said, he had to complain that no allowance for forage for officers' horses was made in the Bill. He found there were upwards of 200 officers, colonels, and lieutenant colonels, who would be necessarily mounted, to be embodied under the new Militia Bill, and he considered that a proper allowance for forage ought to be made. Now he wished to know whether the clause in this Bill applied to the proposed new embodiment of the militia, or only to the old system, as he distinctly understood the right hon. Secretary at War to say it did not apply to the new enrolment?

said, he had been misunderstood by the hon. and gallant Member with respect to the operation of the Bill. He was now willing to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information he sought. With respect to the application for allowance for forage, the omission was not accidental. The Estimates had been framed with a strict regard to economy, and it had been decided after due consideration that it was not necessary to increase those Estimates by an allowance to officers for forage. Every one who knew anything of military affairs knew that it would not be at all necessary to mount field officers during the first year, because, as the men could only be drilled in squads and companies for twenty-one days, the officers could inspect them just as well on foot. With respect to the efficiency of this particular branch of the service, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that everything ought to be done to ensure the efficiency of the militia, and especially to establish a good feeling between officers and men. He could assure the House that the Estimates had been framed on the advice of competent military authorities, and that, without impairing the efficiency of the militia, the Estimates had been materially reduced. He was glad to be able to state, that instead of 450,000l., which it was thought would be necessary, the charge would be reduced to 283,000l.

said, it was a mockery to talk of amendment in the Militia Bill without due consideration, which it could not have at this period of the Session and in the present state of the House. He protested against the mode of legislation at the morning sittings, and after midnight, when the majority of Members had retired. He protested against this mode of legislation. He stayed in the House on the previous night until he could no longer bear the fatigue, having sat in the House from 12 o'clock in the day till 12 o'clock at night; and now he found that after that hour, and when many Members beside himself were absent from the same cause, many important Bills had been forced on and disposed of, some of them being thrown out owing entirely to the state of the House. This was not doing justice to the character of the House. He had objected—not factiously—from the first against the gradual but heavy increase which had now been going on for several years in our naval and military expenditure, and especially against the, as he contended it to be, perfectly needless expense to be incurred under the Militia Bill. He much regretted to find this country running in the same course as several Continental nations, and he much feared the same result of financial embarrassment would follow. Look at France. At this moment, in consequence of the enormous expense of her military force, she found herself compelled to resort to that class of taxation which we were abandoning. So it was with Austria; and yet we were actually galloping in the same direction. He believed it would be found in all countries that the great cause of revolutions had been financial pressure. They were keeping to the utmost tension that tax which had enabled Sir Robert Peel to carry those commercial changes which had proved of so much advantage to the country. The amount produced by the Income and Property Tax, about 5,500,000l., was more than absorbed by the increased naval and military establishments. Therefore, he was surprised at the course now being pursued by a Government which professed anxiety to lessen the burden of taxation. The right hon. Secretary at War congratulated the House upon the expense being only 283,000l., instead of 450,000l.; hut, instead of regarding it as any saving at all, he looked upon the whole of that large sum as wasted. Under the Government of the Duke of Wellington, the expense of the national defences was 6,000,000l. or 7,000,000l. less than at present. He repeated that he must protest against the mode in which the House was legislating on important subjects affecting the well-being of the country at this period of the Session, when one-half the Members were attending to their elections, and the other half were engaged upon Committees upstairs. Yesterday thirty-five Orders stood on the paper, most of them referring to subjects of great public importance, and the way in which some of them were hurried through after midnight, was by no means creditable to the House. There was a time when he should have felt it his duty to take some effectual step to put a a stop to such a mode of proceeding, but now he could do no more than protest against it. He was ready to admit that the Government were acting under special circumstances, and he was not one to do anything to increase their difficulties; but he felt bound to point out the danger of allowing the course now pursued to form a precedent for future Sessions. He hoped previous to the next Parliament that Ministers would consider the means of reducing not merely our heavy expenditure, but the heavy amount of taxation which weighed upon the people. The amount levied upon the industry of this country in the shape of taxes was not less than 57,000,000l. annually, and taking into account municipal and county charges, it was upwards of 65,000,000l. a year. This was a burden which, considering the great reduction which had taken place, and was still going on, in the profits on capital employed in all departments of industry, could not long be borne. It was well known that at this moment many men of 150l. a year were more free from debt than others of 15,000l. a year. He warned the Government against the dangers which might arise from future commercial depression, under which it would be found difficult to maintain order, should the taxation continue at its present amount. There was, he really believed, no country where taxes were paid with less discontent than in England; but there was a limit to public forbearance; and as Her Majesty's Ministers had severally taken an oath that they would endeavour to promote the interests of the country, and to maintain the stability of the Throne, he hoped that during the recess they would prepare a plan for revising the whole system of taxation, more especially as, without such a revision, the Income Tax, which was renewed only for one year, could not possibly be continued. These were matters of deep importance, and unless the difficulties of the case were fairly grappled with, many of the younger Members of that House might live to regret that remedial measures had not been adopted in time.

said, he could exculpate the Government from any blame with regard to the late sitting of the previous evening; the Government did not press any Bill which was objected to, after the New Zealand Bill; and the loss of those Bills, which had been referred to, and which he regretted as much as the hon. Member for Montrose, was owing to the pertinacity of Members on their (the Opposition) side of the House.

said, there was no House [alluding to forty Members not being present], and therefore this Bill must rest upon the sole responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown.

said, of course the Ministers were responsible for every measure they brought before Parliament; but he thought the reason of there being a thin House upon that Bill was, that the principle of it, giving Government power to raise 80,000 men, and of further increasing the force to 120,000 men, had been established by the decisions of that House, and would in all probability be affirmed by the other House in the course of a few days. This Bill was merely the means of paying the expenses of another measure, which would not have been pass- ed without repeated and most thorough discussion in both Houses of Parliament.

moved the insertion of clauses—I. Providing for the service of process on a defendant who should be living out of the jurisdiction of the court; 2. That when personal service was not practicable, the Judge should have the power to direct service by way of advertisement; 3. That no process of contempt should issue for non-appearance; but that in case the defendant should not appear, the plaintiff should be at liberty to proceed as if he had appeared; 4. That all pleas, answers, &c, in any Chancery suit, or acknowledgments of deeds, might be sworn in Scotland, Ireland, or the Colonies, before any Judge, &c, authorised to administer oaths in such country, colony, &c; or before any consuls, &c, in foreign parts; 5. That all persons swearing before such authorities should be liable to the same penalties as were imposed for false swearing before the persons now by law authorised to administer oaths; and, 6. That any person who should forge the signature or seal of any such Judge should be guilty of felony.

said, that every Lord Chancellor had the power of enforcing that which was proposed by the hon. Baronet in his first three clauses. It was not therefore necessary to adopt them; but with regard to the last three resolutions, he thought they would be an improvement to the Bill.

suggested a clause to provide for an additional payment to the examiners, who would under this Bill be required to examine witnesses orally, instead of, as heretofore, by written interrogatories: agreed to.

consented to the introduction of the clause, which provided that the Lord Chancellor might increase the salaries of the examiners, in consideration of the increased duties by the taking of depositions orally.

asked the Attorney General whether his attention had been drawn to the propriety of introducing into the 42nd Clause a power to bring questions before a Judge without the intervention of a jury.

said, his attention had been called to the expediency of getting rid of the necessity of summoning a jury; but it was a very large and important question, which they ought not to touch without reflecting on the consequences. This Bill was framed upon the recommendation of learned Commissioners, and had been most carefully considered in the other House. He therefore thought it would be inexpedient to introduce any provision into the present Bill which would render a jury unnecessary.

said, he could not find from their Report that the Commissioners had considered the question at all.

begged leave to refer back to the 18th Clause, to fulfil a promise he had made to his right hon. Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate for Scotland. The clause enabled them to serve summonses upon persons removed out of their jurisdiction, and to proceed in the English courts against those parties. It was intended to apply to persons going abroad, and with no intention of clashing with the jurisdiction of the courts in Ireland and Scotland. He had, therefore, no objection to introduce into the 18th Clause, after the words "in any place," the words "except Scotland and Ireland."

said, he had a very strong objection to this and the following-clause. The profession and public were agreed that special demurrers were a disgrace and scandal, and nothing more than verbal quibbles. The Commissioners were of the same opinion; but the Bill did not carry out the views of the Commissioners in that respect. He did not see the necessity of continuing demurrers in any case whatever; and he would submit to the Attorney General that the exception in this clause should be struck out, and also the whole of the 52nd Clause, allowing demurrer on the grounds of duplicity, argumen- tativeness, and uncertainty, for the purpose of introducing a provision that if the pleadings were purposely framed to embarrass, the other party might take out a summons before a Judge to amend them.

entirely agreed in the propriety of getting rid altogether of special demurrers. The Government were not in the slightest degree responsible for the clauses of this Bill, which had come down from the Lords, after being carefully considered there, and undoubtedly it did not carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners that special demurrers should be entirely abolished. He considered them a disgrace to the profession, and he only regretted his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Crowder) had not consulted him, that a clause might have been prepared between them to carry out the views of the Commissioners. He would suggest that the portion of the clause denoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and Clause 51, be struck out, and a new clause brought up on the Report.

concurred as to the disgraceful character of special demurrers, which had the effect of delaying parties having substantial rights from obtaining judgment upon them.

proposed to strike out the exception in the 51st Clause, and the whole of the 52nd Clause, and suggested that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland should prepare some provision, not precisely in the words in the Report of the Commissioners, but to enable parties really to understand what was to be tried.

moved to leave out the words following the word "time," and thus to render it unnecessary for parties to support their pleadings and demurrings by affidavits. He objected to all unnecessary oaths.

said, there might be cases in which the parties would agree upon the pleadings, and no affidavits would be necessary.

suggested as a compromise between requiring affidavits in all cases, and not requiring them at all, that they should be necessary "if required by the Court."

called the attention of the Attorney General to the case of a person having a debtor who resided at Peck-ham, whence one might escape into the adjoining county of Kent, and who had places of business in London and Westminster. No fewer than four writs would be necessary in that case; but why should not the Queen's writ run everywhere?

saw no use for a multiplicity of writs.

remarked, that sheriffs and officers must be made capable of executing writs in counties where they were not sheriffs and officers, if the suggestion thrown out were to be carried into effect.

