said, that hon. Members who were acquainted with the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas would he satisfied, without any statement from him, that that learned individual would not he neglectful of any duty attached to his high office. He had, however, communicated with the learned Judge on the subject, and received from him the following statement, dated August 30, which he would read to the House. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in a letter addressed to him (the Attorney General) stated—

"I am much obliged to you for your note and the copy of the petition about to be presented by Mr. Anstey. The only observation which I have to make upon its contents is, that so far as they refer to me, they are founded in error. I am not on the rota for attendance at chambers, nor is it any part of my duty as a Chief Justice to attend. In the arrangement of the judicial duties, that of the routine attendance at chambers has always been performed by the puisne judges; and neither the Chief Justices nor the Lord Chief Baron are in the habit of attending, although, under special circumstances, "and as an accommodation to their brother judges, they may have attended on particular occasions. Previously to the appointment of the three additional judges, in 1832, there was no regular attendance at chambers during the long vacation. In 1838 a resolution was adopted by the judges, that the last newly-appointed judge who had not before performed the duty should be the attending judge in the long vacation. The Chief Justices and the Chief Baron have considered that resolution to refer to the judges charged ordinarily with the duty of attending to chamber business, and have never held it to refer to themselves, or acted upon it. In the long vacation of 1816, following my appointment, I had an intimation from one of the judges that I was expected to attend chambers during that vacation. I disclaimed being subject to any such duty, and declined to attend. Since that time no communication on the subject has been made to me by any of the judges; but upon my return from the circuit last week, I heard from my clerk that it was reported that I was about to attend chambers. I immediately stated that such report was not authorised by me, and that I did not propose to attend; and the notices referred to in the petition have none of them been issued by my direction, or had my sanction. I learn from the Lord Chief Baron that, upon his appointment. Lord Denman and the late Lord Chief Justice Tindal, both intimated to him that it was no part of his duty to attend chambers, pursuant to the resolution of 1838; and the Lord Chancellor has given me permission to authorise you to state to the House, that he considers that it is not my duty to attend upon the present occasion. I received your letter and the petition last night, and also letters from two solicitors; and, learning from them that there were some matters calling for an early judicial interference, I did not think it right to stand upon a question of strict obligation, but came to town this morning and directed immediate notices to be sent to the parties that I would attend at chambers to-morrow at eleven o'clock, and I shall attend accordingly, for a few days, in order that the public may not be inconvenienced while the judges make their arrangements for future attendance during the vacation."

He was sure that the House would acknowledge that the Lord Chief Justice had acted most praiseworthily in taking care that the public should not be put to an inconvenience; though that act of kindness on his part must not be construed into any admission that his attendance was obligatory.

said, that some time ago he had put a question to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department as to the illegal "sweeps" advertisements; and as to the intention of the Government to prosecute the parties who offended in that respect. The answer he received was, that the matter would be referred to the proper authorities; and he now asked the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether any decision had been come to on the subject? He asked the question in the interest of certain newspapers, which had hitherto refused to insert such advertisements.

believed that there had been a misconception of the intention of the Act of Parliament introduced by the noble Lord opposite with respect to the authority or duty of the Attorney General to prosecute in cases of this sort. He believed that that duty of the Attorney General existed only in respect to racing. He, however, admitted that the evil referred to was so extensive, and tended so much to the demoralisation of the people engaged in it; and that at the same time the permission of it was not right or fair towards those newspapers which, in obedience to the law, abstained from inserting advertisements of the nature referred to—that he felt he should be compelled to take proceedings, if the practice of publishing those advertisements were continued. He thought it right to give this public notice on the subject, in order that parties might not afterwards excuse themselves on the plea that they had offended innocently and in ignorance of the law.

said, an answer precisely similar to the one which the House had just heard had boon given to a question put by him three months ago.

said that he had stated, on the occasion alluded to by the hon. Baronet, that he had referred the matter to the Attorney General. Since that period the offence had gone on increasing.

