireland) Bill, and also with the Colonial Postage Bill. [An hon. Member: The New South Wales Bill.] That Bill was not included in the list for either of the three days he had taken up; but he could state that it was intended to proceed with it. The number of these Bills was large, but still he hoped that they were not likely to lead to any serious opposition. There was one Bill ready to be introduced which was of importance as a corollary to the Bank Charter Bill, and which it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with—that was a Bill to establish new regulations for such Joint-stock Banks as might hereafter be established. It would not apply to existing companies, but would be merely prospective in its operation. There was also a Bill of considerable importance, which was not as yet under the consideration of the House, and which it was the intention of the Government to introduce, and that was a Bill founded on the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the manner in which the House exercised its jurisdiction with regard to contested elections. That Committee had consisted of Gentlemen who had been appointed on account of their extensive acquaintance with the subject, and in the Report it had suggested certain alterations in the existing law. Therefore, the principle of the Bill had already been for some time before the House. It was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill founded on the recommendations of that Committee and his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who had been a Member of the Committee, would propose a Bill to carry the recommendations of the Committee into effect. He had now gone through the various Bills, and had stated the intentions of the Government with respect to each Bill. At the same time, he must reserve to himself the power of modifying the declaration which he had just made, according to the progress which the respective Bills with which the Government was determined to proceed might make in the House.

would be glad to know the intentions of the Government with respect to the Presbyterian Marriages Bill.

said, it was the intention of the Government to persevere with the measure; which he thought would give entire satisfaction to the parties concerned; and he hoped another Session would not pass without that measure becoming the law of the land.

wished to know if the House was to understand that no Bill of any importance, other than those which had been mentioned to-night, would be introduced this Session? He recollected that last year a most important Bill, the Chelsea Pensioners Bill, had been introduced at the close of the Session when very few Members were in town.

replied, that if he were to answer the question literally, he should answer that there were other Bills which were intended to be introduced—for instance, the Appropriation Bill—the introduction of which, he thought, would give general satisfaction, as indicative of the approach of the close of the Session; but if the hon. Gentleman asked if the Government contemplated the introduction of any other measure of public importance, he would reply that they did not. Yet still he would not pledge himself not to introduce any measure of importance if circumstances should arise to render it necessary.

said, as an English Member, he rose to protest against this most enormous waste of time; more especially as they were about to establish a precedent which was unknown in the proceedings of that House. He was not going to discuss the merits of this Bill. What he complained of was, that after the right hon. Baronet had withdrawn three or four importants Bills, he asked them to proceed with a discussion upon a Bill which could not pass through its stages in the present Session. He had looked over the Journals of the House, and could not find any other instance of a Minister of the Crown thus dragging his supporters through the mire, for the purpose of having a Bill read a second time, and then saying to those supporters, "You may now go about your business; I do not want your votes or your aid any longer, as we do not mean to proceed any further with the measure." To insist upon this discussion, under these circumstances, would be only dragging the supporters of Government through the mire, as they had done before, in order to cast an additional insult upon the people of Ireland. He had received a letter on Friday from a gentleman connected with Ireland, and who was now the head of the Repeal Association, intreating him to use all his influence with English Members to prevent the people of Ireland from being insulted by the second reading of this Bill. He was asked not to allow the Bill to be discussed in the absence of the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. Member for Cork, the latter of whom represented a constituency consisting of about 700,000 inhabitants. They had just heard that a magistrate had been reinstated in the Commission of the Peace, in compliance with the requisition of 22,545 inhabitants of Cork. Why, then, did they wish to proceed with the Bill, which was an insult to the people of Ireland? The right hon. Baronet said the other evening that he wanted to ascertain what were the opinions and feelings of the Irish Members with respect to this Bill. Why, did he not know them at that moment? If they wanted to know the opinion of the Irish people, let them read their petitions, asking the House to reject the Bill. Although they had an immense amount of business to transact, yet they proposed wasting another evening in discussing the obnoxious clauses of a Bill that was not to be carried on. He would be no party to such a discussion, and he would take the sense of the House, as to whether its time was to be wasted in a discussion that could have no practical result. He should not ask the House to give any opinion, one way or another, on the merits or demerits of the Bill; the only question he should submit was, whether they could allow the public time to be wasted in a futile discussion on the Motion for the second reading. He therefore moved as an Amendment that the House do proceed with the other Orders of the Day.