thought the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Haverfordwest (Mr. J. Evans) was, whether, a writ being issued, any sheriff might not execute that writ. The question was a knotty one; and the pro-prosition of the hon. and learned Member would so far interfere with the existing state of things that he could hardly be expected at once to acquiesce in it.

said, he was one of those who entertained a strong opinion that all forms of action were unnecessary, as causing impediments in the administration of justice; but he did not think it right to hazard the passing of this Bill, by introducing into it such a provision. He was the more willing to forego the carrying those provisions this Session, as he observed that the late Lord Chief Justice (Lord Denman) had given notice in the other House of his intention to introduce next Session a Bill for this purpose. As they were now come to the last clause, he could not finally take leave of the Bill without expressing his thanks, which he was sure were due, to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for the friendly way in which he had entered into the spirit of this great improvement of the law, and the assistance he had rendered to the Commissioners and to the public by applying his best efforts to their service. The whole of the profession and the public must feel much indebted to his hon. and learned Friend and to Her Majesty's Government.

concurring in the opinion that this Bill would be attended with the most beneficial results, announced his intention to introduce in the next Session of Parliament a similar measure having reference to Ireland.

expressed a hope that the Government would consider the suggestions made in the course of this discussion.

said, it had been found that very great oppression arose from the permission to plead in formâ pauperis. The power was given, he thought, under a statute of Henry VI., and serious consequences attached to the pauper if he brought a suit improperly, because he was liable to be whipped. That provision, he supposed, would not be applied in the present day. It was necessary that the party should obtain a certificate of counsel that he had a good cause of action, and on that certificate he was allowed to sue in formâ pauperis. The consequence was, the person so suing was not liable for any costs if he failed, and if he succeeded, the other party had to pay the whole of the costs. Hon. and learned Gentlemen on both sides of the House would confirm him in saying there had been a variety of cases in which it was quite scandalous that an action should ever have been allowed to be brought by a pauper. What he proposed to do was, to provide, that in every application for permission to plead in formâ pauperis the counsel should appear in such application, and in addition, if the pauper recovered, he should not be entitled to his costs unless the Judge who presided should certify that it was a proper case for the pauper to have costs. This had been suggested by one of the Common Law Commissioners, and as he anticipated no objection to it, he should bring up a clause to that effect. Clause brought up and read.

admitted there were some cases of persecution under this form of proceeding, but he objected to legislating for exceptional cases. He thought they ought not to exclude the poor from this old privilege, and that it was unlikely respectable attorneys or counsel would take up any cause, however just, if their sole remuneration was to rest upon the caprice of the Judge who presided.

said, the clause took that side of the House a little by surprise, and it would certainly be placing a great restriction upon the poorer part of the community seeking redress in the courts of law. He quite agreed that cases of glaring abuse in some way or other occurred, but he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would allow the clause to stand over to the subsequent reading of the Bill.

said, be was convinced it was never the intention of the old Act that the pauper should recover any costs at all; but as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton said it took him by surprise, he had no desire to press the clause. He would leave it for some subsequent provisions, and would therefore withdraw it from this Bill.

begged to ask the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had received any applications in favour of William Hamblyn Pascoe, a medical practitioner, sentenced to ten years' transportation at the last Cornwall Assizes, for administering savin with intent to procure abortion; and whether he was aware that the opinion of the only medical witness for the prosecution, that no medical man of competent skill would use savin unless his object were abortion, had been shown to be erroneous by a large body of the medical profession, and had been admitted by the witness him-self, since the trial, to have been expressed in ignorance of the fact that savin is in use in the profession for legitimate purposes; and whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise a pardon or any mitigation of the sentence?

said, the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in fact, resolved itself into three questions—the first being whether any application in favour of Pascoe, a medical practitioner, sentenced to transportation for administering savin, with intent to procure abortion, had been received by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In answer to that question, he had to reply that several applications in favour of Pascoe had been received at the Home Office; that the greatest possible attention had been paid to them, and in consequence of the highly respectable character of the applicants, he (Mr. Walpole) directed inquiry to be made into the ease. The second question was whether the Secretary of State was aware that the opinion of the only medical witness for the prosecution, that no medical man of competent skill would use savin, unless his object was abortion, was erroneous. Now, unquestionably, the medical practitioner who gave that testimony laboured under an erroneous impression when he stated that savin was never used except when abortion was desired. But the hon. and learned Gentleman would draw a very wrong inference from the admission that had been made by many medical practitioners that savin was used for other purposes than that of procuring abortion, if he supposed that the circumstances of the case in question were not sufficient to prove that Pascoe had been guilty of the charge of which he had been convicted. Perhaps the House would allow him (Mr. Walpole) to state the facts, as the case had made a great stir in the world. He had himself most minutely examined the case, and he had no hesitation in saying that the person who was accused of this charge was guilty. That person had examined the young woman three or four times, and must have known her state. He administered to her doses of savin for nineteen successive days. He took the woman into his own house, and observed the effects which the medicine which she took had upon her. The child was horn in his house; he took it in a bundle one evening to the sexton, and desired him to bury it secretly, without the knowledge of any party. He (Mr. Walpole) therefore thought that, under such circumstances, the jury were justified in the verdict which they gave, to the effect that the medical practitioner was in the wrong; and he (Mr. Walpole) was not prepared to say that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise a pardon or mitigation of the sentence. He would take that opportunity of stating, that the duty of a Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to such questions as these was extremely painful; and he trusted that the House would not press for any answer as to the course which he might feel it his duty to recommend Her Majesty to take with regard to the sentence.

said, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the following questions: 1. Whether the question as to the territorial right over the Lobos Islands had been laid before the present, or late, or what Law Officers of the Crown, and in what year? 2. And, if there were an etiquette against making public the answer given by the Law Officers, whether there was an equal objection to producing the case laid before such Law Officers, with a view to satisfying the agricultural public of this country that every means had been taken to give them the great advantage of a cheaper supply of guano? 3. If the present Law Officers had not been consulted on this important question, whether there was any objection to consult them?

said, that as the questions referred more particularly to his department, he would take the liberty of replying to the hon. Gentleman's questions. In the first place, a case involving the territorial rights of the Peruvian Government over the Lobos Islands was raised in 1834, and submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, who had made a report; but, as the hon. Member must be aware, it was not usual to make public such reports. With regard to the case then submitted to them, and on which the opinion of the Law Officers was founded, it would be found in the papers shortly to be laid on the table of the House, and that statement must be his excuse for not now entering at greater length into the question raised by the hon. Member. In consequence of the report of the Law Officers in 1834, Mr. Belford Wilson, our Consul General, was informed that there was no reason to doubt the Lobos Islands had been always part of the territories of Peru, and that the Peruvian Government was right to prohibit fishing around them. As to the third question, the Law Officers of the Crown had not been lately consulted, because the question appeared to have been decided in the former report.

said, considering that the question he wished to ask did not affect the right to the islands belonging to Peru, perhaps the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would state whether Her Majesty's Government had applied, or intended to apply, to the Peruvian or other Governments interested therein, to enter into arrangements for the purpose of obtaining for British ships free access to places supplying guano. Also, whether any instructions had been given to Colonial Governors and officers of Her Majesty's Navy to look out for islands or other places containing guano, and take any practicable steps towards securing to the public, at the cheapest rate, an ample supply of that article free from adulteration; and whether there was any objection to lay upon the table any papers relating to that subject?

said, he quite admitted the deep interest and importance of the questions, and, in answer, had to state that several applications had been addressed to the Peruvian Government, with the view of obtaining guano at a lower price, but hitherto, he regretted to say, without success. He did not undervalue the importance of negotiations on the subject, but he believed the best means of procuring an ample supply of guano would be by bringing into play the principle of competition. He could inform the hon. Member, however, that at the present moment instructions were being sent out by the Admiralty directing our naval officers on distant stations to use their best efforts to discover islands containing fresh supplies of guano. Printed reports were being sent out by which the various kinds of guano could be tested, and the right hon. Baronet the Secrectary for the Colonies had directed the Colonial Governors to promote the search for it by every means in their power. The papers would be laid on the table in the course of the evening.

said, he wished to know if the New Buildings at Somerset House had been sanctioned by the House, or if the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works was prepared to come down and ask the House to vote the amount required for them, and had they any estimate of the expense?

said, that as the hon. Member had only given a general notice of his intention to ask for information respecting Somerset House, his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) was not aware of the particular information required; but, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) happened to be acquainted with the facts, he would state, in reply to the hon. Member, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask for any Vote for the buildings in question. An extremely wise arrangement had been made by their predecessors in office which the present Government was prepared to carry out, and the object of the new buildings was to bring all the branches of the Inland Revenue Department under one roof, without which a real consolidation was impossible. While there was a local distribution of offices they could have no real consolidation of any department, and, for the sake of economy and of the public service, Government were carrying out the present arrangements. As to the question of expense, he had great pleasure in telling the hon. Member that the buildings and offices relinquished would be worth much more than the expense incurred by effecting the consolidation.

said, he wished to ask if the Government had followed the recommendations of the Committee on Naval and Military Expenditure with regard to the residence of the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, and if they were prepared to carry out, for the sake of economy and the public service, the removal of the Board of Admiralty, so as to bring them all under one roof?

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered the most important part of the question he had asked. He objected to making any outlay of public money without the sanction of the House, and wanted to know if the Government had had an estimate of the expense?

replied, that of course neither the present nor the late Government would have taken such a step without an estimate.

said, the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland was aware that a petition had lately been presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in favour of the remission of the sentence on Mr. Smith O'Brien. It was understood generally throughout Ire- land that Her Majesty's present Government were desirous that such a petition should be presented, in order that they might avail themselves of such an opportunity of releasing Mr. Smith O'Brien. Amongst others, he (Mr. F. French) signed his name to that petition. He did so under the impression that he was affording to Her Majesty's Government an opportunity for doing an act of grace. He certainly should not have signed it unless he believed it was their intention to avail themselves of that opportunity. He believed that Mr. O'Brien was now suffering under an ex-post facto law. [Cries of "Order!"] Well, he would content himself with asking the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was not one of those persons who had given encouragement to the presentation of the petition in question? He did not put the question in a hostile spirit; in fact, he believed that the noble Lord was desirous that that question should be put to him.