trusted that there would not be one law for the rich, and another for the poor. If these "sweeps," which were the lotteries in which the middle classes took part, were to be put down, it was to be hoped that all lotteries of every description at the clubs and among the higher classes would be treated in the same way.

understood the question of the hon. Member for Youghal to refer to the advertisements in certain newspapers respecting different "sweeps." He was not at all anxious to take any steps in the matter, as such proceedings were always painful; but the subject had been so much pressed on his attention, that he felt bound to exercise the power vested in him.

brought up the report of the Committee on Works of Art.

thought that some acknowledgment of public thankfulness ought to be offered to Mr. Vernon for the unparalleled donation he had made to the country. He could not allow the report of the Committee on Works of Art to be laid on the table without expressing his opinion, that an act so unprecedented as that of Mr. Vernon should not pass without acknowledgment. Something ought to be done to mark the public gratitude. If a donation like that were to be allowed to pass by in silence, he feared that the public would not deserve to receive such another.

assured the hon. Baronet that the Committee on Works of Art expressed their sense of the great and splendid generosity exhibited by Mr. Vernon in the donation he had made to the country.

stated that Her Majesty's Government had received two despatches from the Governor of Ceylon, dated in July, which stated that a noisy meeting had taken place in Kandy on the subject of ordinances recently issued by the Colonial Government; that Sir E. Tennent, the Colonial Secretary, had been despatched to Kandy to explain the ordinances to the people; and that they were perfectly satisfied with his explanation. The Governor, in a despatch of the 12th of July, stated that every thing was quiet. It was quite true the troops had been ordered out, but it was rather for show than use, on account of the police feeling some alarm; and the appearance of the soldiers had the immediate effect of producing tranquillity. With regard to the ordinances in question, he (Mr. Hawes) might state that the Governor had repealed a very large portion of the taxation of Ceylon; he had equalised the import duties, and had reduced the export duties, but he found it necessary to substitute some other taxes. That taxation was not, however, as had been stated in another place, in the nature of a poll-tax. It was a tax for the improvement of the roads, similar to the old statute-labour in this country, the inhabitants of certain districts in Ceylon being required to give six days' labour in the year, or to pay 3s. in lieu of it. This had been explained by Sir E. Tennent, and the people seemed to be perfectly satisfied with his statement. A tax upon guns had been imposed by the Governor; but formerly no one in the island was allowed to carry a gun, and this matter had also been satisfactorily explained by Sir E. Tennent.

moved, as an Amendment, that it be read a third time that day month.

wished to put a question to the Home Secretary, of which he had given notice, with respect to the treatment of the convicted felon Mitchel. His object in putting this question was to obtain a contradiction of certain reports, in which he (Lord G. Bentinck) certainly did not place any credit. Those reports, which related to the treatment of Mitchel at Bermuda, had been so widely circulated, that he (Lord G. Bentinck) thought it absolutely necessary, in order to show the determination of the Government to visit persons of all stations who might be convicted of offences with equal punishment, that some contradiction should be given to them. He had received a letter on this subject from a person who was connected with the legal profession, and who did not wish his name to he publicly mentioned, although he (Lord G. Bentick) had stated it in confidence to the right hon. Home Secretary. The writer requested him to ask whether Mitchel had messed every day with the Lieutenant commanding Her Majesty's ship Scourge, on the voyage from Cork to Bermuda? His informant said—

"It is well known here that he did. It is also reported that, on taking leave of him, the officer of that steamer shook hands with him."

And the writer added, that the lieutenant commanding justified this conduct under a letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, ambiguously worded, in which the officer was told to remember Mr. Mitchel's former position. The writer further stated that since Mr. Mitchel's arrival at Bermuda he had a private room on board the hulk—that he had a servant, another convict, to wait on him—that he were his ordinary clothes instead of the convict dress—and that he had not been put upon the public works. A similar report had found its way into the American newspapers. The New York Herald of the 4th instant stated, with respect to Mitchel, that he still were his own clothes; that he was not asked to work; that he was treated in every respect, consistently with his safe keeping, like a gentleman; and that he was allowed books, but neither pen nor paper. In putting this question, he wished it to be understood that he did not believe that any officer in the Queen's service would shake hands with a convicted felon; and he felt perfectly satisfied that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would he able to tell the House that no distinction would be made between convicts of station and education, and the meanest convicts who might be subjected to the penalties of the law. He begged to add that, far from crediting the statement that Lord Clarendon had written a letter directing that Mitchel should be treated in a different manner from other convicts, he believed that that noble Lord was actuated by a determination to carry out the law rigidly and justly.

