I rise to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of withdrawing the Bill and going into Committee to pass a resolution preliminary to the introduction of another measure. Sir, no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to how Her Majesty's Government proposes to deal with the difficulty I pointed out on a previous occasion. It has been attempted to show that the British Possessions Act of 1845 would override any act of the colonial legislature. Sir, I have given further study to the matter, and, whether I consider the Act itself (9 & 10 Victoria, chapter 94) or the speeches of those who introduced it, I cannot conceive but that it was intended by the Act of 1846 to empower the colonial legislature to repeal any Acts founded on the former British Possessions Act, the 8th and 9th Victoria, chapter 93. Sir, this question is important; and I beg the attention of the House, for it would be too absurd for the House to go into Committee on the details of a Bill which it would be impossible practically to work. It is said on the other side, I am aware, that the 9th and 10th Victoria did not confer on the colonial legislatures any power to re- move prohibitory duties, nor to impose duties; but that it only gave power to reduce existing duties. But, I will show, first, from the speeches of those who introduced the Bill, as well as of those who opposed it, that this was not the construction they contended should be put upon it; and, next, I will show, from the acts of the colonial legislatures, that, in fact, a different construction has been put upon it by them; and that the Act has been construed in the spirit in which it was introduced; and that acts and ordinances have been passed by the colonies and allowed by the Queen in Council which have been founded upon this their construction of it. And when I have shown that this has occurred as to Jamaica, Trinidad, St. Vincent, and St. Lucie, I shall be entitled to contend that to carry the present Bill any further would be to produce the greatest embarrassment. Sir, on the 13th of August, 1846, Mr. Goulburn said (on the question that the Bill be committed)—

"We are called upon to give up the principle that the trade of the colonies shall be regulated by the Legislature of the mother country."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied—

"That the colonies ought not to be exposed to protection averse to them, when protection to their advantage was abolished."

And Lord John Russell said that—

"Having established free trade as the general principle, we ought to treat our colonies as we would wish to be treated ourselves, and not keep up protective duties which they themselves thought injurious."

Then if the Act carried out the intentions of the Government who proposed it, on what principle could it be professed that it was not designed to empower the British colonists to remove restrictions and prohibitions framed for the protection of the British refiner? Again, upon the third reading, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said that the Bill would not empower the colonial legislatures to impose unfair duties upon British produce. And Lord J. Russell said that the colonists might fairly urge that Parliament, having deprived them of the advantages of protection, should not give them its disadvantages. Yet, it is alleged that the Imperial Parliament did not confer upon the colonists power to repeal prohibitions protective of the British refiner. So far as the Act of 1846 was concerned, it was not affected by the import of foreign refined sugar into the colonies, for the case was provided for in the Act itself. But again, in the House of Lords, Lord Ellenborough said, the Legislature had formed the opinion that it was but fair that the colonists should import our goods and those of other nations upon equal terms. How can it then be pretended that the Act was intended to prevent the colonists from repealing prohibitions? And yet that is the only ground on which it can be pretended that the British Possessions Act overrides the acts of the colonial legislatures. When the merchants, in great dismay, went to the Customs, urging that higher duties than those imposed by the present measure must be levied on sugar coming from the colonies in question, the answer was, "Oh, no! the Act 8th and 9th Victoria, chap. 93, sets all that to rights; we care not a farthing for the acts of the colonial legislatures." But let us look to the section (63) of the Act itself, which enacted that—

"All laws at this time or hereafter to be enacted in the colonies, Ac, in anywise repugnant to this or to any other Act of Parliament (as far as the same shall relate to the said colonies) shall be null and void,"

If no other Act had been passed he should have considered that the Acts of the Imperial Parliament would have overridden any acts of the colonial legislatures. But, next year, the Sugar Duties Act of 1846 was accompanied by another British Possessions Act, in which, after reciting the clause in the previous Act, it was enacted that—

"Whereas it was expedient to enable the legislatures of the colonies to reduce or repeal all duties of customs, so far as the same may be enforced in the said colonies respectively, such legislatures may make any act or ordinance repealing or reducing the said duties so imposed as aforesaid by the said Act, upon any articles imported into the said colonies, provided the Queen in Council shall assent to such act or ordinance, and also provided the same shall be laid upon the table of both Houses of Parliament by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State within thirty days of the same receiving such assent, or of the next meeting of Parliament."

Now, I will concede to the Government, that the ordinances which have been passed by the four colonies I have alluded to are probably invalid by reason of an informality. But what informality? The omission on the part of the Government themselves to lay them before Parliament, though the Royal assent was given in August last, and Parliament met in November, and sat till the end of December. And surely to rely on such an objection would not be very credit- able to the Government. The Assembly of Jamaica, however, acting in the spirit of the Act, have admitted foreign sugar (refined) at a duty of 20 per cent; but the island of Trinidad has admitted foreign sugar, refined or unrefined, at a duty of 5s. per cwt., and St. Lucia at 16s. per cwt. Therefore, in respect to these colonies, no sugar can, consistently with the true effect of the resolutions to which the House was agreed, be allowed to be imported at 13s. per cwt. I call the attention of the House to these facts. The resolutions passed and were in force on the 10th of July. Up to the 15th of July the old warrants were held good. The Customs had not discovered, or the Government had not discovered, their own mistake. The old warrant ran in form thus:—

"So many hundredweights of brown or muscovado sugar, not equal in quality to white clayed, the growth or produce of, and imported from, a. British possession in America."

That was the warrant under the old Act. But there was a new heading to the resolutions; and on the 15th of July, and not till then, the Customs said that the old warrant would not do, and that they must have a new form:—

"So many hundredweights of brown or muscovado sugar, not equal in quality to white clayed, the growth and produce of, and imported from, a British possession into which the importation of foreign sugar is prohibited."

Now, is it or is it not true, that duty has been refused to be accepted under the old warrants? Several merchants have been turned back and told that the duty could not be accepted unless they produced a warrant certifying that it was the produce of British possessions into which foreign sugar was prohibited. Many merchants said—

"We cannot bring such a warrant as that. As regards Jamaica it is an untruth; and we do not wish to be made responsible for an untruth of this kind."

I hold in my hand a copy of the amount under which sugar pays duty, and it was after this that the Customs hit upon the British Possessions Act of 1845 as remedying the error, by prohibiting (as is alleged) de jure that admission of foreign sugar, which is de facto admitted into the colonies. But surely it would ill become the dignity of the Imperial Parliament to require merchants to make declarations inconsistent with the truth. And, therefore, it would be absurd to proceed with the present Bill, which requires such a declaration, and could not therefore be carried into effect. Then, Sir, comes the question as to refined sugar. Her Majesty's Government, in introducing a measure which they hold out as one of relief to British interests, had altogether suppressed one schedule, the effect of which was to keep out all the refined sugar of the Continent, and then had admitted foreign refined sugar at exactly the same duty at which refined sugar from Brazil, or from Cuba, or from porto Rico, might have been admitted under the old Act. It was not easy to ascertain the amount of the bounty granted by the Dutch Government upon the export; but it is variously estimated at 3s. and 5s. per cwt.; and the effect of the Ministerial measure had been, that the price of Dutch refined sugar had been raised by 2s. or 3s. per cwt., and the price of British refined had been reduced by the same amount; so much so, that it was no sooner understood for the first time on Monday last that Dutch refined sugar had come in on these terms, than a complete stagnation occurred in the sugar trade. But as far as the sugar refiners themselves are concerned, what is their position? On the 18th five vessels arrived in the port of London from Cuba, laden with sugar, which could not be entered to be refined for home consumption. But that sugar could be sent to Amsterdam, to be there refined, and brought back again to the English market, with the Dutch bounty upon it. What chance had the English refiner to compete with that? Now, Sir, on this point I am informed that an amendment—not imposing a higher duty—might (though it is a matter of nicety) take place in the Bill. But it would be a more convenient course to withdraw it altogether, and begin again. Nobody can believe that the Government knew what they were about when they inflicted this heavy blow on the refiners; or if they did, then it makes the matter infinitely worse that this should have been done in a measure of professed protection, and without any avowal of an intention to alter the duty to their disadvantage. I trusted that on this ground alone, and in order that there may be a fair opportunity for discussing this point, which was not understood before, when the House was in Committee on the resolutions—and which point has been, as it were, concealed by the Government—that Her Majesty's Ministers will withdraw this Bill, and move for a Committee of the whole House again. But, Sir, if these changes be not sufficient, I am pre- pared to open a new budget of blunders, and expose no less than twenty-three arithmetical errors in the schedules of the Act. And when I have exposed these errors, the House will agree with me that we ought not to be asked to proceed further with this Bill. I must premise that all the duties are based on that which is levied upon "muscovado" as a basis, which, in railway language, is called the datum line; and it is assumed that the duties are paid according to value, the value of molasses being taken at 37½ per cent of that of muscovado; white clay as one-sixth; single refined, one-fifth; double refined, one half. I have no fault to find with the first schedule of duties; but when I come to the second schedule (as to British possessions to which the importation of foreign sugar is not excluded) I find that the first figure of the scale, being candy or double refined sugar, stood at 1l. 3s. 4d., whereas it ought to be 1l. 3s. 7d. There is no other mistake in that rank, and indeed there are no mistakes in the first four columns, because they are the old duties, and the figures have, I presume, been drawn up by the old hands. The errors are—

	£	s.	d.		£	s.	d.
Double refined sugar	1	3	4	for	1	3	7
Single refined sugar (1852)	0	15	0	for	0	15	4¼
Ditto (1853)	0	14	2	for	0	14	8
White clayed sugar (1852)	0	13	3	for	0	13	5
Ditto (1853)	0	12	5	for	0	12	10

The next table (as to brown clay) is, I believe, the hon. Member for Westbury's—and I really cannot discover what is matter of mistake—for I cannot find out on what principle it is framed; it appears so irregular. But as to molasses, the errors go through the whole table—

	s.	d.		s.	d.
1848–9	5	7	instead of	5	4
1849–50	5	3	instead of	5	5
1850–51	4	9	instead of	4	5
1851–52	4	4	instead of	4	6
1852–53	4	1	instead of	4	4
1853–54	3	11	instead of	4	1½

Then, as to the third schedule, the blunders (as in the former one) begin with the new duties—

	s.	d.		s.	d.
Double refined (1852)	19	0	for	19	6
Ditto (1853)	17	0	for	18	0
Single refined (1852)	10	8	for	17	4
Ditto (1853)	15	2	for	16	0
White clayed (1852)	14	9	for	15	2
Ditto (1853)	13	2	for	14	0

The "brown clay" table is hero again the hon. Member for Westbury's, and really it is so full of irregularities that it is impos- sible to understand it; and if, as Pope and Burke say, irregularities are the incidents of greatness," the bon. Member must be great indeed. Coming to the last table, where, as the duty reaches the lowest point, one would have thought there could have been no mistake, the parties who constructed it have contrived (so so speak) to put the right boot on the wrong leg, for the duties which ought to be for 1849–50 have been given to 1848–49; those which ought to be for 1850–51 have been given to 1849–50; and those for 1851–52, have been given to 1850–51; and so on through the scale. Then, in the first column of the third schedule the figures 6s. 4d. ought to have been 6s. 11d.; in the second, 5s. 11d. ought to have been 6s. 4d.; in the third, 5s. 4d. ought to have been 5s. 9d.; in the fourth, 4s. 11d. ought to have been 5s. 3d.; in the fifth, 4s. 6d. ought to have been 4s. 11d.; and in the sixth column, 4s. 1d. ought to have been 4s. 6d. That is the sum total of the whole. Am I then asking too much in calling upon the House to throw out altogether these columns of blundering legislation, or else to postpone the Bill?

said, it would be very difficult for him then to go through all the points to which the noble Lord had called attention; on the contrary, it appeared to him that the most convenient course would be to go into Committee on the Bill, and then discuss each objection separately. As to the manner in which the debate on this subject had been carried on, he would only say, that every sort of subject had been mixed up into one confused mass; and clearly the better way of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion would be to take each question separately, if it would suit the convenience of the House to go then into Committee on the Bill.

