objected to the operation of this Clause being extended to those metropolitan parishes which were governed by local acts.

said, there were very few of the metropolitan parishes to which the Clause would apply; but there were many country districts in which such a provision was necessary.

moved, that the whole of the latter part of the Clause, relating to parishes with a population of more than 20,000, be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words,

"That it shall not be lawful for the said Commissioners to interfere with the management of the Poor in any parish containing more than 20,000 inhabitants, where relief has been hitherto administered to the Poor by Guardians under the provisions of a local Act without first obtaining the consent, in writing, of at least two-thirds of such Guardians, or a majority of Ratepayers assembled in public meeting, called especially for that purpose."

opposed the Amendment. It would defeat the most important Clauses of the Bill which the Committee had already passed. As the law now stood, the Poor Law Commissioners had undoubted control over those parishes governed by local acts; by this Clause that power was in some degree limited. There was no doubt that the Commissioners might now, if they pleased, form St. Pancras, St. George's, and Marylebone into one Union; and it was to prevent the unreasonable and inconvenient exercise of that power that the Clause was introduced.

supported the Amendment. He could not see the force of the right hon. Baronet's reasons for opposing it. The first ground was, that they would by agreeing to this Amendment undo that which had been done yesterday. That was one great reason why he (Mr. Spooner) intended to vote for the Amendment. The borough of Birmingham was governed by a system in which the opinions of the whole rate-paying population was represented; that system had worked well, and had given universal satisfaction; but if the guardians, who, under that system, administered the Poor Law, were to be interfered with as proposed by this law, he could assure the Committee they would not consent to act, as they then would be the mere servants to the Commissioners.

said, there had been some misunderstanding with regard to the hon. Member for Birmingham, who had just spoken. Somebody had made a mistake. They had been given to understand that the hon. Gentleman came to that House as a good old Tory, but what did they find? They found him supporting the Birmingham system of Poor Laws, because the guardians were elected triennially, because they were elected by ballot, and because the principle of universal suffrage in their election was recognised. If those were the principles of a Birmingham Tory, he hoped they should have many more of them in that House. He should support the Amendment.

congratulated the Birmingham people on their return to their senses, evinced by the return of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) for Birmingham. "Let the galled jade wince, his withers were unwrung." He doubted not, if there were another election in Birmingham, the electors there would return another Gentleman to keep company with his hon. Friend on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. He should also vote for the amendment.

then moved an addition to the Clause:—

"Providing that the Commissioners shall, upon application in writing of two-thirds of the guardians of parishes containing more than 20,000 persons, declare such parish be separated from a union."

His object was, that Kensington and other parishes similarly circumstanced, which could not, were this Clause to pass, be united into one Union, should be separated from the unions of which, under the existing law, they had been made to form part.

said, that an hon. Friend of his had given notice of an Amendment, empowering the Commissioners to alter the limits of any existing union, and as that was the larger proposition, he submitted to his hon. and gallant Friend whether it would not be advisable to postpone his present Amendment until after the sense of the Committee should have been taken upon that other Amendment.

moved that the parishes of St. George, St. James, St. Marylebone, and St. Pancras be excluded from the operation of this Clause.

said, to make an audit effectual, the auditor must be independent of the parties whose accounts he audited. The question was, whether an auditor elected under Sir J. Hobhouse's Act was in that position. Now, he understood that in 1835, in the parish of St. Marylebone, the auditor did append certain remarks which the vestry suppressed. If that could be done, the audit could not be said to be effectual. But if the two hon. Members representing Marylebone could contradict that report — if they could assure him that no such thing had taken place, and he found that the majority of the rate-payers objected to be included in the operation of this Clause, he should not have any ground for resisting their desire.

said, the right hon. Baronet had asked him a question. What answer did he expect? All he could say was, that since he had represented Marylebone he had never heard any rate-payer complain of the auditors. He believed they were satisfied with the auditors, and if they were not, they could get rid of them at the end of the year. The right hon. Baronet had asked him (Sir C. Napier) whether it were not true that certain remarks appended by the auditors, in 1835, to their report, had been suppressed by the vestry. He was not prepared to say that it was not. But that he might be enabled to speak with certainty on the matter, he would move, that the Chairman do now report progress and ask leave to sit again, in order that he might ascertain the truth of the statement which the right hon. Baronet had so unexpectedly brought forward.

said, that during the period he had had the honour of representing Marylebone (since 1837), and having attended closely to its parochial affairs, he could say that he had never before heard of the circumstance to which the right hon. Baronet had referred. He could not take on himself to assert that no such circumstance had taken place, but if it had he had never before heard of it. During the whole time he had been connected with the parish he had never heard of any complaint being made as to the manner in which the auditors performed their duty.

said, foreseeing that much time would be taken up if he persevered with this Clause, and looking at the great inconvenience which would result from any such delay at this advanced period of the Session, he was not disposed to insist upon more than the first part of it, which was indispensable.

had conscientiously opposed the Poor Law for many years, but he must say, that the Amendments which had now been made in that law by the right hon. Baronet removed most of his objections.

said, the great evil complained of by the minority in these parishes was, that the majority elected the vestry, and the vestry the auditors, and that they played into each other's hands.

withdrew his Motion to report progress, the Amendment proposed by Sir James Graham was agreed to, and the Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

, seeing the right hon. the Secretary for War opposite, begged to ask him the question, of which he had given him notice some days since. He (Mr. Wyse) had noticed in a late publication of the Dublin EveningPost, the following particulars of a circumstance which was stated to have taken place within the precincts of Her Majesty's Castle of Dublin. He begged to be permitted to read the statement to the House:

"A case of an important nature was investigated at this office on yesterday. It appears that a young man named James Osberry, the driver of a back car, was taken up in the street by a lady, who told him to drive her to the Lower Castleyard. He proceeded to the place named, and when about to enter the gate the sentry held up his hand and called on him to stop. The young man did so, and then the soldier asked him, 'Have you a repeal button on your coat?' 'No,' replied Osberry, 'I have not.' The lady told the sentry that he had no right to stop the man; and added that she was the wife of a soldier, and ought not to be stopped. The sentry told the man to go on, when Sergeant R. Cassen, of the 24th Regiment, came up and said, 'Have you a repeal button on your coat?' 'No,' said Osberry, putting his hand to his breast 'don't you see I have not.' 'Have you one at all about you?' inquired the sergeant. 'I have one in my pocket,' replied the young man; 'I won't conceal that, as I don't want to tell you a lie.' 'Seize him, guard,' said the sergeant, and at once the young man was taken into custody by a file, and brought to Chancery lane station-house, where the following charge was entered against him:—'For forcing his way past the sentry, and for abusing the sergeant at the Lower Castlegate.' The charge having been entered, the prisoner was taken in custody of a policeman and a soldier, with a fixed bayonet, before the magistrates of Exchange-court police-court."

The case was argued by Mr. Walsh, and after the facts had been stated in evidence, the magistrates came to an unanimous opinion that the prisoner had not been guilty of any offence, and at once discharged him. Now, in consequence of this, and of another circumstance of a somewhat similar nature which had occurred still more recently, in the barracks of Dublin, in the instance of a man of the name of Ignatius Ennis, who, on his appearing in the court yard, had been seized and a button of the same description torn from his coat, he was induced to ask the right hon. Secretary—whether any and what orders had been given from the Horse Guards, or by the Commander-in-Chief in Dublin, with respect to persons wearing or having in their possession Repeal buttons, and appearing in barracks or within the precincts of the Castle?

had to state that he was not aware that orders against wearing Repeal buttons had been issued, in reference to Dublin Castle; but orders had been issued precluding any civilian, wearing political or party badges, from being admitted into any of the barracks in Ireland. As to the circumstances of the case to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, he had not been able to obtain precise information. He had every reason to believe that the order with reference to the barracks was strictly legal; but if any persons acting under it exceeded their duty, they would be responsible for so doing; and he believed that there was every disposition on the part of the proper authorities to enforce this responsibility. The sergeant in the first case alluded to was, as he understood, threatened with an action for false imprisonment, and the officer was also summoned to appear before a competent tribunal.