said, with respect to the period of the Session at which the Bill was proposed, he begged to observe that the second reading of the Bill was fixed, at a period when it would have been competent for the hon. Member for Cork to be in his place, and that he postponed the second reading at the express wish of the Gentlemen at the other side connected with Ireland. He believed the second reading was fixed for an early day in April. That Bill provided the same general system of Registration for Ireland that prevailed in England, and it was important that Her Majesty's Government should know whether the House approved the principle. The Bill also provided for a new franchise—in some cases a considerable extension of franchise—for Ireland, and he felt bound, therefore, to persevere in asking the House to pronounce an opinion on the principle, reserving to themselves the right at a future opportunity of discussing and altering, if necessary, the details. Friday the 19th of April was the day, he believed, for which the second reading had been originally fixed, and it had been postponed, not for the convenience of the Government, but at the express request of hon. Gentlemen opposite connected with Ireland. And seeing the importance of ascertaining the opinion of the House as to its principle, he could not see how it could be looked upon as any insult to Ireland to ask the House to go into the discussion. The hon. Gentleman had told them that the Municipal Corporations Bill was also an insult to Ireland; but seeing that by that measure it was proposed to give an extension of the Municipal Franchise to Ireland, and to place that franchise upon the same footing as it existed in England (and that at the earliest period at which it could be done)—viz., that it should depend upon the occupation of a house and the payment of rates, he could not understand in what way any insult was conveyed by this measure. Under all the circumstances he trusted the House would not refuse to express an opinion upon the second reading of the Bill.

observed, that the question raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Duncombe) was not as to the principle of the Bill, but whether it was fair at that period of the Session, with so large an arrear of business before them, to take up the time of the House for one or perhaps two nights upon a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman admitted, it was not his intention to proceed further with during the present Session. As to reading the Bill a second time, with the view of ascertaining what was the state of public opinion with regard to it, the right hon. Gentleman must remember that already had the measure been before the House and the country for a considerable period, that it had been printed and circulated through the country, and had been generally denounced. He could not, therefore understand on what grounds the right hon. Baronet could call upon the House to pledge itself to the principle of the Bill by affirming its second reading. Why did not the right hon. Baronet leave the House as free as himself in the matter? There were no public grounds for the course the right hon. Gentleman proposed; and if he persisted in it; the advice he (Mr. V. Smith) would offer to his Irish Friends round him, was to avoid saying a word upon the subject until the right hon. Baronet should bring in a Bill which he intended to pass into a law. When a right hon. Baronet was prepared with such a measure, let him bring it in at a proper period of the Session, and take the discussion on its various stages in the usual course; but he for one, must object to the attempt to "Hansard" hon. Gentlemen out of their opinions next year, by telling them they were pledged to any views they might have expressed upon the second reading of a Bill with which it was not intended to proceed. He repeated, considering the state of public business—the Poor Law Bill, and other important measures, which it was understood, would be proceeded with, and which detained hon. Gentlemen from their magisterial duties—it was too much to ask the House to lose two nights in debating a Bill which was to be withdrawn.

Though the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman might be the more convenient—it was not the most straightforward. The measure had been denounced as an insult to Ireland, and an attempt to deprive Ireland of the franchise. Now, the Government by whom that measure had been introduced, were anxious that those hon. Gentlemen who had made these charges should have an opportunity of substantiating them, and of showing what were the Clauses of the Bill that would have such an effect. He and his right hon. Friends were convinced, that if a discussion were taken, they could show that so far from the Bill destroying or limiting the franchise, it would extend the franchise in Ireland. ["No, no."] It was most unfair to refuse to express an opinion upon the principle of the Bill.