said, that a question similar in purport to that asked by the noble Lord, had been put to him some time since by another hon. Member; and the answer he had now to give to the noble Lord's question, would be substantially the same as he had before given. On that occasion, the hon. Member placed in his hands copies of the information which had reached him on the subject. He communicated with the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, who stated that he had not received any corroboration of that information. He stated at that time that Mitchel was removed from Cork to Bermuda almost immediately after his conviction, not in an ordinary convict ship—because there would have been considerable delay before such a ship was ready—but that, in order to show the determination of the Government to carry the law into effect, he was placed on board a war steamer, the Scourge, which was about to proceed to Bermuda. He might here state, that the Scourge was not commanded by a lieutenant, but by a commander—Commander Wingrove, who was an officer of considerable standing in the service. Commander Wingrove received his instructions as to the treatment of Mitchel, not from the Lord Lieutenant, who had no power to give such orders, but under an Admiralty letter, an extract from which he had before read. It was indeed necessary that such instructions should be addressed to the commander, because the conveyance of convicts was not any part of the service of men-of-war. Commander Wingrove was instructed that while any possibility of the prisoner's escape existed, every precaution should be taken for his safe custody, but that while at sea he should be allowed such indulgence in the way of exercise and food as the state of his health, which was represented to be delicate, might render necessary. The officer was also directed to provide a cabin for the prisoner's reception, in which he was to take his meals, and at the door of which a sentry was to be placed. He (Sir G. Grey) had received no information to lead him to suppose that the accounts which had been given to the noble Lord opposite could be correct; and, in the absence of any information on the subject, and remembering also the misstatements which had been circulated with regard to the prisoner's treatment on board the Shearwater, on his passage from Dublin to Cork, he must express his belief that the statements referred to by the noble Lord were unfounded. With respect to the representations which had been made as to Mitchel's treatment at Bermuda, the best answer he could give would be to read some extracts from the despatches of Governor Elliot. In a letter addressed to Earl Grey, and dated the 22nd of June, Governor Elliot stated—

"In reply to your Lordship's separate despatch of the 29th of May," [which transmitted the warrant authorising the Governor to receive and detain John Mitchel, and which warrant was made out in precisely the same form as in the case of other convicts,] "I have the honour to report, that Her Majesty's sloop Scourge arrived hero on the 20th inst. After ascertaining from Lord Dundonald when it would be convenient to hand over the prisoner John Mitchel, I ordered him to be received by Mr. J. K. Kirkham, overseer of the Dromedary, and he was accordingly removed to that hulk last evening at four o'clock. Dr. Hall, the medical superintendent of the convict establishment, waited upon me this morning, and recommended that this prisoner should not be sent out to the works till it could be judged how far occupation of that nature might be compatible with his health and strength, reported to be constitutionally weak."

On the 4th of July, Governor Elliot addressed another letter to Earl Grey, in which he said—

"The medical superintendent has stated it to be his opinion that the prisoner, John Mitchel, has a chronic affection of the lungs, and, acting under his advice, I have caused Mitchel to be removed to the Tenedos hospital ship."

This letter enclosed the following communication from Dr. Hall to the Governor, and upon which Governor Elliot acted:—

"I have the honour to submit to your Excellency some observations that have presented themselves to my notice in the medical inspection which I have made to-day on board the hulks in the Chamber. According to the regulations of the service, my attention was directed to the state of health of a recently arrived prisoner, named John Mitchel, now on board the Dromedary hulk; and, from his bodily appearance, and the information afforded by a medical certificate, I have been led to bring under your Excellency's notice my opinion that the said John Mitchel has a chronic affection of his lungs and a physical condition of body, which renders him very inefficient for hard labour on the public works. Although he is not now on the sick list, yet it is very probable he soon will be. I beg leave, therefore, to submit to your consideration whether he might not be usefully employed among the convalescents in the ward for sick officers in this hospital."