agreed very much with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman; but he hoped he might be excused if, before they went into Committee, he sought for some information. If the propositions which the right hon. Gentleman had to make in Committee would lead to an increase of the duties on sugar, it was evident that such propositions could not be entertained in a Committee on the Bill, but must previously be proposed in a Committee of the whole House. Other hon. Members might have different duties to propose in a Committee of the whole House, and therefore he thought it expe- dient that the plans of the Government should be laid before the House before the Speaker left the chair.

said, the only alterations which he should have to propose would consist of reductions in the colonial scale. As to the Bill for refining sugar in bond, it formed no part of the present measure.

observed, that the statement of his noble Friend near him was quite clear. The point which he had made was this, that in the present measure there was such an agglomeration of errors, that it was not expedient to go into Committee on such a measure. In his opinion the House ought to show its sense of the impropriety of bringing before them a piece of such crude and immature legislation. The House should show that it had no confidence in a measure so saturated with error as the Bill before them. If his noble Friend resolved to take the sense of the House on going into Committee, he should certainly vote with him.

said, there was some doubt as to what the rates of duty would be on single and double refined sugar, as contrasted with the scale of 1846. By the schedule of the Bill of 1846, refined sugar was to pay a duty of 28s. 6d., when raw sugar paid 20s.; and when the (duty on refined sugar descended to 24s. 8d., then the duty on raw sugar was to sink to 18s. 6d.; but it now appeared that, practically, the duty was to be 1l, on raw sugar, while 24s. 8d. was that which was payable on refined sugar. The question now was, whether, when they went into Committee on the Bill, they could raise any duty whatever? He thought they should have some explanation before they went into Committee.

replied, that the question put by the hon. Gentleman was a matter of pure detail, and he should answer it after the House had gone into Committee.

begged to remind the House that a colonial act was overruled by any Act of the Imperial Legislature. In reply to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, he contended that the scale of duties was correct. With respect to the tariff, they could not allow one part of it, and disallow another.

said, he hoped the Committee would believe that he wished, as much as possible, to avoid any ambiguity in framing the measure now before them; and he thought that the most satisfactory mode of treating the matter under consideration would be, to deal one by one with the charges which the noble Lord had brought forward. Either the Bill was open to the charge of inaccuracy, or it was not; and, for the purpose of ascertaining how far such a charge rested upon a solid foundation, he should propose to confine himself, in the first instance, to the heading of the first schedule—that which related to the admission of sugar. But before he adverted to that subject, he wished to say that a mistake had occurred with respect to what he had said on Wednesday last. The supposed demand with respect to higher duties had not been made; and there had been no such representation on the part of the Customs as was stated, though it became necessary to alter the warrant, in order to make it in conformity with the Resolution of the House of Commons. With respect to the heading of the schedule, very soon after the Act of 1846 had been passed, Mr. Lefevre suggested that all cases were not in fact included under the schedule, and, therefore, that, if ever an alteration should be made in the terms of the schedule, it would he advisable that the alteration should be so made as to include all places. Thus, for example, under the old Act, if sugars were imported from the coast of Africa, it would not be possible to levy upon such sugars the amount of duty payable upon colonial sugars. The general wording of the Bill explained what each description of sugar was to pay, and this was done in every case under its proper head in each column; but it was an express condition that the introduction of foreign sugars into our colonies should be prohibited, in order to entitle their sugar to come in at the lowest rate of duty. The necessity for this was well explained in a letter written in the year 1839 by Mr. Deacon Hume, to which letter he should hereafter have occasion to refer; but at present he should confine himself to stating that Mr. Hume showed in his letter that they could not prevent any of our colonies being made the medium of importing foreign sugars, otherwise than by expressly prohibiting any importation of foreign sugars into the British colonies. When a power of importing sugars from the East Indies was granted, a distinction was made between those parts of India into which the importation of foreign sugar was prohibited, and those in which no such prohibition existed. He begged to remind hon. Members that this state of the law existed even before the last British Possessions Act had been passed. So much was this the case, that some parties formerly contended that even foreign sugar refined in this country could not be sent to any of our colonies, for though by undergoing the process of refinement here it might in some degree he considered a British production, yet in the state of the law as it then existed, such sugar could not be imported into British colonies. He conceived that no better proof than this could be adduced of the stringency of the prohibition to which he had thus referred. Mr. Deacon Hume, in the letter which he bad above referred to, set right the misapprehension as to refined sugar, which was to be considered as a British manufacture. In order, however, to prevent mistakes, the British Possessions Act, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in 1845, made a distinct ex-emption from that prohibition in favour of sugar refined here in bond. The noble Lord had referred to that as an old Act, a musty old Act, which he said had been recently discovered. [Lord G. BENTINCK: I did not use the word "musty"—that word is yours; I spoke of it as the Act of 1845, the 8th and 9th of Victoria.] An Act passed three years ago could not be considered an old Act. The sixth clause of that Act of 1845 distinctly prohibited the importation of sugar, being foreign produce or manufacture, into any of the British possessions on the continent of America, or into the West Indies; and the clause went on to say that if such sugar were imported it should be forfeited, together with the vessel when of a certain tonnage, and that any colonial law against this prohibition should be null and void. But the noble Lord said that the colonial legislatures might repeal that in consequence of the Act of 1846; and the noble Lord had favoured the House with extracts from speeches which had really nothing to do with the question. What was the reason of the introduction of that Act? When they diminished the protection in favour of the colonies by admitting foreign sugar into this country, they said that if protection in favour of the colonies was taken away, it ought not to be maintained against them, and therefore power was given to the colonies of repealing or reducing all the differential duties imposed by the Imperial Legislature for the benefit of the manufacturers of this country on articles of foreign manufacture imported into the colonies. The whole power of the Act applied to the repeal or reduction of such duties; and there was not a syllable in the Act applying to the case of prohibitions. The colonies might reduce or repeal any of the imperial duties imposed by the British Possessions Act of 1845; but they were not at liberty to repeal any of those prohibitions imposed for a purpose very different from that for which the duties were imposed. What was the title of the British Possessions Act of 1846? It was an Act to enable the legislatures of certain British possessions to reduce or repeal certain Customs duties set forth in a certain schedule. That was the whole of the Act, and there was not one single syllable in it about repealing prohibitions. Indeed, it would have been manifestly absurd to have enabled our colonies to repeal prohibitions which were passed for the sake of preventing fraud on this country; though it was reasonable, under the circumstances, to give the power of repealing or reducing those duties which were imposed by the Imperial Legislature for the purpose of protecting the produce and manufactures of this country. The noble Lord went on to say, that, nevertheless, there were four colonial tariff's in existence imposing duties on foreign sugar. No doubt there were, and no doubt they had the sanction of the Crown; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had explained how it happened that it was not expedient to disallow those items in the tariffs. But the mere imposition of a duty on an article the importation of which was prohibited, did not allow of the importation of that article; and any colonial act contrary to the British Possessions Act would be null and void. The noble Lord talked of the Customs Department being ignorant of all this. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had in his hand a letter from the Collector and Comptroller of the Customs in Jamaica, dated the 8th of March, 1848, referring to a case in point. It happened that by some inadvertence one cask of foreign refined sugar had been admitted into Jamaica; and as soon as the Customs in this country discovered the circumstance, a letter was written to the Collector at Jamaica drawing his attention to the circumstance; but he had found out the error himself before the receipt of the note from England, and he stated—

"In reply to the letter on the subject of admitting one cask of foreign refined sugar into Jamaica, we ourselves discovered the error, but it was too late to remedy it; but we shall take care that it does not occur again."

Therefore, so far from the Customs Department being ignorant on the subject, both the Custom-house here and the Custom-house in Jamaica understood the Law that the admission of foreign sugar was prohibited in Jamaica. The noble Lord might perceive that there might be reasons why a duty should exist in a colonial tariff on sugar, even when the article was not admissible there. Though not probable, it was not impossible, that the British Legislature might repeal the British Possessions Act; and in such case, if foreign sugar were not in the colonial tariff, it would then be introduced into the colony duty free. Consequently the imposition of a duty in the tariff was a provision for a possible case; and his belief was that there was an act of the local legislature in existence in Jamaica by which a duty was imposed on foreign refined sugar, and probably under the sanction of the Crown. [Cheers from the Opposition.] The noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that statement, us if the mere imposition of a duty in the tariff rendered the article admissible. Why, take the case of any article on which a duty might be levied in this country, and which was admissible if it came in a British ship, or in a ship belonging to the most favoured nation. That duty was levied on it when it was admissible; but if it came in a ship not belonging to either of those classes, then the navigation laws interposed and rendered its admission impossible. So it was in this case. Supposing there was a duty in some of the colonial tariffs on foreign sugar, still those tariffs could not, and did not, override the British Possessions Act so as to render the sugar admissible in spite of that Act; but if that Act were repealed so as to make foreign sugar admissible into those colonies where it war now prohibited, then the duty would take effect. The importation of foreign sugar into any of the West Indian Islands was prohibited; and it was necessary that it should be so prohibited in order to entitle those colonies to send their sugar to this country at the lowest rate of duty; for if this prohibition did not exist, there might be means of introducing foreign sugar into this country at a rate of duty not properly attached to it. This prohibition, consequently, was the condition upon which our colonists were permitted to import their sugar into this country at the lowest rate of duty.

said, that what the importers of West Indian sugar complained of was, not an imaginary grievance. They were now, for the first time, called on to declare that the admission of foreign sugar was prohibited in the colonies whence their sugar came; and this they conscientiously objected to do. In the tariff of every one of our West Indian colonies there was a rate of duty for the admission of foreign sugar; and practically also, foreign sugar was not excluded. It would be seen, by reference to the papers published in 1846, giving the exports and imports for ton years, that there was not one of the West Indian colonies into which foreign, sugar was not practically admitted, such a duty being imposed as would he equivalent to the differential duty in order to prevent fraud. In Barbadoes, raw sugar, the produce of the foreign West Indies, had been admitted in 1843 to the extent of 741,216 lb., or about, 300 tons, notwithstanding the operation of the British Possessions Act. That sugar was admitted at a duty of 12s. 9d.; and in the case of Demerara the fact was still stronger. Under these circumstances, as the alteration in the heading of the schedule gave rise to trouble and difficulty, he thought that the words of the Act of 1846 ought to be restored.

said, that the simple question was, what was the legal construction of the Act of Parliament? Foreign sugar was prohibited to be imported into certain British possessions; and the fact of its having at any time been admitted into any one of them was no proof of the legality of such admission. The importers of West Indian sugar were only, in effect, called on to say that foreign sugar was not legally admissible into the places whence their sugar came. The noble Lord produced a tariff with reference to the importation of foreign sugar into Jamaica; but that tariff was not sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, and was therefore null and void. If the noble Lord's twenty-three objections were not more formidable than the present one, there was little to fear from them.

said, that the complaint was, that the importers of Jamaica sugar were inconvenienced by a cloud of confusion which had been thrown over the subject. Now, this was a very serious complaint, and the question was, what had it arisen from? It had arisen from an alteration in the shape of the schedule, in consequence of which the merchants found themselves called upon to sign a different document from what they had been accustomed to sign before, which seemed to show that there was some doubt and difficulty in the matter; and the parties in the City, who were not so well versed in law as the Attorney General was, were in a state of embarrassment. If, however, notice had been given at first, when the schedule was altered—if the attention of the parties interested had been drawn to it—if they had been told that the effect of the alteration in the schedule would be to leave the law where it was, and that although they had to sign a different document from what they had formerly done, they were running-no risk in respect to the duties; if this had been done at first, no confusion would have arisen. The moment it did practically arise in the business, various questions were asked in that House in order that public attention might be drawn to it; but the hon. Members who put the questions were told, rather unreasonably, he thought, to wait until they were in Committee on the Sugar Duties; and, in the meantime, they were refused all information. Now, he thought that the inconvenience to which the trade was put by changes, of which notice had not been given, was very much under-rated in that House, and it was exceedingly desirable that when such changes were made, the attention of parties should be drawn to them.

said, that there was no person in that House who was less disposed than himself to estimate lightly the inconvenience suffered by the trade, either from this or any other cause; but he was satisfied that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down—probably from misinformation—had very much exaggerated both the cause and the effect. The resolutions did not come into operation till the 12th; the warrants were prepared, according to the new form, by the 15th; and he had reason to believe that, since then, no party had been at all inconvenienced. For before the questions had been put in that House on the subject, he heard a rumour in the City that some difficulty had been felt on the matter; and he asked the Chairman of the Customs about it, and was informed that, although one gentleman had demurred to signing the required declaration, a message was sent to him next morning, and the matter satisfactorily explained.

knew that considerable inconvenience had been felt in consequence of several gentlemen, who had called at the Custom-house for the purpose of relieving their sugar from bond, having to return back because they were not provided with warrants.

, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Card-well), begged to say, that, although he refused to give the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) a full answer to his question till the House was in Committee on the Sugar Duties Bill, he stated generally that, by the British Possessions Act, foreign sugar was prohibited from being imported into the colonies.

said, that yesterday one of the deputation who waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that he had been called upon to make a declaration in case of some sugar he had imported from St. Lucia, and that he felt he could not, as a man of honour, do so.

said, that the question was not, as to what was the law, so much as to what was the fact. Was sugar imported into our various colonies, or was it not? Now, he had shown that such sugar had been imported, and that the duty had been paid to the Queen's Custom-house officers. How, then, could any man, consistently with truth, sign a warrant to the effect that the sugar which came from any of those colonies was imported from a colony or country where the importation of foreign sugar was prohibited? If this law passed, the matter would remain as it was at this moment; and every such warrant that was signed would be a falehood. Was it desirable that the House of Commons should pass an Act of Parliament which should oblige 300 or 400 false warrants to be signed every day of the year?

remarked, that the noble Lord's argument proceeded upon a fale assumption. The merchants were not called upon to sign a declaration that their sugar came from a colony into which foreign sugar was not de facto imported, but merely where the importation of foreign sugar was prohibited.

believed that, at all events, there was considerable confusion on the subject. It was, no doubt, true that the importation of foreign sugar into the colonies was prohibited under the British Possessions Act: but when they found from a return laid before Parliament, and which came from the Queen's Customhouse, that a certain quantity of foreign sugar had actually been imported into these colonies—for he did not apprehend that the Custom-house authorities would give them a return of the smuggled article, but only that which had been legally imported—he must say that there was sufficient confusion to justify some doubt on the part of persons making the required declaration. He thought the inconvenience complained of would be removed if the clause run thus:—

"On sugar or molasses the growth and produce of any British possession in America, or of any other British colony into which the importation of foreign sugar is prohibited," &c.

was sorry to resist any suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; but as the adoption of the Amendment would imply that there was a doubt in regard to the taw, and as he did not think there was any reasonable doubt in the matter, he felt bound to oppose it.

thought it was not treating the sugar trade fairly to refuse them this request. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that the merchants had found a mare's nest. He begged to tell the right hon. Gentleman that they bad a much more valuable occupation than engaging in such a search; but having found that there was considerable hardship in being called upon to make a declaration which they could not conscientiously make, they did not think it too much to ask to be relieved from this difficulty.

wished to take this opportunity of stating the views of the Government with reference to the admission of refined sugars. The Act of 1846 prevented the introduction of foreign refined sugars; but since that measure was passed, the Dutch Government had represented to Her Majesty's Government that Belgian refined sugar made from beetroot grown in Belgium was clearly admissible under the provisions of that Act; and they had claimed, as by treaty they were placed on the footing of the most favoured nations, that sugar refined in Holland should be admitted for consumption in this country. Mr. Deacon Hume had contended, and this country had always maintained, that foreign sugar refined in this country must be considered as the produce of this country, and was entitled to be considered as such irrespective of the place of its growth. He certainly thought that on the principle thus laid down it would be inconsistent with the good faith and honesty which ought to be observed towards foreign nations to exclude Dutch refined sugars from our markets. Then, it being, in the opinion of the Government, impossible to exclude such sugar, the question arose as to the rate of duty to be imposed. He conceived that the rate of duty at which foreign refined sugar was admitted into this country should he the same at which sugar refined in this country was to be allowed to come into consumption. The only parties who could object to such an arrangement were the British refiners, who might claim some protection against the foreign refiners. The reasons they might urge for such protection were the bounty given by the Dutch Government to refiners, and the navigation laws of this country. With regard to the bounty given by the Dutch Government, he believed that the English refiners who refined in bond were able to compete successfully with the Dutch refiners in those countries and their markets; and therefore it was clear that the bounty given by the Dutch Government was of no great advantage to the Dutch refiners. He had been informed, that so little did the Dutch refiners value the bounty given to them, that they had applied to the Dutch Government for permission to adopt the system pursued in this country—to re-fine in bond. If the Dutch refiners were of opinion that refining in bond without drawback was more advantageous than refining with drawback, it must be clear to the House that they attached very little value to the bounty. The next ground upon which British refiners might urge a claim to protection was, the disadvantage under which they might be supposed to labour with respect to the navigation laws; but he thought any disadvantage they might suffer in this respect would not be of long continuance, for he hoped that in the next Session of Parliament a measure would be adopted which would obviate this complaint. The only other parties interested were the West India producers; they might object to the admission into this country of foreign refined sugar at such a rate of duty as would put them in a worse situation with respect to foreign refined sugar than they were in with respect to foreign unrefined sugar. He believed, however, that the measure proposed by the Government would give the same protection to the West India colonies with respect to foreign refined sugar as was afforded them against raw sugar. He considered that the duty upon colonial refined sugar was too high; and he therefore proposed to reduce the duty upon colonial double-refined sugar from 19s. 6d. to 18s., and upon single-refined sugar from 17s. 4d. to 16s. He believed it would then be a matter of indifference to the colonial producer whether he paid a duty of 13s. upon raw sugar, or whether he had it refined in bond. He considered that this would be a great boon to the consumers, because the means would he afforded of bringing into the market a much larger quantity of sugar than was now available. He believed that the real interests of the West India proprietors depended upon an increased consumption of their produce, and that any measure which tended to promote that increased consumption must be most advantageous to them. He believed the refiners of this country had received a price more than remunerative for the cost of refining. The difference between raw and refined sugar was some time since more than 14l. a ton; and of late years it had been 18l. a ton. The reduction of prices on the raw material was equivalent to 36 per cent; but the reduction in the cost of the refined sugar was not at all in due proportion. He therefore thought it was quite consistent with sound principle to introduce a certain amount of foreign refined sugar for home consumption. If the price of refined sugar should be somewhat reduced, it would not be equal to the reduction in the price of raw sugar. The price of the manufactured article had been unduly kept up of late years; and he considered that, while by the proposed alteration in the duties the interest of the consumer was consulted, the interest of the West Indian producer would not in any degree be injured. He therefore proposed a reduction of the duty of 19s. 6d. on double refined sugar in the first column of the first schedule to 18s., being the duty in the second column of the first schedule; and a reduction in the duty of 17s. 4d. on other refined sugar in the first column of the first schedule to 16s., being the duty specified in the second column of the first schedule. He proposed also a similar reduction of the duty specified in the first column of the second schedule from 1l. 3s. 4d. on double refined sugar to 1l. 1s. 9d., and from 1l. 1s. on other refined sugar to 19s. 4d.; and a reduction in the first column of the third schedule from 1l. 7s. 9d. on double refined sugar to 1l. 5s. 6d., and from 1l. 4s. 8d. on other refined sugar to 1l. 2s. 8d. He admitted there were inaccuracies in the further columns, which were of small importance, and which he proposed to correct in the Committee on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the duty on double refined sugar be reduced from 19s. 6d to 18s.

felt great anxiety with respect to the question of the treaty between this country and Holland. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated an opinion that this country had no discretion in the matter, but were bound by that treaty to admit the refined sugar of Hob land, although made from materials not the produce of Holland, upon the same terms as sugar produced in Belgium—that, in point of fact, they had no right to draw a distinction with respect to the country of production, but only with reference to the country of manufacture. He thought it was dangerous to lay down that principle, and say that it ought to constitute the general rule of their legislation. He did not, however, wish to tie up the hands of the Legislature from introducing exceptions. He questioned the doctrine that they were bound by their treaty with Holland to admit her sugar, refined from raw sugar produced in the tropics, upon the same terms as the sugar refined in Belgium, produced from beetroot grown in Belgium. It was the practice of Russia to make a distinction in regard to Cuba sugar—that distinction turning upon the point, whether the sugar had received a given state of refinement in this country, or in the country of its production. Russia laid a higher duty upon Cuba sugar, which had been brought to a given state of refinement in this country, than that which would have been imposed upon it if it had been refined in the country where it was grown. That country had a right to make a distinction in respect of the materials of which any article imported might be manufactured. It was a distinction of which there were traces in our own laws. He would quote two instances, one from the British Possessions Act of 1832. In that Act sugar refined in England from colonial sugar was made admissible into the British North American colonies free of duty; but sugar refined in this country in bond from foreign materials was made admissible at a duty of 10l per cent. The next instance, though small in its area of operation, was equally good, as proving the principle. By the 5th Section of the 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 47, it was enacted that all manufactures imported into this country from the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, when made of materials of foreign origin or produce, should, for the purpose of duty, be deemed and taken to be produce imported from a foreign country. That was a case perfectly in point in every respect. If, then, they had a right to make that distinction as regarded their own colonies, they were entitled to recognise and enforce the principle as against foreign countries. He deemed it impolitic to impose restrictions on this country by giving to a treaty a construction which it did not properly bear. On that account he protested against the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a question which must be judged on principle and policy alone.

said, it was quite clear that the West Indian planter was interested in this being the result of the measure before them, namely, that the refiner should not derive, by means of a protective duty, an undue profit. To that argument he entirely subscribed. The question, therefore, was, whether the proposed duties on single and double refined sugars, or the duties as set out in the Act of 1846, were the proper equivalents? Before they could decide this question it was necessary to know what the arrangements for refining sugar in bond were to be. At present no statement had been made on that point. Should the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman be not correct, the most serious consequences might result. Those who had spoken to him on the subject were not prepared to admit that a duty of 1l. 6s. 8d. operated as a protection, but they contended it was nothing more than a fair protection; therefore a duty of 1l. 4s. 8d. would be an inequality, and would operate as a protection to foreign refiners as against English refiners. It was also quite clear that the foreign refiner would produce sugar at an advantage over the home refiner, in consequence of the navigation laws. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any objection to furnish the information upon which his calculations had been made?

had received a note from a large refiner in this country, stating, that he considered a duty of 1l. 4s. 8d. on refined sugar was equivalent to a duty of 18s. 5d. on the raw material, leaving the treacle out of the calculation. With respect to refining in bond, that might be a very excellent thing for the colonies in the course of a year or two; but in the meantime what would be the effect of the competition with foreign refiners? It would be such as to make the position of the West Indians much worse than that in which they formerly stood. He understood that within the last few days the sum of 70,000l. had been invested in a Dutch sugar refinery (the proprietors of which had been obliged to stop payment) owing to the impulse given to the refining of sugar in Holland by the proposal of the British Government.