observed, that between friends and foes, he was in a somewhat difficult position. He and some of his hon. Friends who were opposed to the measure, had held a meeting on Saturday last to arrange the course of proceeding, and it was then arranged that he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) should commence the opposition by moving the second reading that day three months, and in the course of the observations he had intended to offer, he had proposed to go into the details of his objections to the measure. What had been said out of doors might be answered out of doors. The noble Lord asked them to go into a discussion of the grounds upon which the Bill had been denounced out of doors; but he had not come there to defend general denunciations, or to repeat what had been said here or there, but to state fairly his objections to the Bill as a measure of legislation. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that he was anxious to take a discussion upon the second reading, in order to ascertain what were the objections of Irish Members to the Bill, in order that those objections might be duly considered, and a more perfect measure introduced in another Session, but if that were the object, he thought the wiser course would be for the right hon. Baronet or the noble Lord to summon a meeting of the Irish Members at the Irish office, for the purpose of ascertaining their views on the subject. Under all the circumstances—seeing the little advantage that could result from the House being called upon to bestow one or two days on the discussion of a Bill, which it was not intended to pass during the present Session, and the hope he should have to suppress a speech which he had been at some inconvenience to prepare—he thought it right to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury.

was disposed to think that it would not be wise to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member for Finsbury, as unless the Government were made acquainted with the objections to the measure, they might expect the same Bill to be re-introduced next Session.

said, it was to be regretted that the Bill had not been brought forward for discussion at an earlier period of the Session. When the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) was in opposition a Bill had been brought forward by his noble Friend, the then Secretary for the Colonies (Lord John Russell) upon the subject of the registration of voters in Ireland, and he well remembered that the Government were then taunted, Session after Session, for not proceeding with that measure. It was then urged by those who were in opposition, that some such measure was matter of necessity, and it was generally expected, when the present Government came in, that they would immediately proceed to legislate upon the subject. They had, however, allowed three years to pass over, without legislation, and when last year the Government were called upon for a Bill for the registration of voters, they were answered by a Bill for the registration of arms, as the more important and pressing of the two. It was, nevertheless, admitted by the Government, that a Registration Bill was indispensable, and at the commencement of the present Session, it had been announced in the Speech from the Throne, that legislation was imperative. Then why had not the Bill been brought forward before. The Government waited until after Easter before they introduced it, and then, it was true, his hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford, had asked for a few days delay, not more, in proceeding further with the measure; but why had it been deferred to this period of the Session? He thought, however, if the object of Government was to ascertain what were the opinions and objections of that (the Opposition) side of the House, in regard to the measure, and what were the alterations they were anxious should be made in it, and the reasons why they thought the whole principle of the Bill was objectionable, if that was the only object of the Government, he saw no reason why they should not go into the discussion on the second reading, and he trusted that the result of such a discussion would be, to induce the right hon. Baronet to change his opinion as to the advantages of the Bill which had been previously brought in by his noble Friend, the Member for London, and to abandon that which was now before the House. He hoped when the Government came to hear the arguments against the applica- tion of the Chandos Clause to Ireland, that they would be induced, in the Bill they would introduce next Session, to abandon it; and he was, therefore, disposed to think that the proposed discussion upon the second reading, might be of some advantage, with a view to the introduction of a better measure next Session.

thought his right hon. and learned Friend had forgotten what they were now called on to do was to pronounce an opinion, by a direct vote, in favour of the principle of the Bill before them. They were, as it appeared to him, placed in an odd and somewhat ludicrous position. It was, he believed, an unheard-of thing to call for a discussion on the second reading of a Bill which it was not intended to carry further, and to launch forth into all the objections that might be entertained to the several details on the second reading, as though they were in Committee, when they had none of the advantages of a Committee, no hon. Member being allowed to speak more than once. He would put it to the right hon. Baronet, what practical advantage could result from such a discussion. What information could he hope to obtain from it as to the opinions of the opponents of the Bill, the more especially when he found that many of those hon. Gentlemen intended to absent themselves, and to abstain from taking any part in the discussion? The right hon. Baronet, if he pressed the second reading under such circumstances would only elicit the opinions of a very small number of the Irish Members, and that only by the irregularity of going into the details of the Bill on the discussion of its principle. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would be induced to postpone the measure altogether until another Session of Parliament.