He apprehended the meaning of this was that Mitchel would be employed in the same way as the other convict servants in the hospital-ship, and that such work would be assigned to him as was performed by convalescents. He might state that, since this correspondence was received, he had heard that Mitchel had been removed to another hulk. The only statement the noble Lord had made for which there appeared to be any foundation was that Mitchel had not been employed on public works; and this was in consequence of the recommendation of Dr. Hall. He had no information with regard to the prisoner's dress. Indeed, he had read to the house all the information he possessed on the subject.

inquired whether the Russian troops were not still in Moldavia; whether the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had had any communication from Russia upon this subject; and whether the troops were likely to he speedily withdrawn?

These Russian troops entered Moldavia, some time ago, at the request of the Hospodar, and without any orders from the Cabinet of St. Petersburgh. I believe, in fact, that when it was made known at Constantinople, the Russian Minister there sent a communication to the general, that a commissary was going to those provinces, and that therefore their presence was not wanted, and that upon that they were going to withdraw. Since that, I believe, orders have been received from St. Peters-burgh that they should remain till further instructions. The corps is not large, but it does remain there. I have had recent communications from St. Petersburgh, stating that the purpose for which it is there is the maintenance or re-establishment of order, that its stay is only temporary, and that it will be withdrawn when the occasion has ceased; of course, no definite period was stated, but it was avowed to be only a temporary occupation. Russia has certain relations with those principles as a protecting Power, by virtue of treaties; and therefore it is not entirely a case of the entrance of the troops of one Government into the country of another with which it has no concern. The entry is on the authority of the Hospodar, and there is no disposition for the acquisition of territory.

said: Sir, I feel it my duty to address to the House a few observations on a matter affecting in an important degree my own character, and that of every other Member of the House who was associated with me in the discharge of the duties imposed on us by our being selected to try the merits of the petition presented against the late return for the borough of Cheltenham. This a matter which concerns not myself only, and those Gentlemen, but it concerns also the dignity and character of this House, because an impediment has been offered to the due discharge of those difficult, and delicate, and laborious functions which are intrusted to Committees who have to decide on the validity of the elections of Members of the House. I am sure that when I first heard of my appointment on the Committee, I was fully aware that I had been appointed to discharge a very disagreeable duty, and one which might become infinitely more disagreeable, if the consequence of the investigation should he that we should feel it necessary to declare the seat to he vacant. I confess, however, that I was not prepared to find that, after honestly and conscientiously discharging the duties imposed upon me by the House and by the law, and which I had sworn at the table faithfully to perform, I should he assailed with scurrilous, venomous, foul-mouthed, personal calumny by the Gentleman who was unseated by the decision of that Committee; a Gentleman to whom I was a total stranger, to whom I bore no personal ill will, and no ill will on public and political grounds; and towards whom I had no other feeling than a desire to render him justice in the execution of the duty assigned to me. I have received information from several parties, to whom I beg to tender my best thanks, that a speech was delivered by Mr. Craven Berkeley, at Cheltenham, on Monday last, which was published in the Cheltenham Examiner of Wednesday. That gentleman is reported to have addressed a meeting of the electors of Cheltenham, and to have referred to the Members of the Election Committee in the following terms. He said—

"Gentlemen, when Mr. James, my counsel, and myself, saw the constitution of the tribunal before which my cause was to he tried, we viewed the result of their decision with serious apprehension and alarm. I will tell you how that Committee was constituted; and now, gentlemen of the press, take my words down and report them correctly, for I intend my opinion of that Committee to go east, and west, and north, and south."