said, the question to be considered was, whether the duty levied on foreign refined sugar was the equivalent of the duty levied by the Government on foreign raw sugar. A great many experiments had been made in an extensive sugar refinery and by the Board of Trade, which established the accuracy of the calculations adopted by the Government. If the Dutch Government chose to give a drawback on sugar exported, that was no affair of the British Government, who were bound by treaty; and whether that bounty would operate in favour of the Dutch refiners or not, was a subject which the House were not competent to entertain. One of our sugar refiners had assured him that he did not fear the competition of the Dutch refiners in the neutral markets, and that he was perfectly satisfied with the protection he had in the resolutions proposed by the Government. The statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barkly) respecting the resuscitation of a sugar refinery in Holland, was not exactly correct. The refinery in question had never been stopped; and, three weeks ago, before there could have been any knowledge of the intentions of our Government, arrangements were made for carrying on that concern as a joint-stock company, and the sum of money mentioned by the hon. Member was subscribed; these proceedings had therefore no reference whatever to the present Bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that if they were beginning de novo to make arrangements with foreign Governments, they would have a right to make a condition as to the origin of the raw materials of manufacture to be imported; but when once those treaties were made it was not competent to superadd any such conditions. He believed that the advantage to the Dutch refiners in the drawback allowed by their Government was much less than was commonly believed; and it should not be forgotten that the British refiners were further protected against their Dutch rivals by the cost of bringing the sugar from Holland to this country, which was equivalent to a protection of from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per cwt. in their favour, according to the quality of the sugar. While, therefore, the British refiners were placed upon a footing of equality with the foreign refiners, they had the further advantage of being close to their market.

did not deny that the reductions of duty on double refined sugar from 19s. 6d. to 18s., and on single refined from 17s. 4d. to 16s., with the proposal to permit British refiners to refine in bond, were, taken together, a very great boon to the British planter. But he was sorry to hear the Government talking of the above forming a measure that would take a long time in preparing. Unless they had an assurance from the Government that before the Session passed over, the measure should be prepared, matured, and passed, the sugar interests would be in a curious condition. They were now at the end of July; and if it would take a long while to mature this schedule of duties and pass it into an Act of Parliament, the colonies would get the unfavourable part of the measure, and would not obtain the countervailing boon. This measure of the Government was a mode of carrying out the plan of an ad valorem duty, which was in all respects the most desirable. In the first place, it encouraged the colonies to bring their produce to this country in the most crude and least manufactured form, thereby saving the labour which was so valuable in the colonies. Then, in proportion as the produce was brought over in a crude state, its bulk was largely increased, and that was an advantage to the shipping interests, while it must add largely to the business of the British refiners. Therefore in all respects he highly approved of the plan of the Government, if they only carried out their object; but he heard both out of that House and in the House that great practical difficulties surrounded the question; and that if they allowed the Government to pass this measure without the other, the sugar interests would be left with the bad part of the Government measure, and would not get the good. He believed the price of sugar imported in unprivileged ships was 2s. 6d. per cwt. less than that imported in privileged ships, and that was consequently the protection in this country which the navigation laws gave to the British planter. The advantage of the Dutch refiner for the next twelve months would be 2s. 6d. per cwt., there being 17,000 tons of foreign sugar in the united kingdom in unprivileged ships, which were worth 2s. 6d. less than the sugar of similar quality imported in privileged ships. It was quite clear that the navigation laws would for this year give the Dutch refiner au advantage of 2s. 6d. per cwt. over the English refiner, in sugars for home consumption. He held in his hand two samples of Dutch sugar, the price of one of which, on Saturday last, was 23s., and on Monday, after the explanations made in that Mouse, the price of the same sugar in bond rose to 25s. The other sample was of single refined Dutch sugar, of which the price was 21s. 3d. ten days ago, but which rose to such a figure as to establish a difference of 7s. 7d. With respect to the assertion of the Government that the Dutch were entitled to insist on the admission of their refined sugar, he wanted to know how the Government reconciled their pre-sent statement with their statement of the 30th of May last, that they did not intend to alter the Sugar Act of 1846; because by that Act they imposed those differential duties, and by the 6th Clause obliged shipmasters or consignees to prove that the sugar, if imported at those rates of duty, was bonâ fide the produce of the country from which it was imported. What had the "favoured nation" clause to do with the question? 'They took from Cuba and from Belgium sugar which was the produce of those countries. They would take from Holland beetroot sugar, which was the growth and produce of that country. But that, as regarded sugar imported into Holland, Holland should presume to claim a greater degree of favour than was accorded to Cuba, Tort Rico, Brazil, the United States, or the British colonies, implied a construction of the Act for which he could see no foundation.

rose to move—

"For the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Law and Practice of Striking-Juries in Criminal Cases in Ireland, and especially into the facts connected with the Striking of the Juries in the late Cases of 'The Queen against William Smith O'Brien, M. P.;' The Queen against Thomas Meagher;' and 'The Queen against John Mitchel.' "

The hon. Member said, he had not expected that the proposition of which notice had been given that night by the noble Lord would have been submitted to their consideration when he came down to make this Motion. Not that he questioned the propriety of the course which was proposed; but certainly it increased the responsibility of any person who submitted such a question at the present moment, that Her Majesty's Government found Ireland in such a perilous state of confusion, that they could not be answerable for the maintenance of peace in that portion of Her Majesty's dominions, except by a temporary, but still a lung, suspension of the constitution of these realms. It occurred to him that it would be peculiarly unfortunate if they were to close this Session of Parliament without being able to give a due account to their constituents in Ireland, when a case was brought forward, involving not only grave suspicion, but surrounded by circumstances which, unless they were fairly explained, left no doubt on the mind of every right-thinking man, that justice had not been duly administered in the oases to which he should refer. It would be most unjust if they were to return to their constituents, and tell them that they had been employed only in passing measures of coercion, but that measures of conciliation they had none to give. For the purposes of the present matter it might be said that the law as to striking juries in Ireland was theoretically the same as that in England—the Act 3 and 4 William IV. was the Act by which the striking and selection of juries was regulated in Ireland. He was prepared to prove that in every transaction connected with the striking of the jury in the case of John Mitchel, now a convict at Bermuda, from the original selection of the panel down to the time at which they were in the box, there had been very gross invasions of the due administration of justice. In the outset he might call the attention of the House to an anomaly in the selection of juries in Ireland. The sheriff of the city of Dublin was chosen immediately by the Crown; which, in his mind, was a reason why the Government should take peculiar pains that no suspicion should rest upon the juries appointed to try political offenders. Juries were chosen immediately in the manner prescribed by the Act of Parliament—the qualification was pecuniary—they were returned at the commencement of the year upon the collection of the grand jury cesses, and their names were preserved in a book kept in the office of Recorder. The juror's book for the present year contained the names of 4,570 persons; of these, 2,965 were Roman Catholics, 1,635 Protestants, or something less than two Roman Catholics for one Protestant on the juror's hook. The sheriff had to select from the list such a number of names as would be sufficient to try offenders before the Commission; and in this particular case the sheriff selected 150 names. If that selection had been made by lot or ballot, the chances were that two out of every three of the 150 would have been Roman Catholics. But the selection was made by a sheriff appointed by the Crown; and what was the ratio? More than four to one of the whole 150 were Protestants, and only one-fifth were Roman Catholics. By Act of Parliament the sheriff was bound, when he struck the panel, to sign it—to issue his warrant to the summoner, calling upon him to summon the different persons named in the warrant, who was required to summon them at least six days before the opening of the Commission. In this case the Commission opened on the 20th of May; on the 11th May persons were summoned to serve on the jury; other persons were summoned on the 13th of the month; and it so happened that those persons were Roman Catholics. They came into court on the day of the trial, produced their summons signed by the proper officer, and it appeared that their names were not on the panel by which Mitchel was to be tried. To what conclusion did this inevitably lead? Either that a panel was previously prepared by the high sheriff on the 11th, and that Mitchel having been arrested on the 13th, that panel was withdrawn and another substituted; or that the summoner acted on the 11th and 13th without any panel having been prepared by the sheriff, and in so doing committed a breach of the Act of Parliament. If either of these practices were made manifest to the House as having been committed, doubtless they would have very little hesitation in granting the inquiry for which he asked. Mitchel was arrested on the 13th; on the 20th his trial came on. It was stated in open court, and deposed to on solemn affidavits made by the prisoner himself and the attorney for the prisoner, that the brother of Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland, holding under him the office of clerk, was concerned in unfair practices touching the selection of the jury. An attempt had been made to serve him for the trial of Mitchel, and a postponement of two days was asked in order that his attendance might be secured. He would venture to say—for they had experience of what the conduct of Her Majesty's Attorney General had been in like eases—that in this country that application would have been acceded to; but it was refused in Dublin. He had said there was a grave suspicion that one panel was prepared on the 11th, then withdrawn, and another substituted. Look at the evidence of the high sheriff. He was asked—

"Was the panel all prepared on one occasion?"

The answer was—

"It was, as well as I can recollect.

"Was it prepared before or after the 13th of the month of May?—To the best of my recollection it was before it; I am not certain.

"Was the panel all made on that occasion?—Yes, it certainly was."

The evidence of the under sheriff on the same point was:—

"Were you present at the framing of the panel?—I was.

"Was it prepared on one day?—I cannot recollect the exact day on which it was prepared, but I think there were two days occupied in preparing it."

The high sheriff is asked—

"Was it you that selected the names from the book, or was it the under sheriff? "

The high sheriff says—

"I did it."

The under sheriff is asked—

"Was it you that selected the names from the book, or was it the high sheriff? "

The under sheriff says—

"I rather think I did it."

How was it possible to reconcile those two statements? The high sheriff went on still further, and being asked if he had selected those names from the only proper place, the jurors' book of the city of Dublin, said he had so selected them. The under sheriff was examined, and he said he received at least a hundred of those names from a Mr. Wheeler, who had been acting in some capacity in the sheriff's office, and who, it was a most remarkable circumstance, left the city of Dublin two or three days before the day of trial of the challenge, which was one ground assigned for the application of postponement. Two gentlemen were selected to try whether that panel was fairly chosen or not, both of those gentlemen holding a very high and responsible position in the city of Dublin. As regarded the politics of those gentlemen, he thought he might safely state that they both would feel very much offended if they were not thought to entertain very strong opinions in one direction, certainly not the most favourable to the accused. However, the panel was found to be fairly chosen, the sheriff stating that it was selected for its wealth and respectability, whilst the under sheriff said he had received 100 out of the 150 names from Mr. Wheeler, who was conveniently absent in London. Out of the whole 150 there were but 28 Roman Catholics, and out of the first 70 names only 8, the remainder being placed last on the list, so that there was every possible chance of their not being called upon to servo. The jurors' book was arranged alphabetically. There were two persons of the name of Moore in it; they resided next door to each other in one of the principal commercial streets of Dublin, carrying on the same business, and holding similar stations in society. The one was a Protestant, the other a Roman Catholic; and the sheriff, if he went through the list impartially, would necessarily find the one Moore near the other. Yet the Protestant Moore was placed twelfth, and the Roman Catholic Moore appeared the 122nd man of the 150. Surely, when the Attorney General observed the unfair selection, it became his bounden duty to do all that in him lay to restore the balance, instead of allowing the Catholics to remain as only one to four upon the panel; whereas they ought, according to the jurors' book, to have stood in the ratio of two to every Protestant juror. Only 71 persons altogether answered to their names, and out of that number 18 were Catholics. And what did the Attorney General? As each Catholic came to be sworn for the jury, he was at once ordered to stand by, and thirty-nine out of the entire seventy-one were challenged by that officer. He would say to that House, that it was not a fair system of conducting prosecutions, for the Attorney General, while the prisoner only had the power to challenge twenty-seven persons peremptorily, to have the right to go on challenging every person, till he absolutely was enabled to put on his own jury to try the case. He perceived from a gesture of the Attorney General that he was not disposed to assent to the justice of this latter observation; but surely he would recollect that in Frost's trial, even the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, a very eminent authority, had declared that the Crown ought not to be allowed an unlimited right of challenge, while the prisoner could only challenge twenty names, and asserted his belief that the law recognised no such right in the Crown. Many other very eminent persons and lawyers entertained a similar opinion; and one legal authority, to whom hon. Gentlemen opposite, when out of office, were particularly disposed to bow—the late Master of the Rolls for Ireland, Sir Michael O'Loghlin, before a Committee of the House of Lords, in 1839—distinctly stated that he did not believe that such was the law of the land. Every lawyer knew that an ancient statute required the Crown to assign a cause for the challenge; and although in later times the prerogative had run so high that the Crown was not bound to comply with this requirement, still the propriety of neglecting it had been questioned on more than one occasion. Why were the eighteen Catholics who answered to their names set aside? What excuse could the Attorney General have for departing so far from the instructions of many Attorneys General who had preceded him in the administration of the law in Ireland? Her Majesty's present Ministers, when out of power, had never harped so much upon any one string as upon that of the unfair administration of the law in Ireland. Carrying out these views, Sir M. O'Loghlen, writing in February, 1836, to the Crown solicitors acting under him in Ireland, used language to this effect:—

"I do not wish that you should exercise the right without having some sufficient cause, not founded on any political or religious distinction. I am glad to know, from what passed when I spoke to you on the subject, that you agree with me in thinking that convictions obtained in cases in which the right shall not have been exercised, will have a more beneficial effect than those which may be procured when some of the jurors are objected to. There may, and probably will be, some acquittals not warranted by a calm consideration of the evidence; but after an anxious consideration of the subject, and an experience of the result of the present system, I think that I should not on that account refrain from adopting the course above stated. In England no such right is claimed."