Mr. Speaker, I feel very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having put this question to me, and I beg to assure him that at no time, either directly or indirectly, by word or by letter, did I give any one reason to believe that the Government were favourable to the presentation of that petition. Furthermore, I was not cognisant in any way of the preparation of that petition beyond what I saw in the public papers.

said, that he would detain the House for a very few moments; but the importance of the subject, and the advised decision which the House had come to on the question of the Vicarage of Frome, made him feel that he ought to take the earliest opportunity of intimating the course which he now thought it right to adopt. He thought it better that he should do this than that he should allow this Motion for the appointment of a Committee to be postponed from night to night, until at length it might appear that it had died a natural death, from the House having ceased to take any further interest in the question. But, from all that had passed since the House came to that vote, he must say that he found the public interest upon this subject not in the slightest degree abated, nor did he find on the part of those who voted in the majority on that occasion anything but an increasing desire to give effect as much as possible to the vote of the House. The House must feel the difficulty which he had had in dealing with the nomination of the Committee. It had not been his fault that the discussion had come on, and the vote of the House had been arrived at, at so late a period of the Session. He brought the circumstances of the case before the House in the month of April. Seven weeks then elapsed, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, and it was not until the 8th of June the decision of the House was taken, late at night. On the following day he was in the House at twelve o'clock, and was actively engaged from that time until six o'clock in endeavouring to obtain the names of Gentlemen willing to serve on the Committee. He had succeeded in getting the names of thirteen Gentlemen, who had allowed him to place them on the Committee. The name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had been placed on the Committee without asking his permission, because, considering the position which that right hon. Gentleman had occupied in the debate as the authorised representative of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, he (Mr. Horsman) had thought that the name of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be placed on the Committee, and that, in case he should have any objection to serve, he should state his reasons to the House, and not to himself (Mr. Horsman). The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood) was the only one to whom he had applied who had refused to serve. Two of the Gentlemen whom he had named in his list had been struck out, and others substituted, by the Government. He stated these facts only to show that every pains had been taken by him to have the Committee nominated, and thus enable it to commence its inquiries. On the Thursday he moved the nomination of the Committee, when a difficulty was raised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his attempt to nominate the Committee was defeated. On the following Monday he brought down to the House a complete list of fifteen Gentlemen who had agreed to be nominated. He must say that from the Government he had experienced no difficulty. They had felt it their duty, in the first instance, to deprecate and resist the inquiry; but when it was given against them they had shown no disposition to offer further impediment. A difficulty, however, had been interposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, who made a proposal that, when the Committee was nominated, he (Mr. Horsman) should be ordered by the House to lay upon the table certain articles of charges. Even after this notice the Government had been ready to allow him to proceed with the nomination of the Committee, provided there was no likelihood of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment leading to a long debate. But the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he should preface his Amendment by a long speech, and the Government were obliged to take their measures accordingly, and stated that they were prepared to agree to his (Mr. Horsman's) Motion, but that they were not prepared for the right hon. Gentleman's long speech. Consequently, that had been the impediment to the nomination of the Committee. He would now explain to the House why he could not agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. His reason was that he felt it to be one which he had no right or power to assent to. The right hon. Gentleman well knew that there was no precedent for laying heads or articles of charges on the table of the House in any case where an impeachment was not intended. If that was the case, what did the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman amount to, but this—that his (Mr. Horsman's) Motion had been made, and the votes of the majority given, with the view to the impeachment of the Bishop of Bath and Wells? As regarded himself, it did not matter very much if the right hon. Gentleman put such a construction on his Motion or vote; but it was manifest that he (Mr. Horsman) had no right, by assenting to that suggestion, to connect the 156 Gentlemen who had voted along with him with the intention of an impeachment. Not a single Member of those 156 Gentlemen believed or intended that their vote should lead to an impeachment, and consequently he should act unbecomingly towards them if, knowing that there was no precedent on this subject, he had laid on the table heads or articles of an impeachment against the Bishop of Bath and Wells. He had thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to state to the House his reasons for the Motion he wished to make; and whatever might be the decision of the House, to it he (Mr. Horsman) would cheerfully bow. As far as he was himself concerned, the drawing up of heads of charges would have much facilitated his task; and, indeed, the moment that he learned the right hon. Gentleman's intention, he did draw up the heads of charges, which he brought to the House in his pocket; and if the House had decided that he should present them, he should have had no objection. But a second reason why he ought not to assent to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was, that it would have established a precedent which the House ought gravely to consider; be cause if it were once ruled that a complaint was not to he made against a Bishop, to be followed by an inquiry, without that inquiry being held to be tantamount to an impeachment, then it would come to this—that if in the next Parliamant some hon. Member brought a com plaint against the Bishop of Loudon or the Bishop of Exeter, or a third Bishop, in every one of these cases, if they once established this precedent, the question would arise whether they could proceed in any mode than by an impeachment. He (Mr. Horsman) had stated at first that if the Committee should be appointed, one whole week would have been sufficient to establish all the allegations he had made; but still at this late period of the Session he felt that the public business was in that position that there was no probability, within the next two or three days, of his obtaining an opportunity of nominating the Committee. He, therefore, thought it fair at once to state to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman, that in consequence of the difficulties that had been thrown in his way, he did not now feel it his duty to proceed moving for this inquiry. But in making that announcement there was one explanation due to the Gentlemen who had voted with him in the majority. They had all been placed in a very false position with respect to the Bishop. The most serious allegation that he had made against the Bishop related to the animus with which he had acted towards the parishioners of Frome—namely, that they entered into a correspondence with the Bishop, and yet that the right rev. Prelate took his own measure to hurry on the institution of Mr. Bennett, and endeavoured to anticipate the parishioners, and defeated their lodging a caveat by anticipating them. That was the most palpable, and in his mind the most discreditable, part of the whole proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Gladstone), who had studied the law of the case well, and knew all its points, took no legal objection to the statement which he (Mr. Horsman) made; and it was only later in the debate that the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood) got up and made a statement of the law of the case which had a very powerful effect, and influenced the votes of many hon. Members. It was a statement which surprised him exceedingly at the time; but the House gave implicit credence to it. He (Mr. Horsman) would now show it was entirely erroneous. He was interested in showing this, because were it otherwise the allegations he had made would have been very unjust towards the Bishop of Hath and Wells, He personally knew nothing of the law on the subject; but before coming forward to state a case in which so large a number of legal questions were involved, he had taken the precaution of preparing himself with the opinions of two high authorities in Doctors' Commons, to which the House would bow, and he now held those legal opinions in his hand. But first he should observe that the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, which he would read in his own words, was as follows:—

"Formerly bishops had five months allowed to inquire into the fitness of the cierk—that was a large portion of the six months—and according to the canons as they now stood the bishop had only twenty-eight days allowed for inquiry, and after that time he might be proceeded against by the patron for non-institution of the clerk. Now what were the facts of this case? The bishop did not institute until the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh day. Then what became of the charge of indecent haste?"

Now, the impression that that statement had made upon the House was, that the Bishop was bound to institute Mr. Bennett within twenty-eight days after the presentation. He (Mr. Horsman) answered that the language of the 95th Canon was merely directory, and not prohibitory, and that it was held in the Arches Court, in the case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter, that the Bishop was not bound to commence the examination of the candidate for institution within the canonical twenty-eight days, but simply that after the lapse of that interval he was called upon to assign his reasons for delay. The decision on that point was not impugned by the appeal to the Privy Council; and the only limit to the time allowed to the bishop for institution, according to the canonists, was six months; and that limit was put in order that the right of patronage might not lapse. Now, the first opinion that he had taken, upon a case drawn up by himself, was that of Dr. Twiss. The case was as follows:—

"The late vicar of Frome died on the 26th of December, 1851; Mr. Bennett was presented (say) the 29th of December following. Was the Bishop bound to institute him so soon as the canonical twenty-eight days had run out?—Or, how long might he have lawfully delayed institution?"

Upon that case Dr. Twiss had pronunced the following opinion:—

"The Bishop is not bound to institute a presentee to a benefice as soon as the canonical twenty-eight days have run out. The canon is directory, and it was held by the Arches Court in the case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter, (2 Robertson's Reports, p. 28), that the bishop is not bound to commence the examination of a candidate for institution within the canonical twenty-eight days, but that the meaning of the twenty-eight days in the 95th Canon is, that after that interval the bishop may be called upon to as sign a reason if he delays to institute. The decision of Sir Herbert Jenner Fust on this point was not impugned before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is also settled law (Hobart's Reports, p. 317) that a bishop may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a presentee to a benefice, and he is not bound to institute him until he is satisfied of his fitness. Six months is the only limit mentioned by canonists, within which the examination must be concluded, so that the right of patronage may not lapse. In the case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter the presentation took place on November 2, 1847, and Mr. Gorham formerly applied for institution on November 8; but the Bishop did not commence his examination of Mr. Gorham as a candidate for institution until the 17th day of December, after the canonical twenty-eight days had expired. The Court of Arches held, overruling Mr. Gorham's protest, that such delay was not improper on the part of the Bishop, although attended with inconvenience to Mr. Gorham. (Signed)

"TRAVERS TWISS.

"Doctors' Commons, June 16."

The second opinion which he took on the same case was that of Dr. Phillimore. It was rather longer than the first, but he would read the last paragraph:—

"I am of opinion, however, that it is competent to the Bishop to institute the clerk at any time within the six months after the presentation so as to avoid a lapse; for the words of the 95th Canon are directory only, and not prohibitory, and have so been adjudged to be. And I conceive, in the event of a caveat having been entered, a bishop (although the common law takes notice of it) would not consider himself bound to institute within the twenty-eight days, if the proceedings consequent on the caveat commenced during the twenty-eight days extended beyond that period.

"ROBERT PHILLIMORE.

"Doctors' Commons, June 18, 1852."

These were the opinions which he had taken, and which indeed he was told it was scarcely necessary to take, so clear was the law upon the point. He (Mr. Hors-man) dwelt on this point the more, because having advisedly brought so strong and deliberate a charge against the Bishop, if it had been shown by his hon. and learned Friend that the Bishop was hound to institute within twenty-eight days, and that so far from showing indecent haste he had postponed the institution till the end of the twenty-eight days, he (Mr. Horsman) would in that case have been highly censurable for his ignorance of the law and for the statement he had made. The case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter was the most remarkable ecclesiastical case that had occurred of late years. It raised this very point; and as Sir H. J. Fust's first decision on the subject was so very clear, short, and unmistakeable, that even a child could understand it, he would read it to the House:—

"He apprehended that he was asked to pronounce that the Bishop had no right to commence his examination after the twenty-eight days; but it seemed to him quite impossible that he could so construe the canon. He apprehended that so far as the Bishop was concerned, the canon was directory. No prohibitory words confined him within the twenty-eight days, and he thought it would be contrary to reason that they should be so restricted. Being of that opinion, he must overrule the objection that the Bishop of Exeter had no right to enter into the inquiry after the twenty-eight days."