I wish, Sir, to make a statement of some importance with reference to a particular branch of the proceedings of this House, and to which I have called the attention of this House, by a Notice upon the Paper, in order that neither the Members of the Government, nor of the Secret Committee upon the Post Office, should say that they were taken by surprise. It is not the practice or rule of this House to refer to or interfere with any business under discussion in a Committee, but I think that there are special cases in which the proceedings of a Committee may be investigated, or attention drawn to them without trenching upon the usual and proper practice, because, in my judgment at least, it would be preposterous and absurd to lay down such a rule as that if a Committee of this House has committed any great injustice or any great error, that you shall not inquire into that injustice or that error until the report be made, when it will be too late to remedy the one or correct the other. Therefore, with the permission of the House—and without any intention of entering into the subject matter of the Committee—I beg to call attention to proceedings which I take to be of great public interest and importance. On Saturday last I was summoned before the Post Office Secret Committee; upon being so summoned, I was then and there asked whether I had any statement to make to the Committee? I replied that I had no particular statement to make, and that I had not expressed to any one a desire to make any such statement; but that as respected any information which it was in my power to give the Committee, I should be very happy to put them in possession of it. I was then asked whether I was prepared to prove certain charges which I had made in my place in Parliament. I stated to the Committee that I was so prepared, and by evidence. I was then asked to repeat the charges which I had made in my place in Parliament. I did so repeat them. And here I request the attention of the House, as I think that having so acted I have placed myself in quite a new position, in quite a different position from that in which I stood while making the charges in my place here, because, having repeated those charges before the Committee, charges which every Member of that Committee took down as well as the short-hand writer, I have in fact preferred a Bill of indictment, not only against the system of opening letters, but against the Government, which I accused of having acted upon that system. I do not know whether it be necessary for me now to repeat to the House what I stated on a former occasion, in my place in Parliament, or to go over the charges which I then stated I was prepared to prove to the House. These were briefly that the letters of foreign Ministers have been, and are now, opened in the Post Office; that a most unscrupulous use had been made for the last two years of the power of secret opening of letters, conferred, under certain circumstances, upon the Home Secretary; that a roving Commission had been sent down, in 1842, to open letters throughout the manufacturing districts; that the letters of many individuals had been opened; that, as I believed then, and believe now, and am in a condition to prove—my own letters have been opened—that some fifty or sixty letters of Mr. Mazzini had been opened since Christmas last—that Stolzman's letters had also been opened—that the letters of many foreigners besides had been similarly treated, and, finally, that I believed that this had been done at the instigation of Foreign Powers. These were the charges which I made in this House, and repeated to the Committee. I also described to them the mode in which I believed that the proceedings were carried on in the Post Office, and stated that I could prove the existence of what I termed a secret or inner office, where these operations were perpetrated. Having made these statements to the Committee, I was asked for a list of the witnesses by means of whom I proposed to prove them. I replied that I had such a list, and was ready to produce it on condition that when the parties named in it should be examined I should be present. I made this condition because I considered that if I really had been, as I was termed in the House, an accuser of the Government, in having originally brought forward the charges in Parliament, I was much more so then, having repeated these charges to the Committee, and answered questions put to me by one of its Members, founded upon a report of my first speech, which he held in his hand. When I proposed, then, to be present during the examination of these witnesses, the Committee informed me that they believed they had no power to permit my presence without first asking leave of the House. In that opinion I concurred then and concur now. I said, I did not think that they possessed the power of allowing me to examine witnesses, or be present at their examination, without the permission of this House, and with that feeling I made a formal application to the Committee to apply to this House for permission to enable me to be present—pledging myself, as of course I was prepared to do, in case I was allowed to be present, to profound secrecy in common with every Member of the Committee. Having made this application, I was ordered to withdraw. The Committee deliberated, and upon my return I was informed that they did not intend to make any such application as I had requested them to make to the House. I was then pressed—I do not use the word invidiously, in fact I have no reason to complain of the bearing of the Committee towards me, they were indeed not only indulgent, but actually coaxing. Well, as I was saying, I was pressed to furnish the Committee with the list of witnesses, which I declined to do on the conditions proposed. It was then suggested to me whether I had not confidence in any particular Member of the Committee with whom I could leave the list, and thus put him in the same position as myself. I replied, with the most profound respect for the Committee, that I had equal confidence in every one of its Members, and that what I was prepared to tell one I was prepared to tell all—I said that I did not think that one Member could do justice to my case, without being guilty of a breach of his duty; because, if I furnished him with the list of witnesses, and told him upon what points each witness could speak, then suppose a witness in his first examination did not exactly come up to what I had told him to expect, that Member would be guilty of a breach of duty did he communicate the matter to me, so that in fact no cross-examination of the witness could take place. Let it be observed, too, that although some of my witnesses would, I have no doubt, repeat to the Committee what they repeated to me, yet that there are others amongst them who would be reluctant, most reluctant witnesses, but without whose evidence it would be quite impossible to enter into the merits of the case. Still the Committee pressed me to give up this list, and asked why I could not put them in the position in which I stood myself. I said it was quite impossible—that I must most respectfully, but as firmly, decline giving up the list unless I was to be present at the examination of the witnesses. I do not know if I need go into further details as to what took place before the Committee. If I have stated anything incorrect I see several Members of that Committee present who can correct me; and if they entertain any doubts as to what I have said, they can move for the short hand writers' notes. But I wish the House to look at the present state of the question. I am called upon to furnish a certain list of witnesses in support of certain charges, and I am not to be permitted to be present while these witnesses are examined. This Committee was appointed by the right hon. Baronet opposite. It is a tribunal appointed to investigate certain charges and accusations against the Government of which he is a Member. Now this Committee, as it appears to me, turns round and becomes a tribunal for trying my accuracy and veracity, as to certain statements, and that too behind my back, so that it is not so much a tribunal for trying the Government as for trying me. I am perfectly ready to submit my credibility to the Committee in the presence of my witnesses, but it is totally impossible—and I say it as a Member of this House who has taken much pains to investigate the subject—it is totally impossible for the Gentlemen of that Committee to examine the witnesses as I, knowing the subject as I do could examine them. Let it be remembered, also, that no lawyers were allowed to be Members of that Committee. Now, I have the greatest respect for the Gentlemen who do compose it; but here are nine or ten of these Gentlemen turned into a room, quite ignorant of the whole subject, and the chief witnesses whom they have examined, are the different heads of the Department. Sir, I maintain, that as far as they have gone, or are indeed likely to go, they have merely skimmed the surface of this question—that they must go much deeper into it, and that they can do this by having evidence which I can lay before them in support of the allegations which I have made. Sir, the public will not be satisfied to allow the question to rest as it now stands. The public do not want a report which shall exhibit a great deal of historical and antiquarian research: they want to know to what extent the power of opening letters has been exercised, and under what circumstances it has been exercised, both by the present and the late Government. That is the subject which the Committee was appointed to investigate. We were to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Now, I say, the truth cannot be ascertained unless I am present during the examination of certain witnesses. I have done. Having made this statement, it is for the House to deal with the subject as they think proper. They may give such instructions to the Committee as they think light, or they may let the matter alone; but I can tell them that, if they adopt this latter course, it is not one which will be satisfactory to this country. As a Motion is necessary, I will move,

"That it be an Instruction to the Secret Committee on the Post Office, that they do allow Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, esquire, Member for the borough of Finsbury, to attend before the said Committee, and produce and examine witnesses in support of the petitions of Joseph Mazzini and others, and of Charles Stolzman, referred to the said Committee."

was anxious, as Chairman of the Committee, not to lose the opportunity of adverting to the facts of the case. He thought that he might be allowed to complain a little of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman had couched his notice of Motion in the paper. They were, that he intended "to call the attention of the House to the course pursued by the Secret Committee on the Post Office, in refusing to allow him to produce evidence in support of the charge he had made in his place in Parliament." In this notice the hon. Member seemed to complain of the conduct pursued by the Committee in refusing to allow him to be present at the examination of certain witnesses, although the hon. Member admitted in the course of these proceedings, that they could not admit him without the consent of the House. The hon. Member had disavowed, in the course of his speech, that which he had thought right to circulate through the House by the terms of his Motion. With respect to the statement which the hon. Member had made, he had no ground to complain of a word which had fallen from him. The hon. Member had fairly stated what had passed, but he thought that the hon. Member had not done justice to the reasons which compelled the Committee to exclude him. The Committee were very anxious to hear the evidence of which he was in possession. They knew that he himself could have had no personal knowledge of these affairs—that he must have derived the information which he possessed from others; but they also felt that it was competent for him to put any of them in the same position—they felt, too, that the House had refused to put the hon. Member upon the Committee, and that for them to admit him, to allow him to sit listening to all that was said—looking out for fresh evidence—observing where it was most needed, and from whence it could be most easily procured—for them to allow all this, was doing that which the House had refused to do—was, in effect, putting him upon the Committee, without the responsibility attaching to membership. That was the feeling which guided the Committee in refusing to entertain his request. They felt that they had no right to contravene a decision of this House, and to admit the hon. Member was virtually to nullify it. They all of them conceived that, after many days' patient investigation, they were quite capable of examining witnesses upon any point in the inquiry. The security of the witnesses would be as much cared for by them as it could be by him. They certainly would have been happy to have received further information; but at the same time they did not believe that any information which the hon. Gentleman might be able to give them was actually essential to the success of the inquiry. They, therefore, felt that they were not in any way defeating the object of the investigation by refusing to admit the hon. Member. The matter was now before the House for it to act as it thought best. If the House should think it right that the hon. Member should be admitted, they would be most happy to have the advantage of his assistance. They had the highest confidence in his honour, and if the House thought proper to admit him, investing him with all the responsibility of a Member of the Committee, none of them would have the slightest objection. The Report would ere long be on the Table, and the House would then see whether the subject had been fully investigated or not.

was sorry that this question had been managed as it had been. It had thrown a great deal of scandal on the British Government abroad, and the present proceeding was likely to add to it. He was sorry he was not in the House when the Committee was appointed, or he should have opposed the omission of his hon. Friend's name. He believed in the annals of Parliament no similar instance would be found of a person coming forward as his hon. Friend had done, and giving himself all the trouble he had done, for which the country owed him a great deal, and his being refused to be allowed to attend the Committee appointed to investigate the subject of which he was so completely master. The Committee had only official men before them, and could know nothing of the persons who had given the information to his hon. Friend. The noble Lord said, his hon. Friend wanted to be aware of all the secrets of the Committee; but his hon. Friend never wanted to be a Member of the Committee, and he only wanted to be present during the examination of those witnesses who were to support those charges which he made on his own responsibility. His hon. Friend did not want to vote. He only wished to be present during the examination of the witnesses in support of the charges which he made on his own responsibility. What would be the result? Either the Committee would come to a resolution condemning the charge of his hon. Friend, without his being allowed an opportunity to substantiate them, or they would make a Report on other matters quite beside the real question. If the request of his hon. Friend was refused, he had no other alternative than to call his witnesses to the Bar of that House. The country would be satisfied with nothing short of that; and he must say that, in his opinion, to refuse his hon. Friend an opportunity of substantiating his charge, was to do him an act of injustice.

was unwilling to throw any technical difficulty in the way of the Motion which the hon. Gentleman had made, although he thought he was justified, according to the rules of the House, in objecting to a Member of that House stating anything with respect to the proceedings of a Secret Committee. But he was unwilling to debar the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making his statement. He was at a loss to understand the grounds upon which the hon. Gentleman had made the present Motion. The House would recollect the circumstances under which this Committee had been appointed. When the proposal first was made, almost unqualified satisfaction was expressed with respect to the formation of that Committee, He did not mean to say that it was universal, but the Committee was allowed to be appointed without previous notice. That Committee was composed of men well known for their impartiality and intelligence. In that Committee the majority of the Members were opposed to Her Majesty's Government. Four Members were in the habit of voting with Her Majesty's Government, and five with the opposition, and the whole of those five Members voted for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman for a Select Committee. That Committee had sat for several days, and he left it to every Member to judge whether Her Majesty's Government had withheld a single fact from the knowledge of the Committee bearing on the inquiry, and whether they had thrown the slightest obstacle in the way of the inquiry, or threw the slightest difficulty in the way of the examination of any person, whether under their control or not. Personally, the Government had no objection to the hon. Gentleman's being present, or being on the Committee; but he should feel it his duty to advise the House to adhere to that course on which they had always acted. The question was, whether the House repented the confidence it had placed in the Committee, He had explained to the hon. Gentleman, and he thought had satisfied him, that, in adopting that course no disrespect was meant to him. He should oppose the addition of the hon. Gentleman's name to the Committee, on the ground that the House had already refused it, and he should equally resist the proposal that he be allowed to attend the investigation, as such a proceeding must imply a distrust in the capability of the Committee to conduct the inquiry, and their desire to pursue it in a searching manner, even into the secret office. As the parties accused, it was the first thing which he or the Secretary for the Home Department should have asked, to be present during the time the witnesses were under examination; but they trusted with confidence that the inquiry would be a searching one, and that justice would be done to all parties; and never thought of asking to hear the evidence given against us, and suggesting questions which we might consider necessary for our vindication. That was felt to be so just, that the hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the suggestion. But such a course would be a total departure from the usual practice on all such inquiries; but as he claimed no such privilege for the accused, he should resist both Motions—either that the hon. Gentleman should be present, or that he should be a Member of the Committee.