These instructions had been carried further by a gentleman who had subsequently held the office of Attorney General for Ireland, and who now filled the important post of Lord Chancellor of that country. He referred to Lord Chancellor Brady, whose authority no one would be disposed to impugn. He would now direct their attention to the manner in which it was supposed that system had been worked out, as given by Sir M. O'Loghlen and Judge Perrin before the Committee of the House of Lords, when asked—Supposing in the case of a political libel, a man notoriously a violent political partisan, and known to express at public meetings the strongest opinions corresponding exactly with those of the man upon trial, came forward, he should consider it safe for the administration of justice that such a man should be sworn? Sir M. O'Loghlen replied that the challenge might be maintained in such a case; but it was better that he should he allowed to be sworn than he should be set aside, and a conviction obtained upon the verdict of a jury selected by the prosecutor; and that he could state that during the time he was Attorney General he had many persons as jurors of notoriously identical political opinions with the accused, and yet obtained convictions. Judge Perrin, on being interrogated upon the same subject, answered—that he thought the moral effect of allowing the men to be sworn as they were returned by the sheriff, unless, indeed, there were good cause for the challenge, was preferable to exercising the right of challenge without assigning the cause. What was the reason that the present Attorney General had departed from these instructions? He had made the most accurate inquiries into the subject; and, after availing himself of every possible source of information, he was prepared to state in that House that ten out of those eighteen Catholics so set aside were not connected with any political association whatever. He would now come to what was, perhaps, a more serious part of the case. There was not only one such trial when the Catholics called to servo on the jury were set aside; but, unfortunately for the case which the Government would endeavour to make out, there had been four such juries struck off before the particular one to which he had just been alluding. He meant the trials of Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Meagher; and the juries that were struck to try John Mitchel in the case abandoned before the new Felony Act came into operation. Now, the practice of striking special juries was somewhat different. Forty-eight names were drawn from the ballot box for the special jury, 24 had been struck off, 12 of them by the Crown; but these 12 so struck off by the Crown were all the Catholics out of the 48; and 11 out of this 12 were totally unconnected with any political association. In the case of the jury to try Mr. Meagher for sedition, the Crown had struck off 10 Catholics, seven of whom were not connected with any political association. One of that seven was a Mr. Powell, a highly-respectable brewer in Dublin, who, he could state on his own knowledge, was of the very high Whig school of politics, if, indeed, he were not something nearer akin to a Conservative. A Mr. John Macailiff was another of the seven Catholics, who, although tinged with no political partisanship, had been struck off the panel; and he could avouch that Macailiff had habitually voted for the Conservatives and against the Repeal candidates. With regard to the jury in the case of J. Mitchel, for sedition, Thomas Laffan, Esq., a gentleman who had for several years sustained the office of a director of the Bank of Ireland, was a Catholic, and never interfered with politics at all, had also been struck off the panel. It was curious to contrast the recent conduct of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, with the protestations in which that noble Lord and that right hon. Baronet dealt so profusely when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was First Minister of the Crown. It was as curious as it was interesting and profitable to refer to Hansard, and to see what took place on the striking of the jury which was empan-nelled to try O'Connell and his fellow-traversers. The case then brought against the Government was, that from that jury ten Catholics were struck off by the Crown. It was distinctly proved with respect to eight of those Catholics that there was the strongest possible reason for suspecting that they were implicated with Mr. O'Connell in his political delinquencies, and that, in point of fact, they were members of his Repeal Association. The ninth was proved to have signed the requisition called the Tara meeting. The explanation, however, which was then offered in justification of the Government, totally failed to give satisfaction to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury bench. He was at a loss to understand on what pretext of justice or of honour the Ministers should refuse to apply to the transactions of 1848 the same rule which they had applied to those of 1844. Look to the first paragraph in the speech delivered by the noble Lord, on the occasion of the discussion which took place in that House in 1844 with respect to the constitution of the jury in O'Connell's case:—

"It did so happen then that, of the forty-eight name that had been chosen, there were only ten of those persons that were Roman Catholics, and it happened that it having been the former custom always to leave out Roman Catholics and Liberal Protestants, that those ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants were struck out by the Solicitor for the Crown. It does, Sir, appear to me that such a fact of itself deprives the whole of those proceedings of any weight or value. I could understand the objection that might have been made if those persons, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, had contributed to the funds of the association. Tills might be a proper objection to them. It might be said, 'It is not because you are a Roman Catholic you are to be left on a Jury. Your doing so does not entitle you more than any other man to he there.' But then with regard to two of those persons who have been struck off, there is an affidavit that two of them, and there is the affidavit made by one of them, that he was not a member of the Repeal Association, and never bad been a subscriber to its funds. If that, then, be so, I collect that these two were left out because they were Roman Catholics; the conclusion is that the other eight, whether sub-scribers or not to the repeal funds, would have been equally omitted."

If the doctrines which the noble Lord so emphatically enforced in 1844 were correct, he should like to know on what grounds the noble Lord was prepared to justify the fifteen cases of exclusion of Catholics to which the attention of the House was now called? Where were the glorious promises of the noble Lord and his great protestations? He had been for two years and a half in office, and all he had been able to accomplish was to keep Ireland, not to govern her. The noble Lord was in his place until the present Motion was called on, but he suddenly vanished. A direct insult to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland did not appear to the noble Lord to be of sufficient importance to justify his attendance. In the absence, however, of the noble Lord, he would take the liberty of reading a passage from a speech delivered in the course of the same debate by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were as follows:—

"The moral effect of a verdict did not consist in tile form of law, but in the conviction of its justice, and of the impartiality of the tribunal be-fore which the cause was tried. In the present state of Ireland they were engaged in a solemn case of the administration of criminal justice. Were six Roman Catholics to be placed on their trial in such a country as Ireland, a country where party spirit and religious feeling ran high, before a jury of men holding opinions diametrically opposed in religion, and it might be supposed in politics also, to themselves?"

Such were the sentiments in 1844 of the right hon. Baronet. But about that same time there were statements made in the city of Dublin by other hon. Gentlemen—now Members of the Government—and a course of conduct was pursued by them, which if those same Gentlemen were right in the course they adopted in 1848, left the dispassionate observer no alternative but to conclude that their behaviour, in 1844, was factious and vexatious, and eminently opposed to the proper administration of justice. He had made it his business to refer to the papers of that day, and he found that twenty-four hours were not permitted to elapse before a meeting of Catholics was hold in the city of Dublin to protest against the indignity which had been offered to the Catholic population of Ireland by the proceedings of the Government, with respect to the jury empanelled to try Mr. O'Connell. To the requisition convening that meeting, the name of no less a person than Her Majesty's present Attorney General for Ireland was attached; as also were the names of his right hon. Friend the present Master of the Mint, and the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Redington). The Master of the Mint, for whoso splendid intellectual attributes no man could have a higher admiration than he, attended the meeting, and what was his first declaration?—

"It is," he said, "a source of very great pride to me, and a fact which I will remember with gratification as long as I live, that mine was the very first inline that was attached to the requisition by which you have been called together. The time is come for making a great popular demonstration of our feelings, and a demonstration of oar feelings is also a demonstration of our power."

(It was not then criminal to talk in that strain.)

"The nation is now our own. My advice is, that you should present a memorial to the Queen and petitions to both Houses of Parliament, stating your cause of complaint with calmness and method, and without exaggeration. That all the Catholics have been struck off is an admitted fact. It has been suggested that they were all members of the Repeal Association, and therefore guilty of some of the overt acts charged in the indictment. Suppose they were so, I do not think such a circumstance would at all relieve the prosecutors from the grave imputation they have incurred."

Such was the language held in 1844 by the right hon. Gentleman the Master of thee Mint. The right hon. Gentleman wont on to argue the case, and submitted that if there had been in England an indictment charging an influential body with seeking Parliamentary Reform, vast indignation would be everywhere exhibited if the Crown Solicitor were to strike off the jury every one who happened to be a member of the Reform Club. He concluded—

"The conduct of the prosecutors proved that foul play had been practised, and ho, therefore, called for the strictest and most searching Parliamentary inquiry."

The reporter added, "The meeting here rose en masse, and cheered for several minutes." The next speaker at that meeting was Mr. Wyse, who called on his fellow-subjects in England to say whether it would be fair, in the event of a man who was a Chartist in politics being indicted for an offence, that all persons who happened to be Chartists as well should be excluded from the jury box. The third speaker was Mr. Redington, who declared it to be his opinion that the course pursued by the Government would neither redound to the credit of the Cabinet nor the safety of the State. Such were the sentiments formerly professed on the subject of jury packing by the very men who now sat upon the Treasury bench. But the most extraordinary matter of all was, that to the requisition convening the meeting was affixed the name of the present Attorney General for Ireland who conducted all the recent prosecutions. The next name in the list of those who so energetically protested against the practice of jury packing was a more exalted one than any yet cited, being no other that of the present Chief Governor of Ireland. A Motion condemnatory of the improper conduct imputed to the Government of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth having been brought forward by the Marquess of Normanby, and having been lost on a division, the dissentient Peers put their protest on record. The protest, as drawn up, contained five or six reasons of objection. The fifth reason ran in the following words:—

"Dissentient, because the recent prosecutions have been conducted in a manner which deprives them of all that moral weight which belongs to the due administration of justice."