Now, really I am sorry to read the words which follow—not for the sake of Sir W. Clay, because it was impossible for any man to exhibit more ability, more courtesy, more candour, more moderation and justice, or a greater consideration for all parties concerned, than were displayed by Sir W. Clay as the Chairman of that Committee. And yet, because the Committee came to a decision adverse to Mr. C. Berkeley's wishes, he speaks of Sir W. Clay in these disgraceful terms:—

"Now, the Gentleman selected as Chairman of that Committee was Sir William Clay, the Member for the Tower Hamlets—an empty-headed coxcombical fop, possessing that which no other person possesses of him—the very best opinion of himself—a man, to use a common expression, who, for any one to buy at his own valuation, and sell at his intrinsic worth, the purchaser would be very much the loser."

No Gentleman would think this worth noticing; it refutes itself. I now come to what is said of myself:—

"The next Gentleman upon that Committee was Mr. Roundell Palmer, the Member for Plymouth, a Puseyite lawyer, who has bolstered up his somewhat questionable reputation by means of one or two lucky hits in the Court of Chancery. He is perfectly ignorant of the law of evidence, and perfectly ignorant of the common law of the land, and of the practice of the ordinary tribunals of justice in this country."

Now, if this gentleman had stopped there, I should not have noticed his observations, because I should have felt that it was quite unnecessary for me to come here and make any answer to such an attack. But what he goes on to say is this:—

"Now, Gentlemen, I contend that a Parliamentary Committee once formed, becomes a judicial tribunal, and that it is bound to decide on such evidence, and such alone, as would be admitted in a court of common law. Did the Committee act upon that fair and honourable principle? Why, if this petition had been brought before any jury of twelve honest Englishmen, chosen from any county in the empire, I don't care where, they would never have left the box to consider their verdict, which must have boon an unanimous verdict in my favour."

Certainly, if that were so, we were very unfortunate, because the vote of the Committee against the hon. Gentleman was unanimous; that Committee being composed of Members entertaining different political opinions, and the majority, I believe, consisting of Members holding the same political opinions as the hon. Gentleman. But now comes the passage to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the House:—

"I will now return to the constitution of the Committee. I have disposed of two of them, and I appeal to you whether I have not fairly, and justly, and honestly, disposed of them. And here I am reminded that one of these Gentlemen (Mr. Roundell Palmer) committed during this investigation one of the most indecent acts which it was possible for a man in his situation to be guilty of. Mr. Roundell Palmer was in frequent conversation and colloquy with the counsel and agents for the petitioners during the hearing of the case. I ask you, if any man were being tried for an offence at Gloucester, what would the country say, if during the hearing of the case any of the jurymen were to be seen in consultation with the counsel for the prosecution? Yet that was what was done by Mr. Palmer during the inquiry. He was seen near Howard's robing-rooms, next door to the House of Commons, where, no doubt, he had been closeted with the counsel for the petitioners."

That I meet with the most distinct and deliberate contradiction. I never spoke one word to any one of the agents concerned on either side. With the counsel I was personally and professionally acquainted, and of course if I met them I spoke to them as friends. But if I made any observations to them in the progress of the case, I most carefully guarded myself from saying anything which could guide them as to what was going on in the deliberations of the Committee. I never said one word to them which did not relate to unimportant topics; and, as to being closeted with the counsel for the petitioners, I declare that a more unfounded calumny never came from the mouth of man. In the same way, it might be said of me that I was closeted with Mr. Craven Berkeley, because that Gentleman did me the honour to address to me some conversation upon what was going on, which he might have done with great propriety. I repeat, therefore, that a more ungenerous, a more unjust, or a more unfounded charge never was made against any man. Mr. Berkeley goes on to say:—

"Now, Gentlemen, the third Member of the Committee is Captain Harris, the Member for Christchurch, and brother to Lord Malmesbury. He is a Tory of the old school, and he went to that Committee with his mind made up, and perfectly convinced that it was his conscientious duty to unseat the Liberal Member. The two other Members of the Committee are very estimable and amiable men in private life; but I assert that they are both totally unfit to sit upon a legal tribunal. Whatever Mr. Roundell Palmer said, Mr. Ogle and Mr. Thicknesse immediately assented to."