felt himself placed in some difficulty by the Motion of the hon. Member; for though he did not approve of every part of the Irish Registration Bill, yet he meant to give his vote to the Government in support of the second reading. At the same time he must confess, that after the avowal of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), that the Bill was to be abandoned for the present Session, he saw little advantage that could arise from a debate upon it, and much inconvenience, if not more serious evil. His noble Friend (Lord Eliot), seemed to think that the great agitation and violence to which the discussions on the subject had given occasion in Ireland made it desirable that the question should be debated in that House. He owned that he thought differently — he feared that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in order to satisfy the feelings of their constituents, might be induced to commit themselves to strong opinions and angry language concerning the Bill, which they might afterwards regret. Then, though at that moment his persuasion was that he would not offer an observation upon the second reading, should the discussion go on, still he could not answer for himself if provoked by exaggerated statements, and abusive attacks on the other side of the House; and then, although no practical result was to follow, bitterness and animosity might remain behind. Under these circumstances, while he could sympathize with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell), and still more with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil), for having to submit to that painful operation of the suppression of speeches which were ready for delivery, he thought it would be much the wiser course for his right hon. Friend not to press the discussion.

also thought it would be more expedient for the Government not to press for any discussion on the second reading of the Bill at the present time. He was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that a Bill so interesting to Ireland in general, and in respect to which such strong opinions were entertained must, when discussed, necessarily create a great deal of warmth. He would go no further on both sides which, unless some practical result were expected, it might be well to avoid. It appeared to him too, that the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was a most unusual one. It was no doubt proper and useful on some occasions that bills should be brought in and read a first time without any intention to carry them through any further steps during that Session, but that they should be allowed to lie over in order that an opportunity for the expression of public opinion out of doors in respect to them might be afforded. That was a usual, and, in many instances, a very proper course of proceeding. Another course was to bring in a Bill with the avowed and understood intention of endeavouring to carry it into a law, but in that case, the discussion taken upon the second reading was of the principle not the details of the measure. And the principle being affirmed, they then went into Com- mittee on the Clauses. Other Bills being altered and conformed in Committee to the general opinion of the House, and the views of the hon. Gentleman being ascertained, it was not unusual at a late period of the Session to allow the measure to stand over with the view of re-introducing it, in its altered and improved shape, in the next Session; but he could not understand why the House should be called upon to waste one or two evenings irregularly upon the details of a Bill while they were discussing the principle on the second reading, and when no practical result could follow. If the Government were really anxious to adopt the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and to obtain information, there might be some advantage in entering upon the discussion, but, judging from his own Parliamentary experience, he could not imagine that any such result would be likely to proceed from an angry discussion such as was likely to take place upon this measure, he was therefore disposed to concur with his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel, that if the Government desired to ascertain the opinions and objections of the Irish Members as to this Bill, the better course would be to hold a meeting at the Irish Office and invite them to attend. That would commit neither party, and would be a more satisfactory mode of obtaining the views of those hon. Gentlemen than by provoking a discussion in that House. Looking at the advanced period of the Session, the Government having been compelled to postpone till another year many measures which they considered important, on the ground that there was not sufficient time for their discussion—seeing that although they often heard that the reason for the delay of other important business was the time occupied in the discussion of Irish affairs, that they were now called upon to enter upon a debate of one or two nights, which must be fruitless as to any practical result, he should certainly vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. The Government could not urge that their object in provoking the discussion was to obtain information as to the opinions of the people of Ireland; for the noble Lord (Lord Eliot) had himself alluded to some very violent statements made by the Irish press against the measure. He should say, therefore, that the better course was to withdraw the Bill altogether, and re-introduce it next Session.

should support the Amend- ment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and should that be lost, it was then his intention to walk out of the House, and to take no part in the discussion upon the second reading of the Bill.