said, it would be well for the House to recollect the principle they had adopted in the appointment of this Committee. They had departed from the usual precedents in forming Committees; for they had determined that they would have no lawyers on the Committee—that the accuser himself should not be present—and also that they would exclude from it all those who did hold or had held high office in Her Majesty's Council. He confessed, that at the time he thought this was a fair principle, but circumstances took place a short time afterwards which excited in his mind, and in the minds of many other Members, the greatest possible surprise. He found from the usual organs of information that a Committee on the same subject had been appointed by the House of Lords, which Committee was formed on a totally different principle to that suggested by the Ministers for the House of Commons. For on the Committee of the Lords were three ex-ministers, two of them being ex-chancellors, men, of course, accustomed to the most skilful mode of examination either for suppressing or for eliciting information. He owned he then regretted the vote by which the hon. Member for Finsbury was rejected; for he felt it was establishing a precedent for excluding any man from a Committee who was active and energetic in investigating the subject of it. He did not suppose the Government would labour under any anxiety as to the result; but he thought they had treated the House of Commons with something like disrespect. The present constitution of the Committee must have the appearance of a different principle being adopted in the Lords, because there was no one there in the situation of his hon. Friend, to be excluded. He hoped it would not be considered inconsistent with the duty of Ministers to give some explanation on this point. As to the Motion before the House, he thought his hon. Friend should either be put on the Committee or altogether excluded.

thought it would have been much more consistent with the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, if he felt any objection to the constitution of the Committee, that he should have stated that objection when the Committee was appointed. If the hon. Gentleman thought that there ought to have been two Members of the present Government on it, and two of the past, or that there ought to have been lawyers, it would have been easy for him to have made a Motion to that effect. He merely wished to answer a question which had been put; and in doing so, he thought he should have extended to him the courtesy generally observed. The gravamen of the charge was, that the Committee was so constituted in that House, as to exclude the accuser. Now, the Earl of Radnor stood in the same position in the other House, and with his own consent he was not placed on the Committee. It was not for them to discuss the principles on which the House of Lords chose to act. It was a decisive proof Government did not fear inquiry when they placed so eminent a lawyer as Lord Cottenham on the Committee of the other House. But if it was asserted that the different constitution of the Committee was for the purpose of excluding the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe), such an assertion was utterly without foundation. He had already given the bonâ fide reasons for his exclusion.

They had nothing to do with the constitution of the Committee of the House of Lords; but they had with that of the Commons. If the Government acted differently in the two Houses, they had a right to complain. But he begged the House to consider the view now taken by the Committee, as to the nature of the evidence to be adduced. They had not pressed the hon. Member for Finsbury to supply them with the information which he could adduce. [Lord Sandon: We did not ask him to give evidence.] Yes; but you did not put him in the box and say, "if you do not answer, we will report you to the House." It was totally contrary to precedent to appoint a Member to watch the proceedings of a Secret Committee, but it was not impossible to add the hon. Gentleman to the Committee. And as many circumstances came out which tended to alter his former opinion, he should now be inclined to vote that the hon. Gentleman should be put on the Committee. He had the most perfect confidence in the gentlemen appointed; but if he were on the Committee he should consider it no reproach to be assisted by one who had brought forward the charges, and stood pledged in the face of the country to prove them. Mr. Roebuck had made the most serious charges against Members of that House with respect to bribery at elections, and when a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, so far from the hon. and learned Gentleman being excluded, he was in the Chair. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion, and allow him to move that his hon. Friend be added to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly moved that Mr. T. S. Duncombe be added to the Committee of Secrecy in the Post Office.

It was not for him to say whether the hon. Member for Finsbury or any lawyers should have been originally placed on the Committee. The Committee offered to hear Mr. Duncombe, but he refused unless on certain conditions, with which the Committee could not comply. The right hon. Baronet appealed to the Members of the Committee to say whether Government withheld any information from them? The present and the late Government furnished all the information the Committee could possibly desire. He trusted that all opinions as to the extent of the inquiry would be postponed until the Committee had reported. The investigation was such as he thought would surprise his hon. Friend himself if on the Committee.

stated, that a Motion was made on the 2nd of July, "That Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, Esq., be one other Member of the said Committee;" that that question was put, and negatived upon a division; that he considered it was contrary to the usage and practice of the House, that a question which had passed in the negative should be again proposed in the same Session.

But, Sir, may not a Motion be renewed under new circumstances?

The House having once come to a decision on a specific Motion, it cannot be renewed. When a proposition is made and negatived, the House cannot again entertain one to the same effect.

thought it of the greatest importance that the public should be satisfied as to this proceeding. The Committee was composed of the friends of the late and present Governments, and he thought it most unwise to exclude the Member for Finsbury, if they meant that the inquiry should be satisfactory to the public.

The Members of the Committee were in a peculiar situation, for their mouths were closed as to the evidence. The Members for Northampton and Montrose argued on the necessity of a complete inquiry, it being quite impossible for the Members of the Committee to admit or deny that the present deserved to be so described. They could only say what was the truth, that they had pursued the inquiry without regard to either party, and that the most ample evidence had been placed at their disposal. It would be a most inconvenient course to allow any hon. Gentleman to attend on the terms of the original Motion; and to add him to the Committee would be more unreasonable, inasmuch as a great part of the inquiry had already been proceeded with.

withdrew his Motion.

replied. The noble Lord (Lord Sandon) said it would be a slur on the Committee if he were allowed to watch its proceedings. It would be, in his opinion, a greater slur on them to have his name added as a member of that Committee. But then it was said, if he were allowed to be present it would be tantamount to his being a member. It might just as well be said that the counsel proving the preamble of a private Bill was in the position of a member of the Committee. It was unnecessary to go over every single thing that had occurred in the Committee. All he knew was, that the witnesses he wanted to call had not been called; and there had recently been, at the instance of the Government, a very searching inquiry in the Post-office, and almost a prosecution, to prevent information being given. That being so, he (Mr. T. Duncombe) was bound to protect his witnesses, and he had no hesitation in saying what he said to the Committee, that this business must be examined through all its different ramifications, from the letter carrier to the person who opened and resealed the letters, and committed the forgeries. They must carry it through all the different steps to satisfy the public, and he knew the noble Lord and the Committee had not done so. He begged to ask the Secretary for the Home Department if his letters had been examined or not since the right hon. Gentleman came into office. He said that, as a Member of that House, he had a right to ask that question. If any letters had been opened it was a gross insult to the Members whose correspondence had been violated. The right hon. Baronet could have no hesitation in saying whether his letters had been opened or not. If they had not been opened by the right hon. Baronet's authority, he said they had been opened by some other persons, and therefore, he said, it was doubly incumbent that an inquiry and investigation should take place. As his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had observed, either the Committee were wrong in not allowing him to examine witnesses, or he was wrong in refusing the list of witnesses which he had tendered. Any other Committee having power to send for persons, papers, and records, if witnesses refused to give evidence before it, might commit them for contempt. Why should they not exercise that power in this instance? He still declined to give the list, which he held in his hand, and he would not give it; but he was ready to go before the Committee of the House of Lords, and make the same proposal to substantiate all the charges he had made. He would give the Committee every facility with the witnesses in his presence, to investigate all the charges he had made. They had no right to say that he refused facilities for investigating the charges; he was ready to afford every facility, but some of his witnesses were subordinates in the Post-office, and they might lose their situations, unless he was present to protect them. He knew their evidence would certainly compromise the conduct of their superiors; and their superiors, if called before the Committee, of course would not be very ready to give evidence that would compromise their own conduct. He said, therefore, it was necessary that some one should be present who should be acquainted with the whole circumstances of the case. It was totally impossible that the Committee, with every respect for their talents and abilities, could investigate the matter thoroughly, unless the witnesses he should propose to the Committee were examined, and sufficient information was laid before them to come to a proper decision. He should certainly take the sense of the House on the subject. The noble Lord complained of the Notice he had placed on the Paper, as calculated to create a wrong impression as to the real circumstances at issue. He contended, that the notice was correctly worded, and what he complained of was the Committee refusing to allow him to produce evidence before them in support of the charges he had made in his place. The House must recollect that he was doubly the accuser, because he was compelled to repeat those charges before the Committee, and they were taken down and placed formally before it. Before he sat down, he would repeat the question which he had already put to the right hon. Baronet, whether, since he had been in office, he had authorised the opening of any of his letters.

I must say there is no Gentleman in this House who is less accustomed, if I may use the expression, to vapour than the hon. Member for Finsbury; but, on the present occasion, he has put to me a question to which he knows it is not consistent with ray own sense of duty to attempt an answer. I have already stated to the House, respectfully and firmly, that consistently with my sense of duty, and bound by the obligation by which I am bound—and I am the judge of that sense of duty—I cannot answer, and will not answer this question. On the other hand, when I moved for the appointment of the Committee to which this question has been submitted, I stated that, as far as I was concerned, with the consent of Her Majesty, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, should be stated simply and without disguise by me on that Committee. In the utmost degree, and without reserve, I have fulfilled that pledge. I have been examined for three days before that Committee. My examination is not yet concluded; and I think the House—both sides of the House—will be of opinion that I am justified in positively refusing to answer the question.

wished to state that the Committee would be glad to receive any evidence which the hon. Member for Finsbury might offer; but the hon. Member would see that the Committee could not admit him without being authorised by the House. He believed the question was safe in the hands of the Committee.

moved that the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill be read a third time.