He was, therefore, surprised that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford, so high an authority as he was upon all legal questions, should have fallen into so manifest an error in the statement of the law of this case which he had made to the House. He (Mr. Horsman) had now only to state that he did not think that at present he ought to endeavour to pursue this inquiry. He certainly could not do so without expressing his sense not only of the intrinsic importance of the subject, but of the importance which had been given to it by the proceedings of that House, and by the vote which it had come to. He could only say that, taking the part which he felt it his duty to take on these ecclesiastical questions—being himself a member of that Church in which, along with the majority of that House, he had been educated and brought up, and from which he had never for a moment swerved either in his allegiance or his attachment—he could not but feel that it was impossible to overrate the importance of the vote which the House came to the other evening. The inquiry for the present might be defeated, but the result of that vote it was impossible to defeat. It was an indication of the feeling of that House, and of the feeling of the country represented by that House, from which it was impossible to escape. The country had been told, in a manner not to be mistaken, that whatever abuses or offences there might be, however exalted the offender, there was a Parliamentary tribunal to take cognisance of, and to inquire into, them. This was amongst the last, and by far the most important, of the decisions which had been come to by the present Parliament. It was a judgment deliberately recorded, and bequeathed as a legacy to future Parliaments. It was a precedent established, which he thought succeeding Parliaments would bear in mind. He believed that few decisions of that House had been more considered by the country, or had given the country more satisfaction. He was sure that the attention of Parliament having been aroused to one great scandal in the Church, which had been increased and aggravated by the impunity which it had hitherto met with, that they had now given a promise to the country that that scandal would in future be redressed. They had now given warnings to others that that impunity would no longer be continued; and that whenever a case of grievance could be alleged, such as it had been his duty to bring before the House, it was now established by a vote of this Parliament, and would be confirmed, he trusted, by the votes of coming Parliaments, that there was a tribunal which would inquire into those grievances, and would redress them.

Sir, the "few minutes" which the hon. Gentleman announced as the limits of his observations have expanded in his hands into a speech of tolerable length, and a speech containing as much criminatory matter as the hon. Gentleman has found it convenient to introduce. The hon. Gentleman has referred to-night to as much of his charges against the Bishop of Bath and Wells as he thought would bear repetition. He has reminded us to-night that he charges the Bishop of Bath and Wells with having shown undue haste in instituting Mr. Bennet; but I must recall to the House and to the hon. Gentleman the full extent of those charges; for the hon. Gentleman did not merely charge the Bishop of Bath and Wells with undue haste in performing a legal act—he charged him with a deliberate violation of the law in not subjecting Mr. Bennett to due examination, in receiving him without the usual certificate, and in instituting him with indecent haste and precipitancy, contrary to the usual method, for the purpose of defrauding the parishioners of their just and legal rights. What has been shown in reply? It has been shown that the Bishop did examine Mr. Bennett, and if he had not examined him he would not have broken the law; he might have been unwise in the exercise of his discretion, but he would not have broken the law, if he had not examined him. He, however, exercised his discretion wisely, and did examine him. [Mr. HORSMAN dissented.] The hon. Gentleman did receive the evidence of a Member of Parliament in his place, that the Bishop did examine him—he received that evidence of the fact. I made that statement, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to challenge it if he pleases. The Bishop did examine him—the Bishop did receive the usual certificate—the Bishop did use no undue haste. I leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford to meet the point of law which the hon. Gentleman has raised. What I said was, that the proceedings of the Bishop, so far as time was concerned, were precisely in the usual course. That usual course is, that when all the papers are completed which are necessary for the presentation, the legal right of the presentee takes effect in the act of institution; and what I urged was this—that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, as a judge set and bound to administer the law, is not authorised to deny or delay those proceedings in consequence of any informal extrajudicial step that may be taken by parties opposed to the institution. What would you say of a Judge in Westminster Hall who, in consequence of private representations made to him by parties who declined to take upon them their just responsibility—suffered his acts in administering the law to deviate one hair's breadth from their ordinary path? Now, that is exactly the case of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Those letters that were addressed to the Bishop were no authorisation for him to alter or modify his course of action. The hon. Gentleman says that the Bishop played with the parishioners, in order to entangle them into a correspondence. He did no such thing. They sent a letter to him, requesting him to refuse institution, and he returned to them a plain answer, to say that he had satisfied his own mind on the legal questions involved, and that therefore he positively declined to refuse institution. He did not evade the point. On the 15th of January he told them that he declined to accede to their petition. They did not choose to avail themselves of the means which the law afforded them; and the Bishop waited till the papers were completed which constituted the legal right of the presentee; and those papers having been completed, he felt that he had no more right to delay than he had to deny, and the institution went forward in the regular and legal course. But the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with vindicating himself for withdrawing the nomination of his Committee, but he throws upon me the responsibility of interfering with that nomination; and I regret that he should have forced me to follow him through this discussion. For when he gives the House to understand that I impeded the nomination of the Committee by adopting an unusual and unprecedented proceeding, he compels me, under the circumstances, to say that my proceeding is not opposed to, hut, on the contrary, is conformable both with precedent and with justice; my endeavours were to confine the hon. Gentleman to a precise and definite statement of his charges against the Bishop. And this compels me to express my deep regret, partly on account of conformity with precedent, but still more on account of conformity with the plainest dictates of justice, that the hon. Gentleman unfortunately did not adopt the course that I suggested to him, or that, when he unfortunately did not adopt that course of his own accord, he did not adopt it on the suggestion of another. Let us consider for a moment the position of this House. Here we are in number between 650 and 660 Gentlemen, elected by some two or three hundred different constituencies—a body containing necessarily amongst ourselves the greatest variety of character, capacity, and sentiment—and there is not a single one of us who has not authority to make any charge whatsoever that he pleases against any subject of Her Majesty; he may make any charge he pleases, and lay it on the table of the House of Commons, without incurring any personal responsibility whatever. Now, I ask the House to consider what a tremendous power it is that we thus wield—what a power upon public opinion—what a power for the destruction of private character—and such a power of accusation totally unchecked by all those legal checks and restraints which in all other cases curb and check those who are disposed to vituperate and calumniate. Now I want to know what there is to restrain us, unless it is the steady adherence to one invariable rule on the part of this House, that it will never entertain (and so far as I am able to discover it has ever, even in the worst times, refused to entertain) criminative charges, except upon the ground of some distinct and definite basis, so that the party, if he has no remedy from false accusation, has it at least in his power to point to something and say, "That it is of which I was charged—that it is of which I was acquitted." Now, what does the hon. Gentleman say? That he made a charge which he did not intend to be an impeachment. Let the House bear in mind the case which the hon. Gentleman says he did not intend as an impeachment. I say that if he felt that he could prove the charges, in his attempt to make good which he had broken down, then it was his duty to impeach the Bishop of Bath and Wells. And if he did not intend to impeach the Bishop, then it only shows that the hon. Gentleman did not understand his own charges, or that he did not understand the obligations which belong to him as a Member of this House. I say that if an individual in the position of a Bishop, a Peer of Parliament, and a great officer of State, wielding great spiritual and temporal power, and empowered to administer a jurisdiction and functions strictly judicial—for that is the constitutional aspect of the case—if such a person is charged with a distinct violation of the law, committed, as the hon. Gentleman has alleged, with the corrupt motive of depriving and defrauding the spiritual subjects over which he exercises spiritual oversight of their just and legal rights—Sir, if there be any case for impeachment, that is a case for impeachment. But the hon. Gentleman does not see the real position of this House. He says the House is a tribunal to take cognisance of abuses. Sir, what abuses? Why the hon. Gentleman entirely assumes that he has shown the existence of abuses; on the contrary, all his charges have vanished into thin air. He knows perfectly well that the case against the Bishop of Bath and Wells has utterly broken down. I tell the hon. Gentleman—what the people of England have not learnt for the first time from his mouth—what are the fundamental principles and practice of the House of Commons. It has not been reserved for the year 1852 to teach the nation that this House is the great inquest for the grievances of the people; that this House is ever ready to entertain the complaints of the people against public functionaries and officers of State; and that it regards it as one of its most important privileges to entertain them in the manner which the constitution prescribes. That, Sir, is no now discovery. But I believe that the hon. Gentleman must have learnt that this House has never shown itself willing to entertain charges of this grave nature, made in a manner so irresponsible, and with such manifest indications of an inclination to avoid putting them forward in a definite shape: if it were ever to pursue such a course as that, this House must become the refuge for licensed libel and defamation, because we should relieve ourselves from that restraint which the wisdom of our ancestors and the constant practice of Parliaments have imposed, namely, that in whatever we do of a criminative character we must always proceed on a defined basis, so that the man who has been attacked and charged will know, and be able to let others know, of what he has been accused, whether he be found guilty or acquitted. Now the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong when he says there is no similar case of articles being exhibited to this House except with the view to an impeachment. do not stand upon that alone. I find, from what he says, that he did not intend to prefer an impeachment. I say that he ought to have intended to prefer an impeachment, if he believed in the truth, as I must suppose he did, of the charges which he thought proper to make. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong. As he is wrong in his views of the principles of justice, so he is wrong in regard to the practice of this House. In the first place, I do not stand on the ground that whenever any Member makes a complaint against any public officer it is invariably his duty to produce definite articles, or beads of his charges; what I say is, that invariably, when any Member has brought forward charges of a criminative character, the House has always proceeded upon the definite basis of a written document. I believe, however, that there is one class of exceptions to that. I believe, if I recollect rightly, that in such a case as the accusation of the levying of ship-money in the reign of Charles I., where the matter of complaint was perfectly notorious, the House entertained the question, and very pro- perly proceeded at once to an impeachment. But, barring the case where the facts are so notorious as that, the House always proceeds upon something of a defined and documentary character. Sometimes it proceeds upon a petition. If an hon. Gentleman presents a petition, I do not mean to say that he is always bound to exhibit articles of charge. Sometimes, again, criminal matter has arisen accidentally, and obiter on public questions. The Commissioners in the case of Sir Jonah Barrington reported to the House that they bad accidentally come across matter highly criminative with regard to him; and in the case of Lord Melville the conduct considered to deserve impeachment was disclosed in the course of the inquiry of a Commission. In these cases, Sir, the documents of the Commissions formed the basis of the charge. The House was in a condition to proceed upon something that was understood and known, and the party who was charged had at all events this security, that although he could not punish those who might think fit unjustly to accuse him, yet he could vindicate his own character, because he could point to the charge and say, "This was the charge made against me—this was the charge of which I was found not to be guilty." But the hon. Gentleman says that these charges have never been exhibited—and this is his great case—except where an impeachment is intended; and that therefore I, by making this unprecedented proposal, have interposed illegitimately an obstacle to the nomination of this Committee. Now, he is perfectly wrong, as far as the Journals of the House go. There are many cases where there is no evidence to show whether it was the intention of the House to impeach or not. That must depend on the course which the examination takes, and the evidence that is adduced in the course of it. It may end in an impeachment, but it does not follow that an impeachment has been contemplated from the beginning. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because he seems to think that an impeachment entirely depends upon the decision of an individual Member of this House. It is no such thing. I understand it is a resolution of the House of Commons that orders an impeachment; and if it is said that a private Member ever impeaches, it is only a vagueness and looseness of expression. An individual Member does not impeach—no; but what the House does is this—it ties an individual Member's hands who brings a charge before it, and requires him to lay on the table of the House some form or other of a defined and written basis of what he means to charge. And although I have not got the Journals by heart, I will give the hon. Gentleman a clear proof that his doctrine is erroneous—that written charges are not given by a Member who has no intention to make an impeachment. I wish the hon. Gentleman to study the precedent I am about to quote, and to get it by rote before he brings forward his next case of this kind. I refer to the case of the Bishop of Worcester, which is reported in the fourteenth volume of the House of Commons' Journals, page 37. The House would judge whether or not it bears out my statement, which is this—that written charges ought to be exhibited, if no impeachment has been professed; or, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there is no precedent of written charges being given in unless where an impeachment was intended. [Mr. HORS-MAN was here understood to remark that evidence was taken at the bar in the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman.] The entry on the Journals in the case of the Bishop of Worcester in the year 1702 was as follows:—