Now that, I believe, is all that I need notice. To be sure, one Gentleman at the meeting was pleased to play upon my name, and to call me "Mr. Scoundrel Palmer;" but he was not a former Member of this House, and his observations may he passed over without further remark. Probably I might be justified in founding some Motion upon the statements which I have read to the House, or in bringing the matter forward as a breach of privilege; but I do not think it worth while. I trust that the House will not think it necessary to call for this mode of vindication, and that the characters of the hon. Gentlemen who have been assailed will be thought to afford a sufficient refutation of the charge. I must say, I never heard a clearer case than Mr. Craven Berkeley's; and the decisions of the Committee were unanimous, except upon the last point which came before them. Mr. Gardner, the Conservative candidate, had given a notice in general terms, respecting acts of bribery which had been committed during the election; and he claimed the seat on the ground that Mr. Berkeley had been disqualified, though he (Mr. Gardner) was in a considerable minority. The question was one of much nicety, and we divided upon it in the proportion of two to three; and if I had thought fit to concur in the opinion expressed by the Chairman of the Committee, who is opposed to me in politics, and by another Member of it, who agrees with him, Mr. Gardner would now have been the sitting Member for Cheltenham. After what I have said, I hope the House will excuse me from taking any further notice of the matter.

quite agreed with the observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member, that unless this very unjust accusation had been made against the constitution of the tribunal appointed for the trial of the petition, it would not have been worth his while to bring the matter forward. He regretted exceedingly that a gentleman, who was formerly a Member of that House, should, in the excitement of an election, have indulged in the unjustifiable language which he was reported to have uttered. It was a most unfair thing to cast an imputation upon any Gentleman for speaking as a friend to gentlemen with whom he had a professional acquaintance. He was not a member of the bar, but he was acquainted with many of the Parliamentary counsel, and he should think it very hard if he were accused of a want of impartiality because he had exchanged a word with Mr. Serjeant Wrangham or with Mr. Serjeant King-lake.

I think I should he wanting in duty to the House, if I did not rise to express my indignation at the outrage which has been committed against the five honourable men who were the Members of this Committee. I hope that the noble Lord opposite, representing the Government, will also express the indignation which is universally felt by us that a gentleman, once a Member of this House, should have dared to make such an attack as this on Gentlemen acting judicially in their office of Members of an Election Committee. I learn from you, Sir, that technically this is no breach of privilege, because an Election Committee is appointed by an Act of Parliament, and by that Act is directed to be constituted of Members of this House. But, if this had been a Select Committee, acting by the order and appointment of the House exclusively—if such a charge had been made against it, I apprehend it would have been such a breach of the privileges of this House that we could not have abstained from calling any gentleman who had been guilty of it to the bar. But, what is the case here? An Election Committee, with three out of its five Members who were the political friends of the gentleman whe has now dared to impugn their conduct, has been charged by him with partiality, corruption, and injustice. And then the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth, whose legal reputation is known to all the empire and to all the world, is selected, above all, as a person supposed to be ignorant of law; when it turns out that he was the very Member to whose influence—an influence just on account of his legal reputation—it was owing that the claimant of the seat, who was of the hon. and learned Member's own party, was prevented from obtaining it. I could not resist rising and expressing my feelings of indignation against such a charge.

I feel no difficulty in expressing my deep regret, that my hon. Friend the late Member for Cheltenham should have been led away by the irritation of the moment, to express himself in terms so unbecoming and undeserved of five Gentlemen who were acting in the performance of their duty, and under the obligations of an oath, because they have come to a decision which is in accordance with strict justice. I am sure, however, that the Members who have been so unjustly attacked must feel too strong in their own personal character, and the respect which that character inspires, not only in this House, but elsewhere, to suffer in any degree from the unfounded aspersions which, in an unfortunate moment, my hon. Friend was led to cast upon their character and conduct. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in giving a contradiction to the statement which he brought forward; and I am sure that he will be satisfied with the explanation which he has afforded the House. I doubt not that my hon. Friend, whose speech has been the subject of this discussion, will, in a calmer moment, regret having uttered it.^*