was sorry that a Bill of such great importance, and that touched so materially on the liberty of the subject, should have advanced to its third reading, after having been four months before the House, without any Member of Her Majesty's Government stating any reason for the continuance of this Bill. There was a discussion on the Bill in Committee, but there was none on the principle of the Bill. Since he had had the honour of a seat in this House it had always been usual, when a Bill was introduced relating to the preservation of the public peace, or called for by circumstances of pressing public necessity, that it should be introduced by a statement from a Minister of the Crown, or the recommendation of a Committee. [Cheers.] He was quite aware of the nature of the suggestion which seemed to have been made by the noble Lord to his right hon. Friend. Probably the noble Lord alluded to the fact that when this Bill was introduced by the late Government, it was brought in without a statement being made. In order to remove any impression which that cheer might have made, he would just state that a Committee had been sitting four or five months in the House of Lords, before which evidence of the most important kind had been taken, and at the close of that Committee's sitting this Bill was introduced. With respect to that part of the case, he would postpone it, and endeavour to supply to the House the deficiency in Her Majesty's Government not stating to the House the circumstances under which they asked leave to renew the Bill. For upwards of eighty years, disturbances had existed in Ireland from combinations, and the administration of illegal oaths; they were mentioned by Arthur Young, in his account, of the state of Ireland. In 1761, combinations had reached such a height, that the Irish Parliament passed a law authorizing magistrates to execute felons taken in disturbing the peace, without Trial by Jury, and the executions under the Act were so numerous, that it was repealed in the ensuing year. This evil existed for a long series of years afterwards, and the most stringent remedies were applied towards it; but what was the course adopted when such evils threatened in this country. At this very moment, there was a most singular and extraordinary combination existing in this country, by which large masses of property were put in jeopardy, and yet who had heard of any instance of Government coming down to ask for extraordinary powers to suppress it? And yet he had never heard the events to which he alluded mentioned by any Member for the counties concerned in them, without the strongest feeling being expressed for the sufferings of the peasantry, and the natural readiness being expressed to make sacrifices, by raising wages, and giving relief through improved administration of the Poor Laws. That had invariably been the course taken by the landed gentlemen of this country. There were no Insurrection Acts, no suspension of the Constitution, nor any of those extraordinary proceedings which were adopted in Ireland. It would not be denied that sufferings of an extraordinary nature had pressed upon the Irish peasantry. In all the trials and inquiries in which those combinations had been discussed and examined, it had never been asserted that they had any political bearing; they had been invariably traced to the pressure of great distress, and to ignorant efforts made on the part of the peasantry to relieve themselves by combination—never to any desire to render the public safety insecure, and thus to afford an excuse for those unconstitutional measures by which Government had vainly attempted to remedy them. He would shortly remind the House of the course of legislation which had been applied to this subject. The present Bill stated in its title that it was to continue certain Acts which were in force, so that unless Members knew what was the law at present they could not know what the Government asked the House to do. By the 50th of George III., passed for the protection of magistrates, and the protection of witnesses, any Gentleman of that House making a geological tour in Ireland, and going about the country, might be arrested, examined as to his place of abode, and object in coming to the country, and if he did not give a satisfactory answer, the magistrate might require him to find bail, and in default commit him to prison. The only obligation the magistrate was under was to report the circumstance to the Lord Lieutenant, and send him a copy of the examination of the prisoner. This Act remained without alteration up to 1823, and yet, between 1810 and that year, Ireland continually suffered from the consequences of these combinations of illegal societies. In 1823, a period of great temporary pressure, when from the distress of the landed interest, employment for the labouring population was greatly diminished, the Act 4th George IV. was passed, giving power to magistrates, on the evidence of one witness, that a man had tendered an illegal oath, to fine him 20l., or commit him to gaol for three months, or if the magistrate chose to proceed by indictment, to transport the prisoner for seven years. That Act was found amply sufficient from 1823 to 1830. Immediately after the change of Government in that year, very serious disturbances took place in Queen's County, and applications were repeatedly made to Lord Grey to bring in the Insurrection Act, which were in every instance refused. Much discontent ensued among the Irish gentry, and from that time to 1839 the Government was subjected to as serious and determined opposition as any Ministers ever experienced. Men, who ought to have been ashamed of the course they took, impeded that Government in every way they possibly could, and opposed by every means in their power the tranquillization of the country. He had no doubt, in fact, that those Gentlemen might have been indicted for a conspiracy to bring the Government into contempt, had the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) then been in office. What with meetings in Dublin and meetings in every county and considerable town in Ireland, of those opposed to the Government, at which the most violent language was used, it was as complete a conspiracy to bring law and Government into contempt as ever had been known or heard of. In 1839 a Committee on the state of Ireland was appointed in the House of Lords, and never was a Government subjected to a more sifting inquiry than was the Administration of Lord Mulgrave on that occasion. Persons of all stations, from the policeman up to the highest judge of the land, were called to impugn the acts of the Government. To such an extent was the spirit of hostility carried, that a paper sent confidentially to a judge was used by that judge as an accusation against the Government. He merely mentioned this as an instance of the extent to which party feeling was carried in these transactions. That which was laid to the charge of Lord Mulgrave's Government was that they had so neglected the maintenance of the public peace as to endanger the dissolution of the bonds of society in Ireland. Mr. Drummond was submitted to a most strict examination, and he proved, first, that the whole attention of Government had been long directed to putting down those societies; that in various places those societies had various objects, that there was no common communication between them, that in many places one illegal society was opposed to another, and in all cases it was clearly established that there was no political object in them. He was asked this question:—

"Do you consider the law in its present state adequate to the suppression of these societies?"

The answer was:—

"We have experienced the greatest dfficulty in acting on the information we have obtained, nor have we succeeded in bringing the outrages of Ribbonism to conviction; but I can hardly go the length of saying that the law is inadequate to the suppression of those societies."

In the next question he says that the Attorney General had drawn up various suggestions, which had been laid before Government, and were now under consideration, at the same time stating the great difficulty of framing any legislative measures strong enough to reach these societies, without being liable equally to be applied to any assembly of persons treating of public matters. The alarm expressed by many persons in the south of Ireland respecting these societies determined the Government of that day to introduce the Act 2nd and 3rd Victoria, by which were to be re-enacted the Acts 50th George III. and 4th George IV., and by one Clause of this Bill it was provided that every person who should, after the 1st of September, directly or indirectly, maintain correspondence and intercourse with such society, or with any division, president, secretary, delegate, or officer of such society, or use any of the signs or passports of such society, or knowingly have in his possession any copy, written or printed, of such society's rules, or of any communication, engagement, or declaration, purporting to be drawn by any society declared to be unlawful by the Act 4th Geo. IV., shall be proceeded against and punished according to the provisions of such Act, and if found guilty be held to be guilty of unlawful combination, and liable to the penalties visited upon it. By this Clause, in fact, the possession of any letter, or similar document, on an illegal subject, made the man as guilty as if he had committed an illegal act. It had been said that this law was introduced without explanation, but it underwent a long discussion in the other House of Parliament, and the Attorney General and Solicitor General of the Government expressed great doubt as to the expediency of granting such powers, and did not seem to wish to be entrusted with them. He thought that made some difference from the case now before the House. This law was passed in 1839, and applied by the Government at the three following assizes, convictions being had in every case, and many of the leaders in the combinations were transported. When the Government asked for powers of the kind which this law had given, he (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) thought they were bound to prove that they had exercised those powers with lenity and with justice, and that they could not carry on the public service without the continuance of this stringent enactment. He now told the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, that within his knowledge this law had been shamefully and improperly employed since the present Government had been in office. He admitted that this was a strong charge against the Government, but it was still stronger as against the noble Lord, because, when he contrasted the administration of this law with the spontaneous declarations that were made by the noble Lord on entering upon the Government of Ireland, when he contrasted the noble Lord's conduct with those declarations, he had a double right to complain of the acts which the noble Lord had allowed the agents of the Government to perform. The noble Lord could not, deny that he knew of those acts having taken place, and that, after knowing them to have occurred in 1842, he permitted the same acts in 1843. He would now proceed to state to the House the facts upon which he made these charges, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to refute them. They were believed in Ireland, and were believed by him (Mr. O'Ferrall), and he should be most happy if the noble Lord could give them a denial. The first case to which he would refer was a case prosecuted at Armagh, in July, 1843. Mr. Blackburne, the Attorney General prosecuted some men under the provisions of the Unlawful Oaths Act. The approver, on whose evidence a conviction took place, stated that he was arrested in 1843, and that, having offered to give certain information, at the expiration of a short period he was liberated from prison. He then went on to say, that subsequent to his liberation he had made Ribbonmen by hundreds, that he had attended Ribbon meetings, and had concocted with his own hand more than sixty documents; and, in answer to a question by the Attorney General, he stated that he acted under the directions of the magistrates, after his liberation from prison. Cox, a policeman, was next examined, who stated that he had attended a Ribbon Lodge in plain clothes, and that he had there met the prisoners; in fact, it appeared that he attended the Lodge solely for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of the approver. Mr. Whiteside, who was counsel for the prisoners, commented with just indignation on this abominable trial, and on the conduct of the Government for resorting to such practices. And what said Mr. Justice Crampton, who presided? That learned Judge said, that the conduct of the policeman, in attending the meeting in coloured clothes was very "uncommon conduct." He then went on to observe that Mr. Whiteside had made an accusation against the Government, which could not but be viewed as one of a most serious character. He admitted that the charge might have been made unintentionally, and out of the zeal which the learned counsel felt for his client; but he was sure that Mr. Whiteside would retract any insinuation that conveyed a charge against the Government. But what said Mr. Whiteside? "No my Lord, so far from retracting the accusations, I re-assert them." Judge Crampton then observed, that the approver's object was evidently to make criminals; in fact he admitted that on his cross-examination, and that the conduct of Cox the policeman, was much to be condemned. Had this been the only case of the sort, he would have been the last person to hold the noble Lord responsible; but when the attention of the noble Lord was called to this case, when it must have been reported to him that one of the most eminent counsel at the Irish bar had charged him and the Government with conduct so disgraceful, he thought it would be unworthy of the noble Lord if he did not cause a strict investigation to be made into all the circumstances, and give orders that prosecutions of this description should not take place in future, and that, above all, the system of employing spies, which was reprobated everywhere, and particularly so in this country should not be allowed. He could not say, whether or no the noble Lord was cognizant of the facts to which he had alluded. He should presume that he was not, because when his attention was called to a very minor case by the hon. Member for Louth, the noble Lord immediately directed that an inquiry should be instituted; which seemed to be evidence of the noble Lord's disapproval of the spy system. But, then, if he did not approve of that system, how came it that he permitted it to go on from 1842? Either he must have known and permitted it, or he had so far neglected his duty, that those who acted under him had issued directions upon the subject of which he was totally ignorant. The next case, and he would refer only to the strongest, was that of two men who were tried at Sligo, before Mr. Baron Richards, in 1843. They were prosecuted for having taken unlawful oaths, and the principal evidence against them was that of an approver, who admitted that he was in the pay of the police, from whom he had received 15l. So that here were a number of men employed by the Government, and acting in league with the police, for the purpose of inducing persons to enter into illegal combinations. If there existed at this moment any combination of the peasantry dangerous to the peace, and to life and property, and the Government could tender such evidence as was given before the Committee in 1829, they might come to the House and ask for an Act of Parliament for a limited time. In such case no man would be more willing than himself to entrust them with the necessary powers, nor should he refuse them the Bill, could he not justify that refusal on the grounds he had stated. There were various opinions as to modes and objects of Government; but he never held but one and that was that the law should be administered with fairness and vigour; but at the same time, so as to convince the people that the object of the Government was to deter from crime, rather than to inflict on them its consequences. He wished to see it administered in Ireland in the same spirit as it was administered in England. The Government in England would not dare to send spies among the people to induce them to commit crimes; and he, therefore, asked the noble Lord why this was permitted in Ireland? It might be said that he was a Member of the Government which passed this law, but it was not to the law he objected but to the abuse of it. It was not stated that the societies to prevent which the law was passed were still in existence, or that any danger was apprehended from them. It was well known that a most dangerous combination against property existed at the present moment in England—that a vast amount of property had been recently destroyed in Suffolk and Norfolk by incendiarism—yet no Act of this kind had been thought necessary for the safety of this country. He was one of those who believed the maintenance of the compact between the two countries was essential for the interests of both, yet if it were violated by acts of this kind, they would be reduced to defend it only on the ground of the impossibility of repealing it, and would do more to undermine the Union than any other agency that could be brought against it. He would, therefore, move, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

said, he certainly did feel great surprise, at the charge which, at the outset of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman brought against the Government, and he had therefore evinced it by the cheer to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. It appeared, that though the Government were charged with acting disrespectfully to the House in not having stated the grounds on which they asked for the renewal of this Act, the original Act had been passed through the House by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, without the least explanation having been offered respecting it. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the discussion took place in that House because the Bill was founded on a Report of the House of Lords; but he referred to a debate in the other House on the subject. Now, he would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to a passage in the speech of Lord Duncannon who introduced that Bill into the House of Lords, and explained the nature of its provisions, and the necessity there was for so stringent an enactment—so far from its being founded on the Report of a Committee, the noble Lord stated, that—

"The subject had engaged the attention of the Government during the last year, and that they had proposed the Bill in consequence of information they had received respecting it. He then only alluded to that part of the Bill which related to the use of pass words, and he should be happy to meet the objection of the noble Lord opposite by inserting the words 'without lawful excuse.'"