"CASE OF THE BISHOP OF WORCESTER. "Journals, xiv. 37.

"1. Nov. 2, 1702.—A complaint being made to the House by Sir J. Packington against the Lord Bishop of Worcester and Mr. Lloyd, his son, relating to the rights and privileges of the House of Commons: Resolved to consider the same on November 18.

"2. Nov. 18.—The House proceeded to take into consideration the complaint of Sir J. Packington.

"3. Then follows the charge in writing.

"4. Then witnesses examined at the bar.

"5. Resolutions:—1 and 2. Charge made out. 3. Conduct malicious, unchristian, arbitrary, in high violation of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of England. 4 and 5. Address to Her Majesty to remove the Bishop of Worcester from being Lord Almoner to Her Majesty.

"6. Nov. 20.—Answer: Agrees to do so.

"7. Thanks."

When the charge against the Bishop was taken into consideration, Sir J. Packing-ton presented written articles, and there was not the slightest pretence or intention to impeach the Bishop. It did not end in an impeachment—the end of that case was that the House addressed the Crown, praying the Crown to remove the Bishop of Worcester from the office of Lord Almoner. [See Hansard, Parl. History, vol. vi.] The hon. Gentleman says that evidence was taken at the bar. Certainly it was. And what in the world has that to do with the matter? Sometimes the House takes evidence at the bar in Committee of the whole House, and sometimes it delegates that duty to a Select Committee; but I want to know, how can that have any possible bearing on this question? Nay, more; I say that if it is necessary for this House, or if it is the practice of this House, to require written charges when evidence is to be taken at the bar, much more is it necessary to have written charges when, instead of taking evidence at the bar, the evidence is to be taken before a Select Committee. Because when taken at the bar of this House it is taken in the face of the world; and whatever happens to a man who is the object of the accusation, at least he has this security, that the attack made upon him is carried on and brought to an issue in public, and the Members of this House would be ready and able, if they thought fit, to do justice in such a case. But when you refer a case of this kind to a Select Committee, a small number of Members are chosen, and under the peculiar circumstances the House may be acting not in the face of the public. If this security is necessary, then, when the whole House acts, much more is it necessary when the proceeding is not taken before the bar of the House, but before a Select Committee. This, therefore, appears to me one of those mean, technical, and immaterial distinctions which does not in the slightest degree touch the principle involved—the principle that, whenever criminative matter is adduced against a party, the House refuses to proceed, except upon the basis of written documents, unless the facts are admittedly notorious. That is the principle which I lay down, and on which I challenge the hon. Gentleman to meet me. Under that principle, it is plain that I no more required the hon. Gentleman to proceed on the grounds of precedent than on the grounds of justice, when I proposed that he should write out the charges which he proposed to make. It is in vain for the hon. Gentleman to say that he does not intend impeachment. I say that the matter of his charge would warrant, would justify, would require impeachment; some other Member might have taken the case out of the hon. Gentleman's hands, and might have brought forward an impeachment; it was the hon. Gentleman's duty to proceed as if an im- peachment would be the result. But, whether that be so or not, I have shown the House that even in former times, when the principles of liberty were far less understood than they are at the present moment, the practice has always been to afford an accused party this reasonable and moderate shelter: that though he has no remedy against an unjust and a cruel accusation brought against him in this House, yet he has this defence—that vague charges will not be allowed to go before a secret and select Committee for the purpose of fishing for information, for the purpose of keeping back that which it may be inconvenient to produce—that this House will not act upon a principle which, I tell the hon. Gentleman, is more worthy of other and more southern countries than of the free meridian of this country of England in which we live. I deeply regret that circumstances have prevented the hon. Gentleman from proposing his Committee, and me from bringing forward the Motion which I am certain the House would have adopted, and compelled him to exhibit articles of charge against the Bishop of Bath and Wells.

rose to explain. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to place great reliance on the case of the Bishop of Worcester. In that case Sir John Packington complained of the Bishop's interference at an election; and he, without having been ordered by the House stated that he had drawn up in writing those heads he undertook to prove at the bar. The term "articles of charge" was never mentioned throughout the case.

said, he would not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about the words "articles of charge." The hon. Gentleman might call it whatever he pleased; but what he Mr. Gladstone) stood upon was this—the principle he had established was this, that a Member of this House accusing a great officer of State of an offence against the law was bound to put his accusation into a definite and written form—that that was the principle and practice of the House of Commons, and, he would venture to add, the principle of universal justice.

said, that as the hon. Member for Cockermouth had cast the grave imputation upon him of having made a statement regarding the law which he said had misled the House, perhaps the House would excuse him for a few moments while he explained what he did state and what was the law of the case, as he intended at least to lay it down on the previous night, and as he thought he had laid it down. As they had been promised that this inquiry would be renewed in a future Session, he would not say a word on the main question, but would confine himself to this particular point. What he said was, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells would have subjected himself to a duplex querela if he had refused to institute Mr. Bennett after twenty-eight days; but he never said that the Bishop could not institute after the twenty-eight days had expired. He said that for twenty-eight days the Bishop was protected—that he was allowed that period to satisfy himself, by examination, as to the fitness of the clerk by the provisions of the canon—and that though the canon would not protect him from a quare impedit at common law, because the common law did not recognise the canon, yet even the common law allowed the Bishop a reasonable time for examination. But he also stated that so jealous was the law of the position of a Bishop as being both a Judge and a party interested—as having the power to present in case of lapse—that though two months were formerly allowed for inquiry and examination, yet that time was now circumscribed, and the canon allowed only twenty-eight days for the inquiry. He did not say that the Bishop could not institute after the twenty-eight days were expired. What he said was, that if he wished to protect himself from the costs of an action, he must institute within the twenty-eight days. If, indeed, the parties had exhibited a caveat, and thus taken the burden upon themselves, and relieved the Bishop, then the institution might have been delayed beyond the twenty-eight days at the responsibility of the parties. With regard to the common law, it was true that it did not recognise the canons; but, as he had said, a reasonable time was allowed for examination, and so early as the 14th year of Henry VII., when a complaint was made against an Ordinary, because he had commanded a clerk to come to him "afterwards" to be examined, the Ordinary being then engaged in other business, the opinion of the Court was that that was a good plea on the part of the Ordinary. It was, also, laid down in a case in Sir Henry Hobart's Reports that a Bishop must be allowed a competent time for the examination of a clerk. Therefore, the case stood thus, that the common law allowed a reasonable time for examination, which the canons construed to mean twenty-eight days. But, no doubt, the common law as well as the canon law would require a reason for the Bishop delaying institution beyond the twenty-eight days. The parishioners might have protected the Bishop, if they had thought fit, by entering a caveat, which would have strengthened the Bishop's hands in the case. The Bishop had no reason to ask them to do this before the twenty-eight days had expired, because he was safe up to that time. A part of the hon. Member's charge against him was, that he had made a statement of law diametrically opposed to a judgment recently delivered and universally known. He had done nothing of the kind. There was not a word in the judgment referred to which militated against the statement he had made to the House. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Gorham case. Now, in that case Mr. Gorham set up the plea—I have been examined, but my examination is a nullity, because I was examined after the twenty-eight days' were expired. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust characterised that plea as monstrous. He said that Mr. Gorham might have raised a duplex querela after the twenty-eight days were expired, to know why the Bishop had not examined him before; and the Bishop would then, no doubt, have set forth his plea that he had been engaged, circa curam pastoratam—about other public business. If, however, such an action had been raised against the Bishop of Bath and Wells he could not have pleaded that he had not had time to examine him; because he actually had examined him, and the only plea he could have urged would have been the charge of heresy, or some unsoundness of doctrine. He asked, then, what became of the charge of indecent haste against the Bishop? The whole subject-matter of his statement, then, was this: That the parties had no right to throw upon the Bishop a duty which was theirs—to force him to prove what they were bound to prove—to force him to litigate what they were bound to litigate—and that, too, in a manner that would have left him utterly defenceless in a duplex querela, and would have subjected him to the payment of all costs. That principle was laid clearly down in Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, vol. i., p. 162:—

"If the cause alleged by the Bishop be not proved, the Judge pronounceth as before for his own jurisdiction, and the Bishop is to be condemned in expenses."