Some of the dissentient Peers signed the Protest for one, two, or three reasons; but the Lord Lieutenant was so taken by the whole proceeding, that his name appeared the second on the list; and the world was given to understand that it was for all the assigned reasons (for all without exception) that the signature of "Clarendon" had been attached. He had now considered this transaction in the same aspect as that in which that which was deemed to be a similar transaction was considered in 1844 by those who were now Her Majesty's Ministers; but he admitted that be should have but slight claims on the attention of the House, and could allege but trivial reasons in favour of the appointment of the Committee for which he was applying, if he had no better grounds on which to base his application than such as were furnished by the inconsistent and very contradictory conduct of those who had occupied the Treasury bench. Was there nothing in the present condition of Ireland to warn that House against doing anything to induce the people of that country to believe that the laws and institutions of England, which were given to them as a blessing and a boon, were not to be administered honestly and impartially, but that, on the contrary, justice was to be distorted by fraud and contrivance? Was there nothing in the present condition of Ireland which rendered it unwise and impolitic that the people of that country should be taught to believe that a man was not to get a fair trial under the laws of England; but that, on the contrary, the prosecutor was to be at liberty to select men to try a prisoner, not because they were impartial or respectable, but because of their decided and well-known aversion to his opinions? It had been asserted that the men selected to serve on the jury which tried Mitchel, had been so selected because of their wealth and respectability. Anything more incorrect had never been alleged, The foreman of that jury, so distinguished for its wealth and superior respectability, was a bankrupt in the city of Dublin within the last two or three years. Others of the jury had also been bankrupts or insolvents; and yet those were the men, to make way for whom men of well-known wealth, and whose respectability was true, genuine, and undoubted, were set aside, and contemptuously rejected. Was there any reason why the Government should thus tamper with the affections of the Irish people? The noble Lord now at the head of the Government saw, when in opposition, visions of plenty and unfailing sources of great prosperity for Irelond, which to realise and to make productive needed nothing but his advent to power. Waste lands became fertile valleys to his glowing imagination, and everything promised peace, plenty, and prosperity. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shell), in powerful and commanding language, and with an eloquence which no one in that House but himself could have displayed, pointed out how the fertile resources of far distant colonies might be made subservient to the requirements of this country and of her poorer sister across the Channel. Other hon. Gentlemen now in the Government drew pictures equally glowing. They all descanted on their peculiar hobbies; but every one of them, from the highest to the lowest, in both Houses of Parliament, stated, over and over again, that unless some settlement with respect to the Catholic clergy in Ireland were speedily achieved, there could be no peace in that land. The Session of 1847 passed over without witnessing any such measure. The Session of 1848 was about to expire, and no such measure had as yet been introduced. They had been sitting since November. The first thing that Government had called for was a Coercion Bill for Ireland. The Irish representatives naturally expressed their amazement, and protested against the infraction of so many solemn pledges, and the violation of so many glorious promises. They were told to keep themselves quiet, and that all would be right in February. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) treated the House to a summary of the great remedial measures which it was in the contemplation of the Government to introduce. One of those measures was a Bill to facilitate the sale of encumbered estates. Of that measure he would not now speak in detail; but he had his own opinion of it, and did not think that in a country where five millions' worth of property was on sale, and could not find a purchaser, any great good would result from throwing ten millions more into the market. The next remedial measure that was promised was one for the improvement of the laws relating to landlords and ton-ants. What had become of it? Then they were to have had a Bill to improve the grand-jury system, which they were told was a pest, a nuisance, and a scourge; but no such measure had as yet, that he was aware of, been laid upon the table. What were the great remedial measures, he should like to know, which the Government had ill their contemplation in the year 1846? Where were they? What had become of them? When the noble Lord was out of office, he had nothing but large schemes. Nothing moderate or small would do for him. He would have nothing that was not a large and comprehensive scheme. But at length an eventful period in the history of the noble Lord's party arrived. He alluded to the latter end of 1845, when the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not able to form an Administration. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth again came into office; and then, as of course, no one would attribute to the noble Lord's party any motive for seeking for office, except a desire for the advantage of the country, the noble Lord came down on the 22nd of January, 1846, and said—

"I certainly had formed a great and comprehensive scheme to lay the foundation of a lasting peace in Ireland. I certainly did entertain this dream, and it is on that account only that I regret I had not been able to form an Administration."

Surely, at the end of 1848, after two Coercion Bills, and another to be introduced before twelve hours passed by, he had a right to ask where was this great comprehensive scheme? And now, having stated these facts, and having made this appeal to the House, he would again ask them not to send the Irish representatives back to their constituents, without, in the words of the address of 1834, and of the reply from the Crown to that address, enabling them to say that they were "willing to redress grievances, and to examine into well-founded complaints." He would ask, was not the present a time, not for great comprehensive schemes, but for an inquiry demanded by justice? The warning had often been given in that House that the time might come when they should find it necessary to look to Ireland. The noble Lord had often reverted to the convulsions that might take place in Europe from any change in the Government of Franco. At the present time, when that change had taken place—when republics were springing into existence around them—when war was in the south of Europe, and when peace was scarcely established in the north—he asked, might not the moment be near when it would be advisable to rally round the Throne every portion of Her Majesty's subjects? He would ask them to show to Irishmen that they were ready to do justice; and he would say for all classes of his countrymen that they would find their valour and loyalty as conspicuous as it had always been in times gone by. He had brought the question forward in this spirit, because he was anxious to conciliate the Irish people. ["Hear!"] That sneer, he thought, but ill became men who for years had been in connivance with others, lashing the people of Ireland into the state of discontent of which they now complained. It ill became those who had encouraged, when out of power, every species of agitation in Ireland, and who had continued their connivance with the parties who were engaged in that agitation, after their accession to office he had brought forward this Motion, he would repeat, from an anxiety to conciliate the people of Ireland, and to enable them to recover the vantage ground from which they had themselves retired; as he believed that if they granted this inquiry they would give an assurance to the people of Ireland that all their promises had not been pretences, but that they were really anxious for the welfare of that country.

The hon. Gentleman stated that he addressed the House with much hesitation as to the prudence or expediency, under existing circumstances, of bringing forward this Motion. However, after having deliberately considered whether he would bring it forward or not, he had determined that it was his duty to bring it under the notice of the House; but in arriving at that determination, he had prescribed to himself—he intimated—the solemn duty and obligation of keeping strictly to the point, and of showing the House whatever might be the tone of his speeches made at different periods out of the House—whatever might be the tone and character of the few speeches he had made in the House since he had been a Member of it, that at all events to-night the House should see that he could keep within the bounds of moderation, and that he was only actuated by a pure love of justice, and a desire to establish the fair and impartial administration of justice. Therefore, the hon. Member was to abstain from every topic not necessarily connected with the point he had to establish, and the Motion he had to submit to the House. I appeal to the House as to how far the hon. Gentleman has kept that promise, in the latter part of his speech at least. I have, perhaps, no right to complain of this. Belonging to a Government which has failed to recognise the merits of the hon. Member, I probably should not be surprised at hearing from him a violent party speech, most unfairly impugning the conduct of the Government during the time they have been in office; though the hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetful of the time which this House spent (while the hon. Gentleman was making speeches at public meetings in Ireland) hi passing Acts calculated to mitigate the severity of one of the most unparalleled visitations of distress, postponing discussions respecting popular rights and the extension of the franchise, to the work of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, and rescuing from starvation and death the fellow-countrymen of the hon. Gentleman, whom he has deluded with the phantom of repeal. I will not now enter into that wide question which has been opened, and which may more properly be discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale; but I will content myself with saying that the Government will not be deterred, so long as they have the honour of holding office, from discharging their duty to their country, and from taking those measures on their own responsibility which the law authorises them to take, or in proposing to Parliament to grant additional powers for the purpose of maintaining the peace and security of Ireland, and of every part of this great empire, by any taunts of the hon. Gentleman, who, in 1841, was an ardent repealer, and admirer of the late Mr. O'Connell—who, at that time spoke of the Melbourne Government as the most paternal Government, and lauded it with his eloquence—who, in 1844, wrote a pamphlet just as laudatory of the Government of Lord De Grey—and who, if I am not misinformed, since he has taken his seat in this House, and while a petition was pending against his return, gave the Government reason to suppose that he would not be among their opponents, if they used their influence to have that petition withdrawn. [Mr. KEOGH denied the truth of that statement.] If the hon. Member denies the truth of the statement, I must withdraw it. [M. KEOGH: I repudiate all the statements of the right hon. Baronet excepting that referring to the pamphlet which has been alluded to.] I refer to an election dinner given to Mr. Dillon Browne, at which I find that a Mr. William Keogh was present. At that dinner the whole of the persons shouted out "Dillon Browne and Repeal," and the greatest enthusiasm was evinced in favour of "Repeal." It is on this evidence that I supposed the hon. Gentleman to be a repealer. And when the health of Mr. O'Connell was proposed, Mr. W. Keogh was called upon to respond to the toast; and that gentleman, after speaking in the strongest terms of Mr. O'Connell, and avowing his approbation of the course of that gentleman, and also expressing himself most enthusiastically for repeal, said—

"You are fighting for English constitutional liberty led on by O'Connell, and under the most paternal Government I have ever seen, the Government over which Lord Melbourne presides."

If the hon. Gentleman denies his identity as the same Mr. W. Keogh, then I have nothing to say upon that point. And I would then refer to a pamphlet called Ireland under Lord, De Grey, published in 1844, which has always been attributed to the hot). Gentleman, and I believe has not been repudiated by him, in which he warmly approved of the Administration of Lord Do Grey. But I will repeat that the Government will not be deterred by the taunts of the hon. Gentleman from proposing to Parliament those measures which they think necessary for that country. I come now to the case the hon. Gentleman has laid before the House, avoiding all other topics; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I entirely concur with him in the opinion he has expressed of the importance of securing a fair and impartial administration of justice; but I confess I should be sorry to be tried by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if I may judge of his fairness by the extracts he has made from Hansard, which he has so diligently studied, although he has been so short a time a Member of this House. I will follow the hon. Gentleman in the course he has taken, although he reversed the order of the trials, thinking, perhaps, that the trial of Mr. Mitchel was a stronger case than either of the other two. The hon. Gentleman first referred to the conduct of the sheriff in striking the jury. I do not at all mean to say that anything was done by the sheriff inconsistent with the law, or the duty he had to perform. I am merely dealing with the case as connected with the Government; and have to consider how far the Government is affected by this charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who spoke as a lawyer, or rather as an advocate, should have said what is the power which the Government have of selecting the sheriff. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the Government have not that power. [Mr. KEOGH: They have for Dublin.] I understand the practice to be, for the Chief Justice to return the names of three gentlemen, and, out of those three, one is chosen to serve. But the hon. and learned Gentleman Impugned the conduct of the sheriff; but, in doing so, he failed to establish the charge against him, of having made an unfair and partial selection of the jury list, in order to obtain the conviction of Mitchel. This question was raised by the challenge of the array; that challenge was made in the way pointed out by law, and a tribunal was appointed by the court legally to try the question. It was tried; and now the hon. and learned Gentleman asks us to sot aside the verdict that was returned, and to decide that the sheriff acted with unfairness. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the brother of Mr. Monahan was away, and therefore there was no opportunity of examining him upon the Question. That point was also raised in the court, and the court not only decided on evidence that there was ample time to have served that gentleman with notice, and dismissed the charge that he kept out of the way to prevent such service, but said that they believed the com-plaint was made for the purpose of delay. But, did the sheriff in the case do anything not authorised by law? He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether a great portion of his remarks were not an attack upon the law rather than upon the practice, and whether the sheriff was not bound to return a certain number from the larger list, out of which the jury should be selected? The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in Frost's case another practice was adopted, that of an alphabetical list, and that an objection being made by the counsel for the prisoner of the departure from the usual practice, and the court appearing inclined to allow it, the Attorney General waved the point. But what does that show but that the usual practice being not an alphabetical arrangement, it gave rise to an objection; and that if the sheriff had in this case departed from the usual course, and made an alphabetical list, it would have been made the ground of an objection on the part of the prisoner's counsel. Then, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General having obtained this unfair selection, which had been prepared before the trial, should, in order to restore the balance, have left on the jury the Roman Catholics. I think that if the Attorney General had taken that course, he would have neglected his duty under the circumstances of the case. I will read to the House the instructions of the Attorney General to the Crown Solicitor, and will ask the House whether they are in accordance with the duty be had to perform, or whether it would have been better performed by his leaving on the list simply Roman Ca- tholics because he found them there? The hon. and learned Gentleman said the instructions of Sir C. O'Loghlen required that the Crown Solicitor should not set aside any person on the ground of political opinions, and that the instructions of Lord Chancellor Brady were not to set aside any person on the ground of any political or religious opinions, and that the Crown Solicitor should he able to state the grounds upon which any person was set aside. But those instructions were issued for ordinary trials, and were justly so considered by Mr. Monahan; and his instructions to Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, were these:—

'"The Queen v. Mitchel.' Dear Sir—In answer to your letter requiring my instructions relative to the course to be pursued by you in setting aside jurors on the part of the Crown in this case, I beg to say it is not, and never was, my wish or intention that any juror should be set aside on account of his religious opinions. But with respect to the propriety of setting aside jurors on account of their political opinions, I do not think that the instructions given on the subject by previous law officers were ever intended to apply to a case like the present, in which a party is to be tried for a political offence, and is openly supported and countenanced by certain political associations. I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that in the present case you should set aside on the part of the Crown, without regard to their religious opinions, all persons whom, from the inquiries you have made, and the information you have received, you find to entertain those peculiar political opinions avowed by the accused, and the associations by which he is supported; and, having regard to the extraordinary proceedings which have been had recourse to in order to intimidate the jury, I think you should also set aside such persons as, from their position, occupation, and circumstances, would be likely, by such intimidation, to be deterred from a fair and conscientious discharge of their duty as jurors. All that I wish for is a fair, impartial, and unbiassed jury; and, in my opinion, to allow any not coming within this description to be sworn would be to defeat the administration of the law, and be totally inconsistent with the true principle of trial by jury, which is, that the juror should stand indifferent between the Crown and the prisoner."