The House would observe, therefore, that the Bill passed through the House of Commons without the slightest opposition, and that even the words "without lawful excuse" formed no part of the original Bill. Those words of limitation were inserted at the suggestion of Lord Ellenborough, a nobleman acting in concert with the present Government. Moreover, when Lord Normanby and the Ministry of that day were told they did nothing to prevent these illegal societies, until the Report of a Committee of the House of Lords forced upon them the adoption of this measure, the charge was indignantly repulsed. He found that Lord Normanby said,

"The noble Lord opposite had taken credit for the Committee as having caused the Government to propose this Bill; but, in fact, it had engaged the attention of the Attorney General for a long time before he left Ireland; and that when that, learned Gentleman was Solicitor General, he had stated to the House of Commons his intention to introduce such a Bill."

He (Lord Eliot) asked, therefore, what ground was there for the hon. Gentleman's statement, that this measure was forced upon the late Government by the evidence of a Committee; and whether the knowledge of these facts might not well excite astonishment in his mind, that, the hon. Gentleman should charge the Government with not having explained their reasons for asking so limited an extension as one year for this Bill. With respect to the nature of the measure, the hon. Gentleman had fairly stated its provisions. Every man in the least acquainted with the history of Ireland for the last fifty or sixty years, must deplore the existence of secret societies, as one of the greatest curses of that country. It was for the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to show that the state of Ireland at this moment was such as to call for a relaxation of the existing law. The hon. Gentleman was placed in this dilemma. He must either admit that Ribbonism had decreased under this Act, and consequently, that it had been effective, or that it still prevailed—and consequently, that the Executive ought not to be deprived of the powers in this Bill. The hon. Gentleman said, these illegal associations were only to be found when the greatest distress prevailed amongst the people. This, however, could not be said of Leinster, or Ulster, and in Cork. He thought it would be found that these distressed districts were the parts of Ireland in which alone these societies did not exist. The hon. Gentleman should not attribute them to the distress of the country, but to the machinations of designing men, who endeavoured to induce the peasantry to join them for the worst of purposes. He believed, therefore, that no measure consistent with justice could be too strong to put down such combinations. The hon. Gentleman had quoted one or two cases, in which it appeared the approver was a man of bad character; but he asked the hon. Gentleman himself, how the existence of secret societies was to be discovered, except by means of approvers? It was quite clear they could not test the value of a man's evidence until he had been subjected to a searching cross-examination in a Court of Justice; and the hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the evidence of an approver must be corroborated by that of other witnesses. [Mr. M. O'Ferrall: Not in one of these cases.] But that case had been visited with the displeasure of the Government, and the constable Olge, who had endeavoured to induce men to commit crime, had been dismissed, and was since committed to gaol for his illegal conduct. If this Act were not renewed, parties would be subject to the same penalties under the general Act against illegal combinations, and the evils so much deprecated would still exist—namely, the inducement to parties, for the sake of reward, to come forward and give testimony against their associates. The hon. Gentleman had attempted to draw a parallel between the cases of England and Ireland. But surely the incendiarism in Suffolk and Norfolk could not be compared with the secret societies which were the subject of this Bill. No new enactments were necessary to punish these crimes, if the perpetrators were detected—the law was already sufficiently stringent for that purpose. But if secret societies existed to the same extent in England as in Ireland, there would be no hesitation on the part of the Government to introduce a measure to put down such mischievous combinations. He thought he need not say more on this subject than to repeat the opinion he had distinctly expressed in the discussion in Committee, to which the hon. Gentleman had not adverted—namely, that the continuance of this measure, for a limited period, was absolutely necessary. In consequence of the objections of the hon. Gentleman, he had taken the opinion of those best qualified to judge on the subject, and had come to the conclusion, that it was the duty of the Government to press for the renewal of the measure in the shape that it lay on the Table. His impression was, that the right hon. Gentleman was as convinced as any man who now sat near him (Lord Eliot) of the necessity of continuing the measure in its present shape. The right hon. Gentleman, with a great deal of ingenuity, had called upon him to state what was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland. He had stated what his impression was; and if the right hon. Gentleman had reason to believe that this impression was erroneous, then he must cease to rely upon the expressions of that right hon. Gentleman. He (Lord Eliot) believed, that the Government of 1839, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare formed a part, would not have introduced a measure which had been denounced as arbitrary, tyrannical, and unconstitutional, without due consideration, and without being convinced of its necessity. He was not aware that there was any alteration in the circumstances and present state of Ireland which would justify Her Majesty's Government in throwing aside that power which had been committed to their hands by a law introduced by the late Government. Whatever had been the difficulties of their position, or the crisis in which they had been placed, they had been content to rely upon the powers entrusted to them by their predecessors; but, at the same time, they did not think it consistent with their sense of duty to abandon or to relinquish any of those powers. Under these circumstances he should persevere in moving the third reading of the Bill.

believed that if the Government which originally introduced the Bill of 1839 had the carrying of it into execution, they would have acted in the true spirit of the intention of the Legislature; and therefore what had been said by the noble Lord as to the late Government having brought in the measure had little weight with him. He thought the propriety of the Bill when first introduced mainly depended upon who were to be the parties by whom it was to be administered. The subject of the administration of the law in Ireland had been under the consideration of the House in two or three different shapes during the present Session. It had been before the House in the case of the Special Jury Lists on the late State Trials, and although it might be said that that related to the question of the formation of juries, and not to the administration of illegal oaths, yet it was nevertheless a case as to the administration of justice; and when arguing as to the conduct of the Government with respect to the formation of juries, they might very fairly go on and argue as to how the Government would act in the prosecution of the present law. Within this very fortnight, by a return which had been made to the House of a list of the persons competent to serve as jurors in his district, it appeared that not less than 647 Catholics were qualified to serve, while the number of names on the panel was in one year only thirty-seven, and in another year forty-three. The Attorney General for Ireland had said, that he would watch with jealousy how this Bill would be put into practice, but when he considered the statements made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the early part of the Session, during the protracted debate on the state of Ireland, it induced him to be very cautious how he received the assurances of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The statement was this:—

"He would give an instance of the way in which Gentlemen opposite had acted in the administration of justice when they were in power. A Gentleman named Pearce, a chief constable of police, of high character and respectability, was stationed in the town of Carrick-on-Suir, in Tipperary, when it happened that a quarrel arose between the men of a company of infantry who had just inarched into the town, and some others who were already quartered there. One of these parties was joined by the townspeople, and a most formidable riot ensued, which finally compelled Mr. Pearce to order his picket to fire upon the rioters. The consequence was, that a boy named Slattery lost his life; Mr. Pearce was put on his trial for life at the ensuing Clonmell Assizes, where he (Mr. Smith) was present, and where the right hon. Member for Dungarvon prosecuted Mr. Pearce for murder. Now, what was the course pursued by that right hon. Gentleman when the life of a fellow-creature was at stake? He could prove that every thing he asserted was true, and could give the names if necessary. Well, how had the right hon. Member acted? Why, he had set aside on behalf of the Crown thirty-six jurors, and of the first thirty so set aside there were twenty-nine Protestants. That was an incontrovertible fact, and he threw it out for the serious consideration of the right hon. Member whether he could ever have laid down his head in peace if that Gentleman had been convinced by such a Jury? He stated facts correctly; he defied contradiction; and in a case where a prisoner had a right but to twenty challenges, the Crown, under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, had struck off thirty-six persons, of whom twenty-nine were Protestants. And these were the parties who considered themselves justified in telling him that he durst not strike off any person from a Special Jury List; or as, indeed, that extraordinary assertion had been now qualified, 'unless a sufficient cause was shown.'"

Now, what was the fact? The mere letter of the statement was true, but the spirit of it was not true. The object, on that occasion, was to secure an impartial jury; and how was the Jury composed? There were seven Catholics and five Protestants. Then there was the case of the State Trials, with respect to the Jury Lists, which had not been explained to this day. It was extraordinary that all these unlucky accidents should have occurred under the present Government, and which never occured under the last. But it must be borne in mind that the magistrates, especially of Ireland, were not educated to the law, as in other countries, and therefore they, in reality, were not held responsible for their mistakes. If they made blunders, they were generally borne harmless. The Government generally seemed to deal leniently with them in their misdoings. Again, in Ireland, public opinion did not act so strongly upon the conduct of the magistrates as in this country. If in this country any partiality should appear to be shown in the administration of justice; it was immediately made the subject of public animadversion. In the case of Mr. Kenrick, a magistrate who was accused of having acted oppressively against a poor man, an inquiry was instituted, on the Motion of the present Lord Denman, by the House of Commons, and the offending party was punished. Again, in the case of some oppressive act committed by Lord Grantley against a certain cottager named Hunter, not only was legal redress given, but the Times newspaper teemed with remarks in a sense calculated to show that the power of public opinion was sufficient to correct the misconduct of magistrates in this country. But what was the case in Ireland? Often it happened that a prisoner was brought before a tribunal which was opposed to him both in religious and political feeling. His jury was perhaps selected by a partisan Sheriff, and he was tried by a Judge who might already have pronounced an opinion that he was not to be believed on his oath. More than one Judge in Ireland had expressed such an opinion. Therefore it was necessary to be more cautious in regard to the power given to the officer of the Crown in Ireland, inasmuch as there was not the same force of public opinion in that country to correct any hardship in the administration of the law as there existed in this. They (the Irish Members) had been told by their constituents that they had no business to be in that House. He and his hon. Friends (the Members for Ireland) had given the best consideration they could to that opinion, and they felt that they ought to be present and discharge their duty to the extent of their ability. But he was fully sensible that every day's experience showed that their influence was waning, and each succeeding effort on their part deprived them of the ardour with which they would act could they entertain a hope that the House would incline to measures favourable to their country. It was true that the present measure was not of any very great magnitude, but it was one which showed the tendency and views of Her Majesty's Government. Small as would be the concession if the Bill were abandoned, still it would be a matter calculated to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. It did appear to him that, with regard to illegal associations, there never was a time when such a Bill as this was less required. Such was his sincere opinion, and he therefore hoped Her Majesty's Government would not press the measure.