thought, if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) were given to superstition, the war now raging in the elements should deter him from proceeding with the Bill. [At this moment the House was in a state of darkness from dense clouds illuminated now and then by flashes of lightning.] He should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

had not expected to hear an hon. Gentleman connected with the agricultural districts express fear at a flash of lightning, accompanied by the prospect of rain. Government had proposed to proceed with the second reading, in order to remove unjust and erroneous impressions reapecting the measure. The House would remember that when the Motion for leave was made the discussion had been brief, and it had appeared to him that it was in accordance with the general sense of the House that a discussion should be taken, and that the Government should have an opportunity of stating their views fully, and of endeavouring to remove hostile and erroneous impressions on the second reading. Now if, under such circumstances, he had voluntarily and immediately postponed the discussion of the principle of the measure, he should have been told he had insulted Ireland. See what had taken place. There had been a meeting of Irish members; they had considered and arranged the objections to the measure, and were prepared to argue them on the second reading, and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) had avowed that he was to have led the opposition. The views of hon. Gentlemen opposite connected with Ireland were in accordance with those of the Government, that an opportunity should be given of considering, upon the second reading, whether those objections to the Bill were well founded or not; and he thought if he had announced at once that it was not intended by the Government to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, hon. Gentlemen opposite would, he little doubted, have accused the Government of having acted most unfairly towards the Irish Members, by preventing them stating their objections to the measure. If, however, he now understood that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House connected with Ireland, were against going into discussion upon the second reading of the Bill during the present Session, if that were the prevailing opinion, he should feel bound, in a matter of this kind, to defer to it; he always wished in regard to Irish measures, to consult the convenience of gentlemen connected with Ireland as to the time of bringing them forward, and he should not, on this occasion, press against the reluctant body of Irish Members the second reading of a measure which the Government had avowed they had not intended to proceed further with during the present Session. If there was no other reason—if he thought by postponing the second reading he could avoid the expression of any irritation of feeling, that of itself would be an inducement sufficient to agree to the hon. Gentleman's Motion. Therefore, if he correctly understood that the general wish of the House was to postpone the discussion, he should not, against that expressed wish, call for an opinion on a question that could not end in any practical legislation during the present Session. He was, however, most anxious to understand that in doing this he was acting in conformity with the general feelings of Irish Members.

remarked that, as far as he himself was concerned, he had not intended to go into any discussion of the details of the Bill, but merely to contend as against its principle that it went to repeal an important part of the Irish Reform Bill, by taking away the franchise which that Bill gave, and establishing a franchise which that measure had not provided. He had not known until within the last hour that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury intended to move the Amendment against the second reading: but being compelled to admit that every opportunity had been given for the full and fair discussion of Irish questions during the present Session, he for one should be most unwilling to press a discussion extending over one or two nights upon an Irish question that could not result in any practical legislation at that period of the Session, in opposition to the wish of English Members. If, therefore, the question went to a division, he should vote with the hon. Member for Finsbury.

thought he was entitled to infer that it was the predominant wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House connected with Ireland that this Bill should not now be discussed—and that he (Sir Robert Peel) should not be considered as offering an insult to Ireland if he disappointed some hon. Gentlemen in the expectation they had formed of having an opportunity of stating their objections to the measure. If he was fortified in that impression he should yield most willingly to what appeared to him to be the general feeling, and not further press upon the House to enter into a discussion upon a question they desired to postpone. He should, however, state that in moving the second reading, he had not intended to ask the House to pledge themselves to the details, but merely to consider and affirm the principle of the Bill. After getting through the other Orders of the Day, he would move that the Orders for the Bills he had mentioned be discharged.

was happy that his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had intimated his intention of postponing the Irish Corporations Amendment Bill, along with the Registration Bill, for the present Session. He had given notice of various Amendments to the Municipal Bill, and in its present form he did not think the Government could have passed it. He, however, then understood that that Bill, as well as the Registration Bill, was to be withdrawn, and he was glad of it.

objected to the words in the Clause, permitting the discovery of any copy of any unlawful password or oath of an unlawful society upon a person to be primâ facie evidence against him.

thought the Clause necessary, although he admitted that the measure was one the enforcement of which it was necessary to watch with extreme caution. The Bill only proposed to renew the existing law for a year.

expressed his fears that secret informers would work out their ends by means of this Bill. They would, as they had already done, put papers containing illegal passwords into the hands of innocent men, and thus attempt to convict them of crimes of which they were innocent.