This is my answer to the charge brought against the Roman Catholic Attorney General when he is attacked for not retaining the whole of the Roman Catholics upon the jury. [Mr. KEOGH: NO, no!] Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is not conscious of what he said at the moment; but I understood him to say the whole of the Roman Catholics. But I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, if he had held the office of Attorney General, he would have dissented from the terms of that letter, and would have altered one word of those instructions of Mr. Monahan? It is a notorious fact that jurors in Ireland have been subjected to a species of persecution for venturing faithfully to discharge their duty. It was to save Mr. Campbell from becoming an object of persecution that he was set aside. Mr. Campbell was a Catholic and a grocer; and it was apprehended that he would be ruined in his business if he were on the jury, and ventured to give a verdict for the Crown. If the House will only bear in mind the peculiar circumstances under which the trials took place, I am sure it will not be disposed to concur in the censure which the hon. and learned Member has cast upon the Attorney General for Ireland. The hon. Member stated that eighteen Catholics had been set aside; but he ought to have added that twenty-one Protestants were also set aside. The hon. and learned Member referred to ten persons who, he said, ought to have been retained on the jury in Mitchel's case; but I know that with respect to six of those gentlemen, they formed part of a list in the possession of the prisoner's solicitor to be retained in the panel, because, I presume, they were supposed to be favourable to him. That was the reason why they were set aside, and not because they were Catholics, for recollect, Mr. Mitchel himself was a Protestant. It was not true that the Crown exercised the right of peremptory challenge. The prisoner could exercise the right of peremptory challenge in twenty cases, but the Crown could not have recourse to it in one; the Crown could challenge only on cause assigned. I say, then, that in the circumstances of the case the Attorney General would not have discharged the duties of his office fairly if he had pursued the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman recommends. In Mr. O'Brien's case also the traverser was a Protestant; and, therefore, no religious question was involved in the setting aside of Catholics. I will read to the House a statement drawn up by the Attorney General for Ireland, which will place the House in possession of the principles on which he acted. The statement was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, and is as follows:—

"I do not believe that a single person was struck off the list of jurymen on account of his religious opinions. It is unnecessary for me, being a Roman Catholic, to assure your Excellency, that I could have no desire to exclude from juries persons against whom there existed no objection but that they were of the same religious persuasion as myself. It was in consequence of Mr. Kemmis's determination not to exclude any Roman Catholic to whom no political objection existed, that he allowed the name of Mr. Fitzgerald to remain on the list, because he was a Roman Catholic; and he had not obtained any information leading him to believe that his political opinions coincided with those of the traversers. It is generally understood that Mr. Fitzgerald is one of the two who held out for the acquittal of Mr. O'Brien, the other being of similar politics, but a member of the Established Church. I believe, shortly after the trial, Mr. Fitzgerald attended a repeal meeting in Conciliation-hall, and took very great credit to himself for the course he pursued on the jury, Another thing which has, I understand, attracted observation, is that in forming the list of 48, some most respectable persons, magistrates—for instance, Mr. Roe—were objected to on the part of the Crown; while others, to whom a similar objection existed were allowed to remain in. This occurred in this way:—I was very anxious that there should be no danger of a postponement of the trial in consequence of nut having a full attendance of qualified jurors, and accordingly instructed Mr. Kemmis to object to all persons not legally qualified to serve, as other-wise an objection would probably be made by the traversers at the trial. In pursuance of those instructions, when the name of Mr. Howe, and, I believe, some others, were drawn, they were objected to by Mr. Kemmis. The counsel or solicitor who attended for the traversers admitted the existence of the objection, and the names were not put on the list. In a few minutes after the names of others similarly circumstanced were drawn, and a similar objection made, when the counsel for the traversers refused to admit the existence of the objection, though it was notorious, but beyond strict legal proof; this not being forthcoming, the person, though legally disqualified, was allowed to remain on the list of 48, and was afterwards struck off when reducing the list from 48 to 21. As it is probable some observations may be made as to the right exercised by the Crown of setting aside juries in the case of the 'Queen v. Mitchel,' I take the liberty of enclosing to your Excellency a copy of my instructions to the Crown Solicitor."

I have also a letter from Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, in which he declares that he acted in strict accordance with the instructions given by the Attorney General. I will now proceed to notice the articles of indictment which the hon. and learned Member has preferred against myself. I anticipated that the hon. and learned Gentleman would refer to a speech which I delivered in 1841; and before this discussion commenced I went up to the library to look at it, and I found a passage marked with ink, probably by the hon. and learned Member himself. As I said before, I should be sorry to trust the hon. and learned Gentleman as an impartial judge, though I do not deny that he is a zealous advocate. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, has not been very scrupulous in selecting extracts from the speech delivered by me on a former occasion to which he has referred. On looking back to that speech, there is not a word which I would net utter in the position I now occupy. I then held precisely the same opinion which I hold now, and which I then stated, that, commencing at the point at which the Crown Solicitor began to strike the juries, he could not, in the discharge of the duty imposed upon him, have taken any other course than that which he pursued. But the hon. and learned Gentleman kept that fact back. I am not surprised at that, because I know he is a skilful advocate; but I must say that I have a much greater opinion of his skill and talent than I have of his fairness and impartiality in conducting his case. In the speech to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, I said, with regard to the striking of the jury—

"The right hon. Gentleman, feeling that the pure administration of justice was a subject upon which this House and the people of this country were most deeply and properly sensitive—feeling the force of the observations which have been made, both within the walls of the House and out of doors, upon certain parts of the proceedings in the late trials in Ireland, addressed himself first to the defence of the Government in reference to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury by which the traversers in the Court of Queen's Bench were tried. Upon that subject I am bound to say, taking up the question at the point where the Crown Solicitor attended to strike the jury, and placing implicit reliance on the statement of the right hon. Baronet, I am not prepared to assert that the Crown Solicitor could have adopted my other course than that which he took. In expressing this opinion, I say nothing at present of the policy of the Government in instituting prosecutions which necessarily involved such a result."

I do not wish to reopen the question with regard to the policy of those prosecutions, as no observation has been made on the subject by the hon. and learned Gentle-man. I then proceeded—

"But if, as appears to have been admitted, eight out of ten Catholics were members of the Repeal Association, and of the remaining two, one, although not a member, was proved to have signed the requisition for a meeting—for so he had understood the right hon. Gentleman—[Sir J. GRAHAM: Was believed to have signed it, and net denied.] Believed and not denied, then, to have signed a requisition for calling one of those multitudinous meetings, the proceedings at which meeting were to furnish part of the evidence for the prosecution—I am bound to say that, with regard to these nine out of the ten Catholics, the Crown Solicitor would not have discharged his duty had he allowed them to remain upon the jury. With regard to the remaining one, the right hon. Gentleman has pledged his word that that person was believed to be a Protestant, but that, for reasons known to the Government, which they did not feel themselves called upon to dis- close, he had been struck off, those reasons being irrespective of the question whether he was a Catholic or a Protestant."

Those are passages which the hon. and learned Gentleman should not have suppressed. I would ask the House what they think of the conduct of an hon. Gentleman who, in the present critical state of Ireland, comes forward and makes charges with an litter disregard of fairness and impartiality? I ask the House whether, in defending the conduct of Mr. Monahan and Mr. Kemmis now, I am departing in the least from the opinions I expressed in 1844? The hon. and learned Gentleman, not knowing that I had the means of referring to the speech, endeavoured to induce the House to believe that on the occasion to which he has referred, I denounced the conduct of the Government, and accused the law officers of the Crown of having discharged their duty partially. I am not now prepared to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the wide field of debate as to the remedial measures which ought to he adopted for improving the condition of Ireland; and still less do I wish to anticipate the debate which may arise to-morrow on the Motion of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell). The hon. and learned Gentleman has commented upon my noble Friend's absence, as if, in leaving the House, the noble Lord had intended to offer an insult to Ireland, and as if—instead of attending to the responsible duties of his office—the noble Lord was seeking his own pleasure and ease. Now, I can assure the House that my noble Friend was influenced by no feeling of this kind; but as I was aware that he had most important duties to perform, I told him that I would remain here, with other Members of the Government, and that I proposed to address the House after the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh). On that understanding, the noble Lord left the House; and I consider that the attack which has been made upon him is most ungenerous, most unjust, and most unfair. When the hon. and learned Gentleman has been longer a Member of this House, he will know that taunts like these, even when thrown out by a man of his versatility of genius, will not affect the character of my noble Friend, whose life is before the country, and whose character commands the respect of all, except the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have now, I believe, referred to all those facts with regard to which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be particularly excited. He himself holds Roman Catholic opinions, and he was anxious that Roman Catholics should have been retained upon the jury; but while I respect Mr. Monahan's attachment to the Roman Catholic faith, I honour him for not pandering to popular feeling by adopting the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Keogh) would evidently have wished him to pursue. I shall oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he impugns the jury laws, which are applicable alike to England and to Ireland, let him bring in a Bill to amend those laws. I must say that, in my opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely failed to establish any case which would justify the censure implied by this Motion upon the Attorney General for Ireland and the Government. I am ready, if the hon. and learned Gentleman pleases, to take upon myself personally the responsibility of the course which has been adopted; and I certainly think he has entirely failed to show that the jury did not act in a most impartial and unprejudiced manner, and that they did not do full justice between the Crown and the prisoner upon trial.

, in explanation, said it was a marked characteristic of that House to hear impatiently the defence of Members who might be accused. A great charge, or rather great charges, had been brought against him by the right hon. Gentleman, He had made altogether three charges against him, for none of which had he presumed to give his authority. He had stated, without authority, that he (Mr. Keogh) had caused the Government to be informed that he would support them—

No; what he said was, that pending the petition presented against the return of the hon. Member, he had not given Her Majesty's Government any reason to suppose they would find him an opponent, provided the petition were withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman had denied that statement; and he (Sir G. Grey) had stated he was bound to take the hon. Member's word.