said, that he was sorry that his hon. Friend (Mr. Bellew) should have made reference to what had been said in a former debate respecting circumstances which had occurred fifteen years before. His (Mr. Sheil's) great objection to this Bill was, that it furnished to informers an opportunity to carry on their vocation, which, but for this Bill, they would have no means of doing. Up to the year 1839 this Bill was not found to be necessary; but in that year the late Attorney General for Ireland brought the measure forward, and it was passed into a law. The Tories select the Whigs as a pattern and as an example: if the Whigs have ever proposed an arbitrary measure, they are chosen as a model, while their liberal legislation, is pointed at only as an example to deter from imitation. The Bill introduced by the Whigs in 1839 was only enacted for a period of five years. Those five years had expired. The noble Lord had said that this Bill was either necessary in order to suppress illegal associations, if they existed, or to prevent such associations from again arising if they did not at present exist. This was re-enacting the part of the Physician in the "Malade Imaginaire," who said that if the dose had not operated it should be repeated, that it might be more efficacious; and that if it had operated, it should be repeated in order to keep the patient in good health. But the great objection to the Bill was, that it furnished opportunities for the employment of informers and spies. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Pigot) brought in this Bill, he said it was a measure which was certainly liable to abuse; but the cases which had been adverted to by the hon. Member for Kildare had established beyond dispute that the Bill was not only liable to abuse, but that it had been productive of abuse of a most signal kind. It was actually remarkable that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, should not have adverted to the case which occurred in the county of Armagh in 1842. He (Mr. Sheil) did not think it necessary to enter into details, but it strongly tended to illustrate the abuses to which this law was liable. In that case, after information had been given by a man named Fagan to the police, he was sent back amongst the people to act as if in concert with them; and this was done by the cognizance of men in authority, although not of the Government; he (Mr. Sheil) did not think they would wilfully direct that such a plague spotted villain as Fagan should be sent to seduce the people into the commission of crime, in order that they might become his victims. This informer had been employed by persons in authority to act as a seducer of the people into the commission of crime. This was proved. [The Attorney General for Ireland: It was merely a report.] The right hon. Gentleman said that it was merely a report; but surely the right hon. Gentleman could not doubt that the whole of the case was accurately reported. [Lord Eliot: The man Fagan was dismissed.] He was dismissed. Of course the moment the Government found out what was the conduct of Fagan they dismissed him; but how often it must happen that such atrocities must continue undiscovered? They knew that Ireland was fruitful of informers, and knew, furthermore, that there was a tendency on the part of the police force to resort to such expedients. It might be answered that there was no such tendency; but had they forgotten that in the town of Kilkenny a person high in the constabulary employed a policeman to go to a printer to induce him to print a placard, in order that, he might prefer a charge against him, after he had complied with his request? While they had this knowledge of the tendency of the police authorities was it a wise thing to insist upon such a power as this? What was it they were doing? They were by this Bill making that a crime which ought to be only the evidence of crime. Before the year 1839 the finding a document in the possession of a person accused was not in itself a crime; but it was evidence of a crime, to be taken into consideration by the jury. But by this Bill the moment a person was found with a document of this kind in his possession, that instant he was guilty of a crime, not by the common law, but by this statute. They ought to be very wary of enacting a statute which they knew to be at variance with the principles of the Constitution. They never, in this country, had had recourse to an Act of Parliament which opened the door so widely to nefarious practices as this Bill would do. Let the two countries be put upon perfect equality; let them have the same laws, administered in the same spirit.

said, the hon. Member for Louth had acted unfairly and unjustly in having brought under the consideration of the House a matter which had been discussed a few evenings ago, and also at an early period of the Session. He had not spoken the other evening on the question, because he expected the debate would have been continued by some legal person on the other side of the House, to whom he could have replied. He was prepared to speak on Monday, and would have spoken had any legal Gentleman on the other side addressed the House on the law of the case. He put it to the House whether it was fair or just to refer to the subject this evening. Now, with reference to the Bill under discussion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had unfairly confounded the characters of the spy and the informer, which were widely distinct from each other. And although a Government could not hope to prosecute to conviction a member of a secret society without making use of an informer, he would for himself tell the House he was the last person who would advise the Government to make use of a spy. It was not his the (Attorney General's) wish to justify any improper proceeding on the part of the police or of informers; and he would now distinctly state that if, after a man had given information to the police, he was sent back among the people to entrap persons into the commission of crime, there was not a person in the House more ready than himself to denounce such conduct as most unwarrantable and most unjustifiable, and he would most distinctly say that the law officers of the Crown ought not to use any such information. But the case of an informer was altogether different. The hon. Member for Kildare had adverted to a case in the county of Monaghan, in which he stated that a spy was employed. He (the Attorney General) did not think that any spy was employed in that case. The Judges in Ireland had put a strict construction upon this act. They did not think that if passwords were found in the pockets of individuals, purporting to be passwords of Ribbon Societies, that alone was sufficient evidence of their being such in fact. This being the construction of the law, it was obvious that the Crown could prosecute no person whatsoever without examining an informer who could prove that the passwords found on the individual were the passwords of some illegal society. Lord Plunket, when Attorney General for Ireland, in opening a prosecution against certain parties for a conspiracy, admitted that it was impossible to sustain a prosecution of that description without availing themselves of the evidence of informers. This occurred before the 2nd and 3rd of Victoria; but there had been a prosecution conducted since that Statute by the right hon. and learned Member for Clonmel (Mr. Pigot) who introduced this very Bill into Parliament. The case was that of the Queen against Jones, tried in 1840. On that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out the difficulties of prosecuting under the 50th George III., and the 4th George IV., and stated that it was necessary in order to attain the ends of justice to have the evidence of an accomplice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman here referred to the evidence taken on that occasion with a view to show that in the opinion of the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Pigot) it was absolutely necessary for the Crown to avail themselves of the evidence from informers, whatever might be the character of the persons giving that evidence. He (Mr. T. B. C. Smith) would give the House a specimen of the informers produced by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Pigot) in the case of a man—one of the most depraved individuals, perhaps, ever examined in a court of justice—who was called as a witness in the case of "The Queen v. Jones." This abandoned villain, by name Edward Kennedy, admitted on cross-examination that he had been a Member of the same Secret Society as the prisoner, but had dropped it for two or three years, and then joined it again. He stated he was a man that had a quiet conscience, though he recollected the murder of Gahan, and that he dogged him to the scene of his murder. Though so long in the society he could not tell what were its objects. That in the affair of Rooney's murder, in the County of Kildare, he recollected he was walking on the canal, when it happened about two miles off, perhaps; only taking a walk, he supposed. When asked, "Upon your oath were you not in the plot to murder this man?" he made no answer. "What sort of a weapon had the man who you say you saw, and afterwards killed him?" The witness said that he could not remember, in fact, he was full two miles off when Rooney was "slated." Every part of this cross-examination went thoroughly to establish the inference that he was present, if not the actor in the murder. He had gone thus far into this frightful history of the man, in order to show how little delicacy there was as to the sort of agent, or accomplice, employed by the late Government, when they wanted to obtain, very conscientiously in their own opinion, no doubt, a conviction of a participator in such secret societies, whatever they affected to think now. No person entertained a stronger opinion than he did against the employment of persons properly called spies; the testimony of a man who had endeavoured to entrap others into the commission of crime ought not to be received; but it was quite impossible to arrive at evidence respecting secret societies without the aid of accomplices. He admitted at once that the provisions of the Bill ought to be enforced cautiously, especially as regarded Ribbonmen. With reference to what had fallen from an hon. Member, he must say that the late Attorney General was incapable of being a party to the conviction of an innocent man. With regard to the case referred to, viz., that of Ogle, the policeman, he maintained that Ogle would have convicted under the 5th George III., even if this Act had not been allowed to expire. The Monaghan case had been alluded to; but he was not conversant with the particulars of that case. He was not aware whether the man was convicted [Mr. Sheil: He was.] Now, with regard to this Bill, in 1839 it passed through all its stages without giving rise to any observations or objections from any hon. Member opposite, and therefore he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, and consent to the third Reading of the Bill.

trusted, that in future the Irish Government would be disposed to repudiate information derived from such polluted sources as spies and informers. It generally happened that parties who had been informers were continued as spies, and employed themselves in circulating sedition among the people in order to make their occupation seem necessary. In the case of an informer of the name of Kane, in Sligo, he had sworn that he lived solely by labour, but when hard pressed, on cross-examination, he had admitted that he had at various times received sums of money from the police, and finally that he was entirely supported by that body. The Crown lawyers were so ashamed of their witness that they abandoned the prosecution in disgust; yet two persons had been previously transported upon the evidence of the very same man. Another case had occurred in Roscommon, when the rev. Mr. Day was shot at; and it turned out that the man who fired had been an informer, and probably wished, in this instance, to charge some innocent parties with a view to establish his own value and importance. He was not at all disposed to withhold any unnecessary power from the Government, but he wished to impress upon the House that the life of the poorest man ought to be as dear to his country as that of the richest. If greater facilities were given to assail the life of a poor man than a rich one, he would not entrust them to one party or to the other—neither to Whig nor to Tory. Certainly nothing could be more easy than for pass words to be put designedly into a man's pocket, and for him subsequently to be convicted for having them in his session.