said, that, with reference to the case which had been alluded to, he had directed the policeman implicated to be prosecuted. As to the Act in question, he admitted that its operation was stringent; but with respect to secret societies, it was impossible to keep them in check without the agency of informers, however much they might deprecate their employment. On the whole, it did not appear to him that it would be wrong to renew the Bill for one year. If the Clause were struck out, there would be great difficulty in carrying on the prosecution against secret illegal societies.

remarked, that they all seemed agreed upon the necessity of putting down unlawful societies, an object which in Ireland must always be one of paramount national importance. This object was brought under the consideration of the late Government. They assiduously applied themselves to the suppression of illegal oaths and associations; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel, the Irish legal adviser of that administration, originally introduced the present measure. He was quite satisfied that the Clause under discussion was in fact the essence of the measure, and that if it was not passed, all the rest of the Bill would be useless. What did the Clause propose to do? It threw the onus of proof, under certain safeguards, upon the party accused. This was certainly liable to abuse, and he admitted that the executive, in administering this Act of Parliament, must proceed with the utmost caution and suspicion with respect to any accusations made under it. But having made these admissions, he did not see how they could prosecute for the crime of being a member of an illegal society, unless the possession of a secret pass-word should be primâ facie evidence against the accused—saving always the necessity on the part of the accuser of proving a guilty knowledge. Now, to this extent the onus lay on the accuser. The possession was primâ facie evidence. That again was counterbalanced by the necessity of proving that the possession arose from knowledge, not from accident. He had deeply deliberated upon the subject. His prepossessions were strong against the enactment, and if unlawful societies did not exist, and in great numbers, in Ireland, he would be inclined to let the measure drop. Such societies, however, did exist. He intreated the House, then, not hastily to reject the measure. If it were proposed to make it of long duration, he should not be disposed to treat it as he now thought that, under present circumstances, it should be received. The proposal now before the House was, that the Bill should only continue until the 31st of August of next year. As the object then proposed to be attained by the measure was common to both sides of the House, and as it would be defeated were any material alteration to be made to the Clause under discussion, he hoped the Committee would come to an unanimous decision in its favour.

If it were not that the fact was notorious that those passes were attached to the persons of men without their knowledge, he should, if he were on a jury, have great difficulty in saying that a man was innocent upon whose person they were found. He believed the necessity for such a Bill was now less than ever, for when the public mind was strongly excited by great national questions, those secret societies ceased. He moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

Having such a document on a man's person was by this Bill made a crime; whereas it should only be taken as evidence that he belonged to an illegal society. The practices alluded to, as adopted by some policemen in Ireland, was nothing new; it was as old as Benjamin's cup. He admitted that those illegal societies were the curse of the country, whether they belonged to one party or the other; but that was no reason for confounding the plainest principles of jurisprudence.

could not consent to place any further responsibility in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland after the way in which he had acted with regard to the juries.

hoped the Committee would bear in mind that the effect of carrying this Motion would be to lose the Bill altogether. There was nothing to prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite moving that this clause be expunged at a subsequent stage, though to such a proposal the Government could not consent. He asked for no new powers in the present state of Ireland. His predecessors asked for those powers for five years, whereas he (Sir R. Peel) asked for them but for one.