That was the position which he maintained throughout his observations on a former night. Now, in making these statements he had no complaint to bring against the hon. Gentleman. He had given him (Sir W. Page Wood) notice of the charge he meant to bring against him, and he was in the House to defend himself; but the Bishop was not present to defend himself, and therefore there was ground to complain as far as he was concerned. His hon. Friend said that the Bishop had amused his parishioners with correspondence, and had then snatched the institution before the parishioners could have time to apply for redress. Now, his hon. Friend had not produced a single letter in which the Bishop gave the parties the slightest hope that he would interfere. On the 15th of January, he explicitly told the parishioners he would not; and this was nine days before the institution. For his part, he believed that there was no intention on the part of any one to exhibit a caveat. If they had done so they would have found the consequences very unpleasant to themselves; and it appeared to him that what they wished was to throw those consequences upon the Bishop, which, he might add, in the Gorham case had cost the Bishop of Exeter between 3,000l. and 4.000l. He trusted the House would excuse this statement, as he had been called upon in a measure to do so by the imputations of the hon. Member for Cockermouth; and he challenged any hon. Gentleman in the House to dispute the principles of law he had laid down.

I trust no hon. Gentleman will attempt to impugn the propositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman at least till the next Session of Parliament. There is no issue before the House; and though I could not attempt to interfere with this discussion before, because both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman were, in respect of their constitutional and legal principles, so personally assailed by the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, that it was but fair they should be heard; yet I hope the House will now support me in pressing upon hon. Gentlemen this fact—that the privilege of speaking on the Motion for adjournment is one which ought to be used with some delicacy. It is impossible for us to attempt to carry on the business of the House, in the present state of affairs, unless hon. Gentlemen will consent to wave this privilege with respect to a question which has now gone by. I hope we shall now he allowed to proceed with the business of the day; but I must add, as it has been my somewhat painful duty to make this statement, I feel it also my duty to say that if the right hon. Gentleman's Motion had been brought forward, we should have felt it our duty on the principles of justice to give it our support. The hon. Member for Cockermouth has done ample justice to the conduct of the Ministry in constituting the Committee, and in the facilities we gave for the inquiry. It is now useless to refer to the past; but I may remind the House that the question of the law is still left in an unsatisfactory state, and that we shall consider it our duty to take into consideration, with a view to remedy, the grievances which are on all sides admitted to arise from the present state of the law relating to the institution of clerks to benefices.

would be very sorry to stand in the way of the House proceeding to the business of the evening; but, on the other hand, it must not be understood that his silence gave consent to the state of the law as laid down by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood). He dissented in toto from the construction which his hon. and learned Friend put upon the law; and, having said that, he would not add a word more.

must take this opportunity to clear up a misapprehension which prevailed widely with respect to the opinions of many of those who voted for the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, and on that account were held to have voted directly against all inquiry into the circumstances connected with the institution of Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, because they concurred with the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford in expressing approbation of the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells for instituting Mr. Bennett; and they were represented most falsely as having refused inquiry, with a view to prevent any steps being taken by the Government, and for the purpose of defeating legislative action, for the prevention of such abuses as the institution of men of unsound opinions to benefices of the Church of England. He (Mr. Newdegate) begged distinctly to state that he participated in the disapprobation of the institution of Mr. Bennett which had been expressed by the majority of the House; but he preferred the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, because he desired that the law respecting institution to benefices should be altered, which was the object of the Amendment, but not of the original Motion. In his opinion, the Bishop of Bath and Wells had exercised a most unwise discretion when he instituted the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome; but he knew that in so doing the Bishop had acted in accordance with the latitude of discretion allowed him by law, and was not therefore legally culpable; and he (Mr. Newdegate) voted for the Amendment with a view to amend the law, in preference to the original Motion; because, however sincerely he deprecated the manner in which the Bishop had exercised the discretion allowed him by law, he did not wish to see that House constitute itself a court of appeal in ecclesiastical cases, or arbitrarily interfere with the legal exercise of the discretion entrusted to bishops in such matters, which would be clearly exceeding the legitimate functions of the House.

rose, amidst loud cries of "Oh, oh!" to complain of the conduct of the Government in allowing the House to be counted out on the Tuesday night, when he had an important Motion to bring forward relating to the protection of Missionaries abroad, and to state that if the House were in existence on the 29th instant, he would press the Motion of which he had given notice. In the meantime, he begged to call the attention of the House to a despatch of the Earl of Malmesbury's, dated the 28th of April; but before doing this, he wished to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it was that the papers on the subject of the Missionaries, which had been promised two or three times, had not yet been laid upon the table?

said, the papers had been printed for presentation at a time when the negotiations were supposed to he finished; but having been recommenced they were with- held. The negotiations were at length finished, and the papers would be presented on Monday, or certainly on Tuesday.

said, he had given notice that on the 29th he would bring the whole subject before the House, but at present he only proposed to call the attention of the House to a small part of the question—a particular despatch written by Lord Malmesbury.

rose to order, and would beg to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. and learned Member, having given notice of a Motion for the 29th instant, to introduce it now.

said, the hon. and learned Member having given notice of his Motion for the 29th, it was against the rules of the House to bring it forward now. Unless, therefore, the hon. and learned Member was about to speak on a different subject, he was out of order.

said, he would, of course, bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, but as he decidedly felt that there was no time like the present, he would not proceed with his Motion on the 29th, but would go on with it now.

The hon. and learned Member will not put himself in order by taking that course. He has given notice of a subject for the 29th; by the rules of the House it is not possible for him to bring his question forward before the day for which he had given notice. It is not competent for the hon. and learned Member to say now that he will not bring it forward on that day in order to bring it forward now.

would then take the opinion of Mr. Speaker whether the question he meant now to propose was the same as that which he had given notice of for the 29th. That proposition was to this effect: that the House recognised the duty of Her Majesty's Government to grant letters of protection to Her Majesty's subjects residing in foreign countries, and particularly to certain persons who had suffered wrong; and that the case of those persons demanded the serious attention of that House. What he proposed to do at present was to read a despatch from Lord Malmesbury, which referred to a small portion only of the main case, but which contained the principles that Lord Malmesbury had laid down for guidance in respect to such cases.

said, it appeared to him, as far as he could understand the hon. and learned Member, that he was now about to draw attention to a part of the question which he had already given notice of for a future day. He thought under these circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman was out of order.

said, that whilst he had possession of the House he would put one other question. He understood from the newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated yesterday, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings), that he had read the evidence taken before the Committee of which he (Mr. C. Anstey) was Chairman, and that that evidence warranted him in taking a particular view of the matter. The question was, as to the expediency of the reduction of the duties on wine to a minimum amount. No publication of the evidence had taken place; it had not indeed been laid upon the table till to day. Was he (Mr. C. Anstey) right, then, in supposing that the whole proceeding was most irregular; that the hon. Member for Cirencester had no right to put the question; and that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to answer the question, with reference to a Report not then formally made to the House? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported not only to have made this premature reference to an unpublished Report, but also to have gone so far as to say that neither the present Government nor any future Government would be warranted in recommending to Parliament a reduction of the Duty on Wines. Was such a reference to a document not officially laid before the House proper in a Minister of the Crown?

said, an hon. Gentleman had last night asked him whether he had heard of a rumour that it was the intention of the Government to lower the Duties on Wine to 1s. a gallon. That question was not put to him with reference to the evidence taken before any Committee; and in his answer he stated that he had not heard of the rumour—that it was not the intention of the Government to act according to that rumour—and that he trusted there never would be a Government that would act in accordance with it; but that opinion was not given with reference to any evidence Whatever, though subsequently he did state that there had been a Committee on the subject. As the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey) had talked of the question being concocted between him and the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings), he begged to say that he was in error in that supposition. An hon. Gentleman connected with the City of London, of which he was one of the representatives, had intended to make the inquiry, and gave him notice that he would do so; but some circumstances with which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not acquainted, prevented that hon. Gentleman from following out his intention, and the inquiry was made by the hon. Member for Cirencester. In his reply he had expressed himself not very fully, but still he had stated very explicitly what the feeling of the Government was, because on all questions connected with commerce it was of importance that there should be no doubt or uncertainty. He stated that the Government had no intention whatever to make any alteration in the Duties on Wine, and that the great increase of consumption anticipated from a reduction of duty he thought exceedingly fallacious, and would require a complete revolution in the tastes and habits of the people of this country. He also said, that if it was in the power of Government to deal with a surplus revenue so as to permit them to reduce taxation, the Wine Duties were not among those imposts that they would be inclined to remit.

said: Sir, I rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill, which was read a first time on Tuesday last, when it was asserted, on the part of the Government, that it was not a measure of a coercive or unconstitutional nature, but merely one of protection, and necessary for the repression of crime in some districts of Ireland. Now, Sir, I think I shall have no difficulty in showing to this House that the Act of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 2, which this Bill proposes to continue for a period of two years longer, contains provisions of a most coercive and unconstitutional character, and which, in their practical effect, will rather facilitate, than prevent, the commission of crime. But before I enter upon the consideration of the measure itself, I wish to mention that there is a strong objection to its being entertained at all at this very advanced period of the Session, within a week or ten days of the expected dissolution of Parliament, and when many Irish Members are necessarily absent from London. This is a Bill which might have been brought in by the present Government at any time within the last three months; and I am quite justified in stating that this is not a period of the Session at which such a measure should be introduced. It comes before us wholly unaccompanied by any measures of a remedial nature; and from the time at which it, as well as another important measure—the Irish Valuation Bill—have been presented, they appear to have been purposely delayed, in order that the Irish Members should either be absent from the House, or for the purpose of detaining them in London, and thus facilitating the proceedings of those Derbyite candidates who are now occupied in canvassing Irish constituencies. Therefore, Sir, I say it is quite unfair to go into a measure of the kind at this period. Now, I contend that this is a Bill of a most coercive character, that it is utterly useless, and further that it is likely to have a most injurious effect upon the country. And here I may state, that there is not a Member of this House who would feel more truly anxious to support any measure which would be really calculated to protect the innocent, punish the guilty, and prevent the commission of crime and outrage in Ireland; and if I seriously believed, or entertained any hope or expectation, that this would have any such good effect, I should be the very last person to stand forward to oppose its progress. But having perfectly satisfied myself, from a careful examination of the measure, and from my own knowledge of Ireland, that its practical operation will be directly contrary to its professed object—that it will deprive innocent persons of the means of protecting themselves and their property, and will subject them to severe taxation on account of circumstances outside their control—and that it will also introduce the Whiteboy acts in a most opprossive form: I must for these reasons oppose the second reading of this Bill. Sir, being perfectly aware that the House is most averse in listening to any lengthened discussion at this period of the Session, and is especially impatient in regard to Irish subjects, I shall endeavour to condense my observations as much as possible; but at the same time I shall feel it my duty so to treat the subject that English Members may understand the true nature of the Bill which is now proposed to be made law. It appears on the face of it to be a very short Bill, comprised in a few lines, for the purpose of continuing the Act of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 2. That Act was introduced by the late Government, immediately after the assembling of the present Parliament, and it was almost the very first Act placed on the Statute-book after the last general election. Is this expiring Parliament now going to conclude its labours by continuing for two years more an Act of a most coercive character? Hon. Gentlemen who voted for the Bill on its first introduction, may perhaps conceive they are bound now to support its renewal; but I would remind them that the circumstances under which they formerly voted have undergone a complete change, and that the occasions are wholly dissimilar. When the Act was first introduced, in December, 1847, it was regarded as one of a most coercive and unconstitutional character, and was considered to require a great deal of explanation before the House was induced to pass it; and they had been prepared for its introduction by a very remarkable Royal Speech, made on the 23rd of November, 1847, at the opening of the Session. Before the then Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, ventured to propose such a measure, he required a few passages from the Royal Speech, having reference to the then state of Ireland, to be read by the clerk at the table. I shall take the liberty of now mentioning those passages to the House. They were as follows:—

"Her Majesty laments that in some counties of Ireland atrocious crimes have been committed, and a spirit of insubordination has manifested itself, leading to an organised resistance to legal rights.