would be very sorry if any misconstruction were to go forth as to the opinions and principles of Government on the subject of the employment of spies and informers. He believed that there was really no difference of opinion upon either side; but in this country, as well as in Ireland, to reject entirely the evidence of informers would sometimes defeat the ends of justice. During his long official connection with Ireland some aggravated cases of murder had occurred, in which the evidence had been chiefly derived from accomplices; he remembered one in particular, the murder of Mr. Baker, where a reward was offered to any party who would give information, but the man who actually fired the shot. An accomplice came forward, who had not indeed fired the shot, but concocted the whole scheme, and who gave evidence against five others, who were convicted. That witness was paid 2,000l. for his treachery, and he actually instituted, or threatened proceedings against the Government for not giving him 4,000l. As to spies, if any Government employed a man in order that he might invite persons to commit crimes by entering into secret societies or otherwise, all he could say was, that the Members of that Government deserved to be exposed to as severe a punishment as the parties whose conviction they had endeavoured to obtain. Nothing could be more dangerous or digraceful, or more calculated to weaken the arm of justice. In the case of informers, he was most ready to allow that the utmost caution ought to be observed; after an informer had thus recommended himself, there had certainly existed, a disposition to continue him in employment. The man, of course, wished to make himself of importance, and to show his value, and it was necessary, therefore, for Government always to be on its guard against false information. These were the principles on which Ministers meant to act, and all subordinate police agents in Ireland ought to know that they never would for a moment countenance any attempts to incite to crime. If the police encouraged such attempts, they would never meet with support from persons in authority. This determination could not be too strongly stated, and upon it his noble Friend (Lord Eliot) would constantly act. Government reprobated most strongly the employment of spies, of persons performing analogous functions. All that was now proposed was, the continuance of this Act for another year, and Ministers admitted the necessity of closely watching the administration of the law. When the possession of certain pass words or insignia was made a crime, it was impossible to be too careful. In the interval between the present time and the expiration of the Bill upon the Table, the subject would undergo most serious consideration, with a view to the adoption of measures of additional caution. While the law remained in force, he assured the House, that nothing which vigilance could accomplish should be omitted. He was always sorry when Government felt called upon to come forward to continue an Act of this kind; and he was sorry, too, when hon. Gentlemen opposite held up others as enemies of the liberties of Ireland, and as taking a course injurious to the maintenance of the connection between the two countries, merely because they followed an example that had been set them. What were the facts? The predecessors of the present Ministers had brought in the present Bill and when they were at any time charged with indifference to the peace of Ireland, the late Government said, "Look at the Act we passed against unlawful oaths." When it was stated, in reply, that it had been introduced in consequence of the Report of a Committee of the House of Lords, they repelled the imputation indignantly, and maintained that it had long been in contemplation — that it was their own spontaneous act, and they, therefore, claimed all the credit due for the measure. Well, they got the credit of it; it remained in force for five years, and now the present Ministers proposed to continue it for one year more. What was the consequence? A number of flaming patriots started up on the other side of the House, and charged Ministers with tyranny and oppression towards Ireland. Under these circumstances it became necessary that the truth should be known; and the truth was, that in 1839 this very Bill was permitted to pass through the House of Commons without a single word from a single soul. He held in his hand the Parliamentary record of the proceeding, and he there found it in the smallest print, and without the name of a Member who took the slightest interest in it; the Unlawful Oaths Bill was brought in, read a first and second time, committed, reported, and read a third time and passed, without any observation; and even the name of the measure was only to be found by consulting the index to the volume. Not one of the hon. Members opposite, now so warm and indignant, took the trouble to make the slightest remonstrance or objection. It was not to be forgotten, also, that when the Bill was originally under discussion in the House of Commons the words "having lawful excuse," which exempted the party accused, were not in the Clause; they were introduced at the instance of a Member of the Conservative administration. Observing the opportunity offered for inserting a precaution against the punishment of an innocent party, that Conservative Member had proposed an Amendment which had never occurred to the framers and promoters of the measure. If there were any mitigation in the Bill, any security against punishing the innocent, it was entirely owing to one who had been a Member of the Conservative Government. This was the second time an occurrence of the kind had happened, for the Irish Arms Bill was allowed to pass without observation when it was brought forward by the late Government. Ministers now recommended the continuance of the Unlawful Oaths Act, and, after credit for its original introduction had been claimed by their predecessors, hon. Members suddenly stood forward as the champions of Ireland, and insisted that it was an intolerable act of injustice to that country, and that the present Ministers only were responsible for it. This course might seem fair as a matter of party warfare, but it was neither fair nor wise to add to the prevailing excitement in Ireland, by imputing intentions which those who now opposed the Bill could hardly be serious in supposing were entertained. Two hon. Members, in somewhat pathetic terms, had adverted to their own situations, and no one could give them more credit than he did for risking the attempt to stem the torrent of Repeal; but when they made their forcible appeal they ought to be reminded of their entire silence when the Bill was brought forward in 1839. He entreated them to remember, that precisely the same objections then existed as at present, and that then they were unhesitating supporters of the measure. He admitted, without reserve, that the great object of statesmen ought to be, to render the criminal law of England and Ireland substantially the same. Whenever stay distinction was made, a valid reason ought to be offered for it. What he complained of was, of an attempt to raise what he considered an unjust clamour against the present Ministers for taking a course which was just as open to objection when it was adopted by the late Ministers, but to which not the slightest objection was made. He would only repeat that in the interval all the provisions of the Bill should receive most serious consideration, and that no vigilance should be spared in order to prevent the occurrence of abuse.

observed that those who now resisted the further progress of the Bill did so upon distinct evidence that its provisions had been abused; and if he thought the caution of Government would prevent it in future, he for one would not divide against the third reading. He trusted that the substance of what the right hon. Baronet had said would be conveyed to the police in positive instructions, for he feared that there were not a few Ogles among the constables. He would support any measure for putting an end to secret societies; and after the excellent speech of the right hon. Baronet, perhaps it would be better not to divide.

explained that it was the most anxious wish of the Ministers so to modify the Bill as to make it as unobjecionable as possible.

adverted to the successful efforts made by the Roman Catholic priesthood to put an end to secret societies, and expressed his belief that on this account the measure was not necessary.

felt much gratified by the speech of the right hon. Baronet, who had given so benevolent an interpretation to the Bill. He trusted that in future both sides would agree that legislation for Ireland should be of a different character to that which had emanated from all parties when in power.

was quite satisfied with what had been said by the right hon. Baronet, and apprehended that his speech would be more effectual than any division. He suggested that the punishment should be changed from transportation to imprisonment, in order that if it turned out that a convicted party were really innocent, he might be discharged.

promised that no pains should be spared to sift every case, and urged that the punishment of transportation would afford an additional motive for caution.

said, the Clause gave a most extraordinary power to the justices in Quarter Sessions—namely, to decide actions usually tried at Nisi Prius before the Judges and Jury, and involving it might be the most difficult questions of law, and damages to the amount of several hundreds of pounds, without any of the facilities afforded by the pleading used in Courts of Law. He looked on this as the first attempt to transfer to justices at Quarter Sessions the proper business of the Judges of Assize, and he hoped the House would not consent thus to supersede the best rights and privileges of the subject. It was monstrous to enable these Justices in Quarter Sessions, all of whom were ex officio guardians, to decide questions in which they must, as such, have some concern.

observed there was to be not only no jury, but no appeal as the Clause stood. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would reconsider the matter.

admitted the enactment was an unusual one, and because unusual therefore in some degree objectionable; but the fact was, that at the present moment the creditors of boards and guardians were exposed to undue and unjust inconvenience in recovering money due to them. The first question was, whom were they to sue, the guardians not being personally responsible. Then, if they obtained judgment, there was no property except the workhouse on which they could levy. There was no mode of attaching the persons of the guardians. It was to meet these inconveniences that this Clause had been framed. If ever local courts, with summary powers for the recovery of debts should be established, this would be a very proper class of cases to be put under their jurisdiction. On the whole, he was not prepared to press the Clause at present.

said, on a previous Clause he had ventured to submit to the right hon. Baronet the great inconvenience to which persons who were desirous of seeing their relatives in workhouses were subjected, in order to get admittance, and he had mentioned the case of a woman who was anxious to see a female relative in a workhouse who was near her confinement, but, upon application to the governor of the workhouse, had been refused. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would consent to put an end to these complaints. He had also mentioned to the right hon. Baronet the objection that was felt by paupers generally to be employed in grinding bones in workhouses. The right hon. Baronet had stated his disapproval of such practices in union workhouses. He (Captain Pechell) had since understood that several hon. Members were not aware of this statement of the right hon. Baronet's, and he trusted, therefore, that he would now state what were his sentiments on the subject.

, said, that with respect to the admission of the relatives of persons in workhouses, he could only say, that with every desire to superintend, so far as by law he was authorized, the working of the Poor Law, it was impossible for him, consistently with his other duties, to attend to each of these minute regulations. The power of arranging these matters was vested in the guardians, subject to the control of the Commissioners; and he was persuaded that in every well regulated workhouse such admissions would be granted. With respect to bone mills in workhouses, as he did last year, so he did now, and in future should, express his dislike of this method of employing paupers, which he did not think was suitable to a workhouse.

said, there was a source of great injustice in many counties, which he was desirous of removing. At present, wherever there were parishes, consisting of many townships, it was in the power of any one township to separate from the rest, and provide within itself for the maintenance of its own poor. Under the present Bill it was proposed that this power should be taken away; but within a few years several townships had thus separated from the rest of the parishes to which they belonged, in order to relieve themselves from the payment of a heavier rate than they would have to pay if they provided for their own poor. By a recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench the object these townships had in view of relieving themselves from the payment of rates had been carried still further, and it was now the law that whenever a township has separated, no pauper formerly settled in that township can be removed back to that township, unless he had again gained a settlement since the separation. The case of "The Queen v. the Inhabitants of Clifton," decided that point, but upon considerations entirely technical, and not meeting the justice of the case. It was very hard on the rest of the parish, and especially that part of it in which the union workhouse was situate, to say that the paupers in the workhouse belonging to a township which had separated for its own benefit should be irremovable from that part of the parish in which the workhouse stood; but, if it were enacted, as he proposed, that such townships should still be liable to maintain their own poor, justice would be done. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved the following Clause to follow Clause 21:

"Provided always, and be it further enacted, that wherever overseers shall have for the first time been separately appointed for any township or village, since the 14th day of August, A.D. 1834, all persons who, in case such township or village had been a township or village maintaining its own poor from time immemorial, would have been legally settled in such township for village, shall be considered to have their place of settlement in such township or village notwithstanding, at the occurrence of the circumstances conferring any such right of settlement, such township or village was united with a larger district for the maintenance of the poor; and every such person shall or may be removed to such township or village, as to his or her place of last legal settlement."

said, that the point which the hon. Member stated was strictly technical, and one which presented considerable difficulties. He could not off-hand undertake to judge of the precise effect of the words which the hon. Member proposed to add to the Bill; he, therefore, was not quite clear that they would remedy the evil of which the hon. Member complained. But this, at all events, he must be allowed to say, that the cases for which it was now proposed to make provision were by no means of frequent occurrence, and he feared that the proposed change would give rise to more litigation than its author anticipated; he thought, it would, therefore, be much better to leave the Bill as it now stood. When parties lost their settlement and were in a destitute condition they must be relieved as casual poor; it was clear, then, that the Bill now before the House would not damnify them. The parishes must provide for such poor. The evil complained of was not wide spread, and he hoped that for the sake of providing a remedy the House would not agree to such a piece of complex legislation.

replied, that in the part of the country with which he was connected there had occurred, within his own knowledge, as many as thirty or forty cases such as he had described. The Clause which he proposed was in conformty with the existing state of the law, and he conceived that there would be no great difficulty in remedying the evil without increasing or complicating legislation.