observed, that the state of the prisons and of their inmates in a great many of the gaols in Scotland, together with the expense which their maintenance occasioned to the inhabi- tants, had given rise to a very general feeling with respect to the expediency of persevering in the system of confinement recently introduced into that country under the Prisons Regulation Bill. His object in rising at the present moment was to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, of which he had given notice on a former evening, and he hoped he should receive a reply to his inquiry, which related to certain prisoners now under sentence of transportation in the gaols in Scotland, who were, owing to the rigorous treatment enforced upon them under the new system, reduced to such a state of weakness and debility as to render it impossible for the authorities to carry the sentences passed upon them into effect. He understood that in the gaol of Glasgow there were nineteen or twenty persons in this condition, that there were, likewise, a number of prisoners in the gaol of Perth; in the town gaol of Dumbartonshire; and that in the prisons in various other parts of Scotland the same facts were observed. He could not refrain from characterizing that as a very bad system of prison discipline, the operation of which destroyed the health of those confined, even before they were put upon their trial. His objection to the new system of prison discipline was founded on his belief that it was an impracticable absurdity. Long imprisonment had never, to his knowledge, been productive of good to the culprit. If it had been found that placing persons in confinement for a long period after they had been in a course of training for crime during many years had reformed those so confined, then it might, perhaps, be admitted that the system of gaol reformation was good; but it never had succeeded in adult cases. In the instances of very young persons alone it might be productive of good effects; but these were not the class of prisoners upon whom the prison discipline was tried. It had been resorted to in the case of persons who had been for years in the habitual commission of crime, and who no sooner were liberated from prison than they were detected in a new crime, and again placed in confinement. The people of Scotland were taxed very heavily, and contributed large sums towards the support of these reformatory prisons; but the only result that had been observed was the thriving condition of the official persons connected with them, to whom large salaries were paid for their services. In short, his opinion, and not his alone, but that of a very numerous class, was, that as far as Scotland was concerned the whole system of prison discipline had nearly, if not entirely, failed. The question which he had to put, was whether the right hon. Baronet were aware that in the gaol of Glasgow there were any persons confined who were in such a state of debility as to render it impossible to carry into effect the sentence of transportation which had been passed upon them.

did not think the present was the fittest opportunity for discussing the important question whether the system of prison discipline now enforced in the prisons of Great Britain was the best that could be devised or not. His experience of the system as it was in operation at Pentonville and Parkhurst, had led him to the conclusion, that it was on the whole highly conducive to the amelioration of those persons who had been placed there to undergo its effects. The system had been expressly limited to those two prisons, with a view to ascertain its results before it was applied on a larger scale throughout England. His hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who was a Member of the Prison Board of Scotland, took the same view that he did with respect to the successful operation of the system in that country, and he was prepared to state to the House his belief, that the experiment was not proved to be a failure, but that on the whole it had been attended with success. Passing on to answer the hon. Member's question, the House must not misunderstand the point, nor be led to attribute the state of health of the prisoners whose confinement in gaol was the subject of the complaint of the hon. Gentleman, to the length of imprisonment which they had endured, for the fact was, that these were all recent cases of confinement, and the bodily condition of the prisoners previous to their conviction was such as not to enable them to undergo their sentence of transportation. This state of things was not peculiar to Scotland: it was common to every prison throughout the kingdom, and in those instances where prisoners were found unable to endure transportation, an humble Address was presented to Her Majesty representing the facts, and the result was, a commutation of the former sentence into one of imprisonment in lieu of transportation. In the absence of any such circumstances, he uniformly advised the Crown to carry the sentence of transportation into effect. He thought that punishment was a salutary one; indeed, he considered it the best secondary punishment that could be devised. He had no such very great confidence in the benefits resulting from the reformatory system of imprisonment. Considering the redundance of labour in every branch of employment, he did not look upon those who were discharged from prison and thrown upon the labour-market as able to compete with the honest unpolluted labourer, and by force of this and other adverse circumstances they were in a great number of cases thrown back upon their former associates and habits, and tempted again to resort to the commission of crime. For these reasons he considered he had performed his duty to society by recommending that the sentence of transportation be carried in most of the cases of convicts into effect confined even at Pentonville. With respect to the cases to which the hon. Member for Greenock referred, they formed exceptions to the rule, nor was it possible to carry the original sentence of transportation passed upon those prisoners into effect on account of the diseases with which those convicts were infected. The consequence was, the commutation of their sentence into one of imprisonment. That imprisonment must necessarily be enforced in the county gaol where the culprit was tried, and the cost of his support in prison likewise must be borne by the county. He was bound at the same time to admit that the number of prisoners so circumstanced was considerable in Scotland as it likewise was in England, and the number was on the increase. This was not a new evil; on the contrary, it had long thrown on the county-rates in both countries a very considerable charge in the cost incurred for the maintenance of these prisoners. It was a subject to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would not fail to give it his best consideration.