"The Lord Lieutenant has employed with vigour and energy the means which the law placed at his disposal to detect offenders, and to prevent the repetition of offences. Her Majesty feels it, however, to be Her duty to Her peaceable and well-disposed subjects, to ask the assistance of Parliament in taking further precautions against the perpetration of crime in certain counties and districts in Ireland.

"Her Majesty views with the deepest anxiety and interest the present condition of Ireland, and She recommends to the consideration of Parliament measures, which, with due regard to the rights of property, may advance the social condi- tion of the people, and tend to the permanent improvement of that part of the United Kingdom."

Now, hon. Gentlemen will recollect that at the time that this Speech was delivered, the potato crops of Ireland had failed in that country for three years; famine was devastating the land, and without doubt Ireland was then in many respects in a much worse state than at the present time; and they will also remember that Ireland was then on the eve of that insurrectionary movement which gained its full maturity in the months of February and March, 1848—and at a time when rifle shooting-was being extensively practised in the various parts of the country, including the city of Dublin itself. But, Sir, that was a state of things very different from that which now prevails; and I certainly did not understand the learned Attorney General to state the other evening that disturbances now exist in any part of Ireland, with the exception of one very limited district, which has recently been the subject of an inquiry before a secret Committee of this House, called the Crime and Outrage Committee. That district I understood to be confined to a small circle of country, about eight miles in diameter, situate on the borders of the three northern counties of Armagh, Monaghan, and Louth. I am informed that the evidence taken before the Committee was confined to this very small district, and that as a general principle they refused to examine any witnesses who were not connected with it. That district extended to only three counties, and only to a very small portion of those three. Sir, I am free to confess that if the Act had been proved to have worked efficiently in that district, it might furnish a fair ground of argument to the right hon. Gentleman to continue its operation there, until the reassembling of a new Parliament. But as to the past working of the Act in that particular district, I and those other Members who were not upon that Crime and Outrage Committee are almost entirely without evidence. All the information before us is confined to a Report of two short pages, and to a paper presented by Major Brownrigge on the 30th of April, 1852, from which the Attorney General for Ireland quoted largely in the course of his speech. Now, I would wish to call the attention of the House to this document. It contains a statement of the state of crime and outrage in certain counties—in the northern counties of Armagh, Monaghan, and Louth, and in the southern counties of Tipperary and Limerick. Upon reference to it I find the following comparative statements in reference to agrarian outrages in those five counties during the years 1844 and 1851:—

AGRARIAN OUTRAGES.
	1844.	1851.	Increase.	Decrease.
Armagh	5	96	91	—
Monaghan	20	48	28	—
Louth	5	73	68	—
Tipperary	253	134	—	119
Limerick	74	38	—	36

Then, Sir, on referring to those northern counties of Armagh, Monaghan, and Louth, which appear, from this return, to have lately become so much distinguished for agrarian crime, the Attorney General perhaps legitimately rested his argument on the increased number of outrages; but surely the diminution of similar outrages in the southern counties of Tipperary and Limerick, and the present tranquil state of other counties of Ireland, furnishes an equal argument for not subjecting them to the operation of this coercive and unconstitutional Act. If the increase of agrarian outrages supplies a good ground for continuing the Act as to some disturbed districts, the diminution or the total absence of those outrages is an equally strong-argument for not extending it to other-parts of Ireland. But, Sir, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to have stated when introducing this Bill that at the present moment the Act is in active operation in no less than twenty-one out of the thirty-two counties of Ireland. Well, if I am to understand that no less than twenty-one counties are now proclaimed under the Act, without regard to whether crime may have increased in those counties or not, that certainly is a state of things which appears to be most monstrous and most unjust. And though the measure may seem to be a very simple and quiet one, still, if hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to look into it, they will find that it is a code of law even more coercive than the Bill which Sir Robert Peel introduced in 1846, although that Bill did contain what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has denominated the "curfew clause." Now, I will just state to the House the nature of the enactments which it is proposed to continue in Ireland for another period of two years. For though the right hon. Gentleman's leader in this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to consider that it should be continued only until the end of the next Session of Parliament, nevertheless, whether intentionally or otherwise, the Bill is so worded that it will last until the end of the following Session of Parliament of 1854. Now, I should like to know from the Government how long do they intend that the Act shall continue the law of the land? I will now explain the nature of the measure which the present Bill proposes to re-enact. The Act of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 2, by its 7th Section, declares that after the day named in the proclamation every person who shall knowingly having in his possession any gun, pistol, or fire-arm, or any sword, cutlass, pike, or bayonet, or any bullets, gunpowder, or ammunition, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Therefore, Sir, in any county to which the Lord Lieutenant may be pleased to extend the Act, any person found in possession of any weapon such as described may be prosecuted and punished in a most severe form. Again, the Lord Lieutenant has the power, under another section, to charge any district he may think fit with any number of additional police he may think proper. Now I will state to the House what will be the practical operation of these provisions of the Act wherever it may be put in force. The views which I entertain in regard to it are confirmed by the experience of persons best acquainted with the subject; and among others by the evidence of Mr. Major—whose character for high intelligence and local acquaintance with the county of Monaghan has been already mentioned to the House, and than whom I may add there would be no one more ready to give his concurrence to any measure for the suppression of crime, which he might consider calculated to effect that object. But from the passages which have been already read from the evidence of this gentleman, it is quite clear that his opinion is, that the Act has worked in a way directly the reverse from that which was intended. What are the results which have been found to follow from proclaiming a district under this Act? Why, that all peaceable and well-disposed persons give up their arms at once, while from those who are inclined to commit those outrages which it is intended to suppress, they are never got up at all; and the plain effect is, that all persons, except those few who may succeed in getting licenses to keep arms, are loft exposed to attacks from every miscreant in the district, and are deprived of the necessary means for their own protection. Not only is he without the means of protection, hut every murderer knows that he is so; and thus the man who meditates murder, who is usually a rank coward, and would never come to the house of a man known to he armed to the teeth, will not hesitate to attack the unfortunate person whom he knows to he in a defenceless state. I say that this Act will not have the effect intended, hut that it will have a diametrically opposite operation, by preventing the well-disposed in each neighbourhood from being able to defend either themselves or their neighbours, when attacked by any ruffians who may infest the district. Were I living in such a district I should a great deal prefer to be allowed to arm myself and my household against all assaults, rather than see this Bill put in force for my protection by depriving me of the means of defence. Although, Sir, this may not he the view which may strike lawyers living in Dublin, or politicians living in London, yet it is that taken by many practical men living in the country districts of Ireland. The practical effect of the Act, then, is to expose the innocent man to attack, and when he is murdered the remedy is that a number of police shall be sent down to the district, and, perhaps, it is his unfortunate widow and children that are taxed for their support. It does not appear to me, therefore, that this Act can have any useful effect; for the cause and origin of these outrages lies in a totally opposite direction from that in which you are legislating. The land system lies at the root of the whole evil; and your mode of preventing these crimes should be to alter the laud system, and place it on a proper footing. But the Act of the 11 & 12 Vict., which it is proposed to renew, besides the clauses to which I have alluded, contains other provisions of even a more coercive and unconstitutional character, because it incorporates the provisions of the two Whiteboy Statutes of 15 & 16 Geo. III., c. 21, and 1 & 2 Will. IV., c. 44, and also enacts that in any proclaimed district it shall be unnecessary, upon any prosecution for an offence against those Whiteboy Acts, to show that the offence was of an insurrectionary character, or that the district was in a disturbed state. So that, ipso facto, by the very proclaiming of a district, all the clauses of those most obnoxious Whiteboy Acts not only come into immediate operation, but they take effect in the worst conceivable form. Now, it is important to observe that the first of those Whiteboy Acts was passed in 1775, a period when the whole of Ireland was disturbed by agrarian outrage. The Steel Boys, and Oak Boys, and other unlawful societies in the north, and the Whiteboys in the south, had convulsed the country. Parties went about at night turning up the land, which it is a matter of history had shortly previous been converted, to a great extent, from tillage into pasturage, on account of the rise in the price of cattle, owing to a murrain among cattle abroad. I will not detain the House by going through the clauses of that first Whiteboy Act, which are very numerous; but I will observe they are all of a most penal nature, and inflicted the punishment of death, which has since been altered into transportation. I shall, however, direct the attention of the House to the second of these Whiteboy Acts, passed in 1831. It recites the former Act, alters it in some respects, and then contains clauses of a most coercive and unconstitutional character, and which became absolutely atrocious by the effect of this Act of 11 & 12 Vict., dispensing with all proof that the offence is of an insurrectionary nature, or that the district is in a disturbed state. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the 2nd and 3rd Sections of the Act.] It appears then, that by the joint effect of this clause and of the Act of 11 & 12 Vict., any person who is declared guilty of any of the offences mentioned in this section, many of which in England merely rank with petty larceny, is liable to transportation for life, or for fourteen or seven years, or to be imprisoned for three years, and to be once, twice, or thrice publicly whipped. Under the Whiteboy Acts the Irish Judges always considered that before any person could be convicted, proof was necessary that the neighbourhood around where the act was committed was in a disturbed state, and that the act itself was of an insurrectionary character; that if a person were to take the goods of another, or to take his horse or mule without his permission, or to publish a notice tending to excite a riot, the mere proving of those facts would not suffice to convict him under the Whiteboy Acts. The 17th Section of the Act of 11 & 12 Vict., abolishes the necessity of any further proofs being furnished in any proclaimed district of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing this Bill, had argued that it was desirable to continue the Act of Victoria on account of the approaching elections. His words were—

"The Act was passed on the 20th of December, 1843, after a general election, when there had been a good deal of excitement in the country, and which he admitted had so far aggravated the amount of crime; but that was a circumstance that was not to be disregarded, for they were on the eve of another election, when much angry feeling might be expected. Were they, during the Parliamentary vacation, to leave the Executive without the power of repressing crime, and the peaceable people of the country and the property of the country without protection?"