observed, that it was often very difficult to ascertain an absolute right of settlement, but it would be doubly difficult to do so with regard to a hypothetical right, such as it was now proposed to create. If the hon. and learned Member would confer with him in private, they might come to an arrangement probably satisfactory to both, and if it proved otherwise there would be an opportunity for the hon. and learned Member to propose the addition of his Clause on bringing up the Report.

said, that in the Act for Abolishing Slavery in the West Indies, it was provided that apprentice labourers should not be separated from their wives, their parents, their children, or from any persons reputed to stand towards them in that relation. That Act declared, that notwithstanding transfers to be made of negro apprentices, they were not to be separated from their wives or even from their concubines. Then he would ask, in this Christian civilized country, were Englishmen to be separated from their lawful wives. He did not bring forward, with any view to popularity, a plan which he believed to be impracticable; on the contrary, it was not only practicable, but, in its tendency, highly moral. The Parliament of this country professed to found their legislation upon Christian principles, and to take the Bible for their rule: with what consistency, then, could they refuse to agree to the Motion which he proposed, and which was,—

"And be it further Enacted, that the Commissioners shall not be empowered to enforce indiscriminate separation between man and wife, and that in no instance shall they sanction or allow separation when the application for relief shall be substantiated as arising from positive inability to obtain work, or from physical infirmity, and not from idleness, vice, or crime."

assured the hon. Gentleman that he had no disposition to treat lightly the proposition which the hon. Member had just made, but it did appear to him that the phraseology adopted by the hon. Gentleman was by no means calculated to effect the object which he had in view, nor did he think that a Clause so framed ought to be added to the Bill, The proposed Clause went to prohibit indiscriminate separation. There might be indiscriminate connexion, but he objected to the introduction of such a phrase into the Bill as indiscriminate separation. The Clause, however, was altogether unnecessary. The practice of separating aged men from their wives was not pursued, and infirm or aged females were allowed to occupy the same sleeping apartments as their husbands wherever the workhouse admitted of that accommodation. Orders were given (wherever special reasons were assigned) to depart from the rule laid down in Article 9 in all cases of married paupers. He begged further to add, that what the hon. Member sought to accomplish had already been effected in a much more unexceptionable manner than by the mode that he proposed. How, for example, would it be possible for the Commissioners sitting in Somerset House to determine whether a couple of paupers in Northumberland were idle and vicious, or the contrary? A discretionary power in such cases must be vested in parties on the spot; for they alone could safely determine such a question.

would willingly give up to the matter of phraseology, provided the right hon. Baronet gave up the principle. That which he sought to effect was, to take from the Commissioners the power of separating man and wife. He wished to transfer that power to the guardians, and let them exercise the power of separation in all cases of paupers who had shown themselves to be reckless and dissolute members of society. It was well known that many paupers had been separated from their wives through no fault of their own. He should, therefore, take the sense of the House upon the Clause which he had proposed.

hoped that the hon. Member would not take the sense of the House on the question, and, if he should, it was to be hoped that the House would not agree to the proposition for this amongst other reasons—that it was by no means desirable to impose on the guardians the duty of deciding upon the characters of those who applied at the workhouses for relief, and that undoubtedly would be the effect of such an addition to the Bill as the hon. Gentleman now proposed. Why should guardians possess the power of punishing any class of paupers?

could not avoid noticing the altered tone which now prevailed with respect to this Clause, as compared with the reception which it met with on a former occasion. He was sorry to give the House the trouble of dividing; but a sense of duty rendered it impossible for him to do otherwise.

proposed the following Clause:—

"And be it Enacted, that, in the case of any person being a widow, who shall have a legitimate child or children dependent upon her for support, and an illegitimate child born after the commencement of her widowhood, it shall be lawful for the Guardians of the union or parish to which such widow or widows may have become chargeable, to grant relief if they shall see fit to such widow or widows, although not residing within the union or parish in which she or they may have a legal settlement."

This Clause would lead to the comfort of widows and to the benefit of the orphans left. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to relax the restriction which now prevailed.

gave credit to his hon. Friend for humane feelings, and if he could consent to the hon. Member's proposal his own feelings would induce him to do so. But this matter must be decided not on feeling, but on principle. From the earliest period of the Poor Laws permanent relief to non-residents had never been granted. It was not only liable to abuse, but from the very nature of the circumstances, metropolitan parishes, which were centres of the population of all parishes in England, would be called upon to support so many persons so situated, that such a principle would lead to great hardship upon such parishes. He must say that he thought the instructions already issued by the Poor Law Commissioners upon the subject of out-door relief were sufficient. There were no less than seven exceptions from the rule of not granting out-door relief, and he certainly thought that those exceptions were sufficiently comprehensive in their nature to include every case. If the system were carried to such a length as the proposition of the hon. Member would imply, he was afraid that a great principle of the Poor Law Amendment Act would be broken down, and that in such a manner as to entail upon the rate-payers boundless expense, whilst it would in no way tend to relieve the poor. Under these circumstances, he was sorry that he must resist the Motion of his hon. Friend.

had met constantly with cases of the most grievous hardship, occasioned by compelling widows to go back for subsistence to the parishes to which they originally belonged, when they probably had numerous friends, and were able to do something for their own support, in some other district, perhaps many miles away. He was quite sure that the expense to the parishes was much increased by the present system, and as he fully believed that the proposal of his hon. Friend would tend to lessen that expense, he trusted that his hon. Friend would press his Motion upon the Committee.

thought it was not necessary to take the sense of the Committee upon the Motion, as he conceived that the case was already comprehended in some of the seven exceptions to which the right hon. Baronet had referred.

had known very many cases of severe hardships imposed upon widows under the present system, which he thought the proposed Clause was calculated to remedy, and he should, therefore, give it his support.

supported the Clause. It was by no means one rendering anything compulsory upon the widow, but it merely legalized a something—giving a power to the guardians to act in a benevolent manner towards a very helpless and dependent class of the community.

opposed the Clause. He thought it was based upon a false view of the interests both of the rate-payers and of the class whom it sought to protect.

said, it appeared to him, if the proposed Clause were agreed to, that it would be breaking down that great principle of residence which was the only check against abuse in the case of out-door relief, whilst it would tend to entourage that vicious system of the payment of wages out of the rate.

said, the question could not be one of departure from principle, since there were, as the right hon. Baronet had said, already seven cases in which the principle was departed from. The question was, whether they should add another to the number of exceptions; and he, for one, was prepared to say that he did not think such a new departure would open another flood-gate to the return of old abuses. He could not help wishing that the proposed exception should not be added to the others, for he certainly did not think that the case was comprised in those already existing. Stringency in this matter would have a great tendency to make paupers, not only of the widow, but of the children, they had no means of preserving themselves against the calamity which reduced them to poverty. To take them away from that home was like transplanting a tree to some ungenial soil. The industry of the widow and family would be spoiled.

moved the following Clause:

"That power be given to the Poor Law Commissioners, or to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, upon sufficient cause being shown, to detach any parish or parishes, township or townships, from one union, and attach them to another, or to create a new union by the severing of parishes or townships, from one or more unions, and uniting and forming them into an entire union."

said, he had stated in the present and former Sessions that unions, at first formed, especially in the north of England, were too large. He, however objected altogether to the giving of a discretionary power to the Secretary of State. He thought it would be much better to vest that power in the Commissioners, and if the Committee agreed with him he would move a Clause which he held in his hand, instead of that just proposed, but carrying the same object into effect in what he considered the safest manner. The Clause provided that the Commissioners may from time to time, as they may deem fit, declare any union not united for the purpose of settlement or rating to be dissolved, or any parish or parishes to be separate therefrom or added thereto; and further provided, that no such dissolution, alteration, or addition shall take place or be made without the concurrence therein of not less than two-thirds of the guardians.

hoped that the Poor Law Commissioners would be enabled by this Clause to revoke some of their former decisions made against most urgent representations respecting the formation of unions, some of the parishes of which were seventeen miles from the workhouse.

explained, that the effect of this Clause would be to remove the restraint that now existed on the discretion of the Commissioners with reference to the dissolution of unions, which required, as a sine qua non, the consent of two-thirds of the guardians. The relative rights and interests of parishes on the dissolution of a union would remain subject to the existing law, as declared in the 32nd Clause.

wished this Clause had been printed, and in the hands of Members for some time before they were called on to adopt it. Really this was a matter of very great importance. It was not only in the north of England and in the midland counties that the great extent of the unions was complained of. The evil had entirely originated with the Poor Law Commissioners, who, in spite of every warning and every remonstrance, and without any local knowledge, insisted on forming these large unions. The subject should be looked at not only with reference to the wish of the guardians and the rate-payers, it bore most materially on the poor, especially when standing in need of medical relief. He knew of several unions in which they would be compelled in such cases to go a distance of fifteen miles. That was a great hardship. He was not at all content that the remedy should be left to those Poor Law Commissioners who had themselves caused the mischief. He hoped his right hon. Friend would consider whether he could not adopt some more efficient remedy than that he now proposed. Under the present Clause, he feared that the remonstrance of one parish would meet with no attention whatever, and in that case there was no remedy at all. The remedy to be available should meet the case of those parishes which might wish to be detached, though contrary to the wish of the majority of the guardians.

had great objection to give the Secretary of State a summary power apart from the Commissioners in this matter. His great apprehension in proposing this Clause was, lest it should excite throughout the country a desire to alter the boundaries of unions suddenly and to a great extent. There were imperfections, which arose from the practical workings of the measure at its first commencement; and these should gradually, cautiously, and safely be removed on the responsibility of the Commissioners, with reference to local circumstances and past experience.

thought this discretion might safely be left to the Poor Law Commissioners. He believed the unions were made at first much too large, chiefly owing to the apprehensions of the rate-payers that great expences would be incurred in building union-houses; but the feeling in the country was now very different, and therefore the same reason could not apply.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had any objection to the evidence given before the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry being printed with their Report? The Report of the Commissioners had been ordered yesterday to be printed without the evidence, although he had given notice of his intention to move as an Amendment to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the evidence be printed. He was sure if that evidence was not printed, the public would feel great dissatisfaction and disappointment, and justly so. He would, however, take good care to read in the House the evidence that was attached to that Report, so that it might be published and the public be made acquainted with it.

had no wish to conceal the evidence; his only objection to it being printed was, that it cast imputations on different individuals.

With regard to some of the evidence being offensive to certain individuals, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had told him, that it contained observations reflecting on a Mr. Rose, but he had Mr. Rose's authority for stating, that he wished that part of the evidence to be printed. He understood that in another part of the evidence a merchant in the city was called "an old screw," and he supposed that was a reason for inducing the right hon. Gentleman to suppress the evidence.