said, the right hon. Baronet had not stated that he (Mr. Keogh) led Her Majesty's Government directly or indirectly to believe he should give them his support if a petition against him were withdrawn. But he was glad he had now an opportunity of saying he had not given Her Majesty's Government any reason to believe he should not be opposed to them if the petition against his return were withdrawn. So then now, in the place of a charge, there were only two refined negatives. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he (Mr. Keogh) should have held out any such expectation to Her Majesty's Government, having, as he had, fought his own election against a candidate who was pledged to the repeal of the Union? How could Her Majesty's Government have the power of withdrawing the petition? But he would now state some facts connected with the case, since the right hon. Baronet seemed so familiar with the repeal candidates and repeal petitions in Parliament. He (Mr. Keogh) had Friends in the House who he thought would repose confidence in the statements which he would make, and he would now tell the House, that having been opposed in his election by a repeal candidate, he had been offered, as he before stated, on the very hustings—he had been offered three different times, in the most solemn manner, that the repeal candidate should he withdrawn—he had been offered it by the Roman Catholic bishop, that the re-peal candidate should he withdrawn, if, even in private, he would say that he would favour the repeal of the Union. He refused, and he was fortunate enough to secure his election. He would next state the particulars to which the right hon. Baronet alluded. He would speak to some Friends of his on the other side of the House. He said that he was there fighting a battle against a repeal candidate; that he had been opposed to the last in a contested struggle because he would not flinch from his declared hostility to repeal; and he asked his Friends why he should he opposed in such a contest by the Government and the Government money; by the money of a Government which had declared its hostility to a repeal of the Union? And why did he say that, but because he was told that the petition against him was supported by the promise of money from the Government? He had stated that to his Friends on the other side of the House, and he was sure the House would agree with him in thinking that such conduct on the part of the Government was most inconsistent and most unfair. But directly, or indirectly, he had never held out any expectation of support to Her Majesty's Government in that House, except so far as he could conscientiously give it. But the petitions were not withdrawn. Her Majesty's Government had not withdrawn the petitions. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no power to cause them to be withdrawn, and yet it was to Her Majesty's Government that he (Mr. Keogh) was to apply in order to have them withdrawn. But he said that the Government had the power, and the charge was a precise one, which he was going to make. It was, that a Member of Her Majesty's Government, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, had fomented, encouraged, and supported that petition against him. The hon. Gentleman looked quite incredulous—the hon. Gentleman who was rejected for the borough of Lambeth. The hon. Gentleman, after he had been rejected by Lambeth, sent a gentleman who was himself only twenty-four hours arrived from the colony of Newfoundland, where he had lately held the office of chief justice. He sent that learned gentleman along with the gentleman who had been his agent at the Lambeth election, to sec if he could, with any chance of success, contest the borough of which he (Mr. Keogh) was now the representative. The ex-chief justice of Newfoundland arrived with the hon. Gentleman's agent, and he alleged several things in favour of the hon. Gentleman; amongst others, he especially urged the large number of suffrages which he had received in Lambeth. However, he did not think it well finally to try his chance at the election, and the ex-chief justice and the election agent decamped almost as fast as they had arrived. What was his (Mr. Keogh's) surprise to find that of the petitions lodged against his return—for there were three—the ex chief justice had got up one signed by his (the chief justice's) father; and that whilst he was in daily communication with the right hon. Baronet himself, he used to come into the office to fight the petition, which he (Mr. Keogh) succeeded in defeating. The feeling in the borough of Athlone having, however, as he had stated in Kinsale, become the object of the hon. Gentleman's attention—

The indulgence of the House in hearing the hon. Gentleman is confined to an explanation in reply to any personal attack made upon him.

hoped that, as the hon. Gentleman had commenced an attack upon him, he might be allowed to finish it.

was only making statements which he thought were connected with the charges which the right hon. Gentleman had made against him. He next came to the second charge made against him by the right hon. Gentleman, who had charged him with having published a pamphlet in 1843 or 1844. He did not know whether it was the custom of hon. Members of that House to plead guilty to any charge of having published anonymous pamphlets which might be made against them; but if it were, he had no hesitation in saying he was ready to own any that he had published. But the right hon. Baronet seemed not to have made much of it; for although he (Mr. Keogh) was ready to avow the authorship, the right hon. Gentleman had not read a single extract from it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that as he (Mr. Keogh) was a lawyer, he might possibly plead the Statute of Limitations to what he had said in 1841; but he scarcely thought Her Majesty's Government could plead it as against what they had done in 1844. The right hon. Gentleman had accused him of suppressing passages and portions of his speeches; but the House had now heard both parties, and could judge between them whether the charge was a fair one. But where were the statements made by him which would support the charge made against him by the right hon. Gentleman?

…. Quisnam

Delator? Quibus indiciis? Quo teste probavit?

Where was the paper? Who was the authority? Let the right hon. Gentleman name the paper. He had read a printed thing which he called a report of a speech made by him (Mr. Keogh) in 1841. Where was the passage to be found? [Sir G. GREY: It was put into my hands only about five minutes before I got up.] When was it published? [Sir G. GREY: Before the general election in 1841.] He utterly denied, in the most solemn manner, that either directly or indirectly, in youth or in more advanced years, he had ever declared or uttered an opinion in favour of the repeal of the Union. And he would tell the House how he could prove it. From the time when he was a student in the University of Dublin—which was not so long ago—when they held their mimic debates in the Historical Society, he was always the strenuous opponent of the repeal of the Union; and he appealed to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Torrens M'Cullagh) to bear him out in his assertion that he was almost the only member of that society who was an opponent to the repeal. With regard to the dinner, he would explain the circumstances connected with it. Being possessed of some small property in the county Mayo, he was down in the neighbourhood at the time; he found the late Sir William Brabazon, with whom he was perfectly acquainted; and a dinner was given to Sir William Brabazon, then Whig Member for Mayo, and to that dinner he was asked, and to that dinner he went. He recollected this most distinctly, that neither by word, act, or deed, did he assent to anything connected with the repeal of the Union; that, called as a young barrister to reply to the health of O'Connell, he spoke of him in terms of warm admiration as a person who had emancipated him as a Roman Catholic; but he could recollect that he guarded himself against using any expression which would imply a direct assent to the doctrine of the repeal of the Union; and he defied any hon. Gentleman to read a passage from the paper assenting to the repeal of the legislative Union. Whether the House would consider that as a satisfactory explanation of the accidents of seven years to a man just then entering on the world, and whose opinions were then as formed on the repeal of the Union as those of any Gentleman, it was for the House to decide; but he had never paltered with the question in a double sense—he had never given cheques for the support of the seat of repeal candidates, or, as a Cabinet Minister, forwarded to them the money which was to pay the price of their conversion.

A very unexpected, a most unjustifiable, and perfectly unfounded personal attack has been made upon me by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am here to meet that most unexpected attack upon mo, and to give it the most unequivocal denial. I will state the facts, just as they occurred to me, in reference to the borough of Athlone. Immediately after the Lambeth election, a gentleman to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, came to my house and told me there was a prospect of ray success at Athlone. I believe it is not at all an unnatural thing that a defeated candidate should receive such a communication. He told me there was a fair prospect of success at Athlone, and volunteered his services to go. I knew nothing of Athlone. I was not unwilling to seize any chance of obtaining a seat in the House, but I thought it a prudent precaution to send a friend in whom I had confidence. That friend went to the borough, and made a communication to me which led me decidedly to say, I was not a candidate for the borough. Rut, now I come to the more serious part of this unfounded charge against me—that I fomented, or stirred up, or was in any way party to, or cognisant to, a petition got up against the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was no party, directly or indirectly, in any way, nor had I the smallest knowledge that any such petition was got up; and it was not till long afterwards I heard accidentally of the petition. I had no interest in it—I cared nothing about it; and I assure the hon. Gentleman, in the most unequivocal way, that I had no knowledge of, and was in no way a party to, the petition.

wished to recall the attention of the House to the subject immediately before it. The hon. Gentleman made several efforts to address the House without obtaining a hearing, and therefore moved that the House do now adjourn.

had to express his regret at so much acrimony and personal feeling being displayed. He had a good deal of experience in public meetings, and deliberative assemblies, and he could not charge his memory with recollecting an occasion when the question under consideration was so widely departed from as on the present occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Motion, stated that his object in doing so was to sot Her Majesty's Government right with the people of Ireland, and reinstate them in public confidence. But what degree of credit the hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to when he made that assertion, he (Mr. Reynolds) would have the House to judge. Certainly his speech did not appear to him (Mr. Reynolds) to he calculated to improve their position. In the course of that speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman had appealed to him to verify his assertion as to the respectability of the Catholics who had been excluded from the juries of Mr. Smith O'Brien, of Mr. Meagher, and of Mr. Mitchel. As a citizen of Dublin, intimately acquainted with that community, he felt no hesitation in saying that those gentlemen of his creed who had been excluded from those juries were men collectively and individually most respectable. He believed that, in public and in private, their reputations would be found to be unblemished, and their characters unimpeached and unimpeachable. He (Mr. Reynolds), therefore, had always expressed his surprise that the Attorney General for Ireland, or whoever repre- sented that functionary, thought it was his duty to exclude them from the juries on those State trials. He believed that foul play had been adopted in the selection of those juries; he had always stated so in public and in private; and he believed that a deep wound had been inflicted upon the administration of justice in Ireland by such selection. During the debate, he (Mr. Reynolds) had heard imputations thrown out, not against Roman Catholics, but men who, like himself, were sincere advocates for the restoration of the Irish people to the right of self-legislation; and was he to be told, in that House, that, because he was an advocate for the repeal of an Act of Parliament, be was not to be believed upon his oath? If they put forward such a doctrine as that, the people would despair of receiving justice at their hands. He therefore cautioned hon. Gentlemen against promulgating such doctrines; for they might drive the people to despair, and must then be prepared to take the consequeuces. With regard to the selection or packing of the juries, if ever there was a period when it should be an especial object to avoid any complaint on that head, this is the period. It appeared that the Government had unfortunately undertaken a system of wholesale prosecution—where it was to end, God could only know; but much as he (Mr. Reynolds) was opposed to the suspension of the constitution—strongly as he was opposed to Coercion Hills, whether they called them "Arms Dills," or "Felony Bills," or "A Bill for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act," he would rather one and all of those Bills should be enacted, than be told that, as a Roman Catholic, he was not deserving of confidence, and that he was not fit to be believed upon his oath. They were told that the strongest bulwark of their liberty was the trial by jury; but he would he glad to know how they could get the people of Ireland to believe that doctrine if they sanctioned the packing or selection of juries? Reference had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the former opinions of Gentlemen on the Treasury benches; he said they wrote so-and so on a certain day, and stated so-and-so on a certain day, and that they now turned their backs on the principles they had formerly professed. The hon. Gentleman accused denied the soft impeachment, and so the matter remained unsettled. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he never was a repealer —that, thank God! whatever false stops he might have taken, he had not fallen into that abyss—and had not advocated the restoration of the Irish Parliament. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had done so, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not he one particle less respectable than he was. Reference had been made to a speech, which was said to be delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the year 1841. But there was a mistake in the date—it appeared that the speech was delivered in the year 1840; he held in his hand an extract from that speech, and as it settled the question, the House would probably permit him to read it. It was taken from the Freeman's Journal, October 7, 1840, Lord Melbourne being then Prime Minister. The speech was delivered at a dinner given at Claremorris, and which was intended to compliment the then hon. Members for the county of Mayo, both of whom were pledged repealers—Sir W. Brabazon and Mr. Dillon Browne. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Athlone was present, and the toasts were as follow: "Her Majesty the Queen, Prince Albert, and the rest of the Royal Family resident in England"—that excluded the King of Hanover—" Her Majesty's Government—the Repeal of the Union—Daniel O'Connell." In the course of an eloquent speech delivered by Mr. Dillon Browne, he went on to propose, after several other toasts were given, "the health of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M.P.;" and there having been loud calls for Mr. William Keogh, that gentleman, after being repeatedly called upon, addressed the assembly as follows:—

"I am as yet nearly a stranger to you, and must claim your kind indulgence. I have only within the last few hours arrived from a distant part of the country. I thank you for the great honour you have conferred on me in allowing my name for an instant to he associated with the great men of Ireland and of Europe. The compliment you have paid me is entirely unexpected, and shall be warmly remembered; at the same time my breast is full of the subject on which you have debated; and in common with every young man who chooses to enlist in the ranks of his fellow-countrymen, it beats high with hope. It is au honour to have my name associated with the great patriot who, after thirty years' exertion, is still followed with undeviating fidelity and undiminished love. I feel that nothing unworthy of his great name should be stated. Where shall I begin? We are fighting for English constitutional liberty, led on by O'Connell, and supported by the most paternal Government Ireland has ever seen—the Government presided over by Lord Melbourne."

He (Mr. Reynolds) would be glad to know if that was not a speech sanctioning the repeal of the Union? The hon. Member had published a pamphlet in 1840, which contained very different opinions indeed from those expressed by him at present; and was as much opposed as possible to his present views, at least according to his own account. A court of justice in England had decided that the mode in which the trial of Mr. O'Connell had been conducted in Ireland was "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare;" but of all the acts which the Irish Government had committed, the late trial was the most unprecedented.