It was the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, then, that this Act would prove most useful during the exciting period of an election. Indeed, I can conceive five hundred different modes by which a Government might make use of this Act during a general election; and, without attributing any such intention to the present Government, we know what has been done in former times by similar means. I certainly do think it is a most unwise and unconstitutional power to entrust a Government with at such a period. We know very well how very easy it might be, during the excitement of an election, to get up the cry that any particular district was in a disturbed state. What has been stated in justification of this Act? We have been referred to the old constitutional Saxon laws; and it is stated that the old Saxon laws mulcted the district where the crime was committed. Those laws have, however, been long since abolished; and they were ridiculed the other evening by the English Attorney General as quite obsolete. But, Sir, the law taxing a district on account of the commission of a murder within it, was a Norman law passed upon their conquest of the Saxons—when the latter were being kept down by the Normans, as the Irish are at the present day. It is perfectly well known that these laws were most oppressive to the Saxons. The fact is referred to in Blackstone's Commentaries, Thierry's History of the Norman Conquest, and in other writers. A heavy fine was inflicted upon the hundred where; any Norman was killed, in order to prevent the habitual assassination of the Normans by the Saxon occupiers of the soil. In order to avoid this fine, the Saxons, whenever they murdered a Norman, took care to maim and disfigure him in such a horrible form as to render his identification impossible; and then the Normans made another law that the fine should be levied unless it could be proved to the satisfaction of a Norman jury that the dead body was that of a Saxon or Englishman. That was the well-known law of Englishmen, which was repealed about the year 1340—near three centuries after the Norman conquest. In the course of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a letter he had received from Sir Matthew Barrington, desiring a continuance of the Act. But what does that high authority state, in a letter published by him in the year 1852?—

"From all the discussions in the Houses of Parliament, the evidence before Committees, the statements of the law officers on special commissions, and the opinions of all who have written on the state of Ireland from the year 1700 to the very last discussion upon the subject in the House of Commons, it will appear that the various disturbances were of a purely agrarian character, unconnected with any hostility to the Government, or with feelings of religious animosity.

"Almost every outrage, if closely scrutinised, is traceable to the eviction of tenants, or the changing possession of land; and it is remarkable that almost all the persons prosecuted for agrarian disturbances are of the lowest class of the peasantry, and scarcely ever include a respectable farmer or person possessing any fixed interest in the soil. This I can state after an experience of thirty years as a public prosecutor on the largest circuit in Ireland, having, during that period, endeavoured to ascertain the cause of every outrage for which there was a prosecution."

There is a great deal of evidence in this letter to the same effect, showing Sir M. Barrington's opinion of the true cause of crime in Ireland; and he refers to a speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons, in which he went through the various Coercion Bills which had been passed for Ireland since the year 1800. He refers also to a statement made by Mr. Goulburn on the same subject. Sir, in the year 1846, a Coercion Bill was introduced by the late Sir Robert Peel. That Bill did not re-enact the Whiteboy Acts. It did not contain those penal clauses which might be used as I have mentioned, nor did it contain such stringent clauses in other respects, with this one exception: it contained what was called the "curfew clause"—a most objectionable clause certainly, under any circumstances; but, more especially, where all measures tending to abolish the cause of discontent had been left untried. And what did the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) say upon that occasion? Why, that he objected, not merely to the "curfew clause," but to the whole Bill. That speech, a short extract from which was road by the hon. Member for Athlone the other day, contained very many similar expressions on this subject; but the greater portion of it consisted in an attack on the Government of Sir Robert Peel, for the purpose of ejecting him from office. Upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman strongly objected to the Bill being read a second time at such a late period as the 15th of June, although the House was to sit until the month of August. Well, Sir, if upon that occasion such objections were deemed good—if it was thought that such a measure should not be introduced upon the eve of a general election—why are they not to prevail upon the present occasion, and the more especially as the House will rise in a very few days, and we find we are to have none of those remedial measures which have been so often referred to? I know there has been a great deal of vague conversation upon the Treasury benches about the measures they intend to introduce. They say they have a Landlord and Tenant Bill; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly stated the other evening that it is actually prepared, Why, then, do you not produce your Bill? The right hon. Gentleman rides off on the ground that they would be unable to carry their measure this Session. But what can be their objection to laying it upon the table of the House? I know I am ready to offer every facility, as far as I am concerned, for their doing so; and I do not believe that any Member of the House would give them the slightest opposition. The hon. Member for Rochdale made the very same offer to the House so long since as the month of March last. On that occasion the Attorney General for Ireland told us that he contemplated the introduction of three Bills: by one he proposed to condense the various statutes relating to the law of landlord and tenant—by the second he meant to simplify the rights and remedies of landlord and tenant—and by the third to entitle the tenant to compensation for unexhausted improvements. He objected to the Bill of the hon. Member for Rochdale on the ground that it was of too complicated a character, and that any legislation on such a subject should be in a very simple form. If the right hon. Gentleman's Bill is a very simple one, and if, as had been stated, it is already prepared, why is it not at once laid on the table of the House? Near three months have now elapsed since I distinctly demanded the production of that Bill, when I had the honour of addressing the House for the first time, in support of the Bill of the hon. Member for Rochdale. Why do I press this subject? Because, really everything turns upon it. Is this coercive Bill to be accompanied or not by remedial measures that will go to the root of the evil? Until we can see the measures of the right hon. Gentleman, we are totally in the dark as to their real nature. There is a very wide difference between Ministerial promises and official performances. In the year 1846 the late Sir Robert Peel is reported to have expressed himself in these terms:—

"It is the intention of the Ministry to introduce, before the close of the Session, several measures connected with the tenure of land in Ireland, giving to the tenants remuneration for permanent improvements, altering the ejectment process in favour of the occupants, and carrying out several recommendations of Lord Devon's Commission."

Those promises were never carried into effect. They bear a singular resemblance to the promises held out by Members of the Government at the present moment, immediately previous to the coming elections. If the Government consider that the measure, which they have so long promised, and which they now state is actually prepared, would be satisfactory to the country, they will not hesitate for their own sakes to produce it at once and lay it on the table of the House, in order to obtain the credit they would in that case be justly entitled to. But if, on the other hand, they withhold that Bill, the country can come to no other conclusion than that it is of an unsatisfactory nature, and that their promises are of delusive character. For the reasons I have submitted to the House, I feel called upon to oppose the second reading of the Bill, and shall conclude by moving that it be read a second time this day three months.

said, it was his intention to second the Motion, and to resist the passing of the Bill as far as he could. The policy of the present Government in Ireland had been that of deception, and that was the case with whatever they did there. He believed the Earl of Eglintoun to be sincerely anxious for the benefit of Ireland, and that no one could be a better Lord Lieutenant, so far as wishes went; but he was a victim to the impossibility created in other quarters of carrying out his good intentions. There was, he asserted, an agitation got up, and countenanced by persons under the Earl of Eglintoun, and connected with Government, to address the Lord Lieutenant for the liberation of Mr. Smith O'Brien; but, whether orders were sent over for England or not, the tone of the reply to that address took those who were most sanguine in the matter greatly by surprise. The Earl of Eglintoun hold out all sorts of hopes, and made golden promises to the people in his speech at the Cork Exhibition; but the people were accustomed to such promises—they know them to be all moonshine, and they would turn from that speech to the speeches of former Lords Lieutenant, promising railways, and all kinds of encouragement to Irish industry and agriculture. Was Government really doing anything to improve agriculture, or take the taxation off the land? Why, the; only measure they knew of was a Bill for the extension of the Coercion Act, and it was the only measure likely to pass in the absence of the many Irish Members who had gone over to secure their seats for the ensuing Parliament. It was a singular coincidence that the present Premier had been Chief Secretary of Ireland in the Grey Government, under the Marquess of Anglesey, whose good wishes were often disappointed by his Secretary, who was thoroughly actuated by the desire for Protestant ascendancy, and choked all the Lord Lieutenant's efforts for the advantage of Ireland. Would the Bill, he asked the Government, be directed solely against Roman Catholic processions, or would it be extended as well to Orange demonstrations, which were more likely to arise now than ever, in consequence of an increase in the physical strength of the Orange party, and by the fuel of the Durham letter of the late Prime Minister, and of recent out breaks, such as at Dolly's Brae? If Government did their duty they would not allow any illegal processions on the 12th of July. They had all heard of horrible murders committed by people assembled in Lord Roden's park, who were still at large, though well known; and these Orange ruffians were far more destructive than the men who wore Ribband badges. The Ribband system was far less mischievous. [Loud cries of "Oh!"] He repeated, the Ribbandmen were not so bad as the Orangemen. The Orangemen went about exciting the people. He attributed much of the mischief likely to arise in Ireland to the wretched, fanatic Durham letter, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which had put them back into the state they were in a hundred years ago. That Act would never be carried into effect, but was, nevertheless, looked on as a personal insult by the people. The present Bill might possibly be made use of for election purposes, but it would be useless for anything else. He would like to know what criminals were in prison under the Act? Let them give up Coercion Bills for once, and try a different experiment, and if there was any increase in crime, he would at once confess he was in error. Let them act towards Irishmen like Christians. At present they were as quiet as the people of any country could be, though he would not say if that quiet was not the result of disease and destitution, rather than of content. Government bad thrown away several good opportunities, and he begged of them to seize on the present, and give up the Bill. If they would withdraw the Bill, and avail themselves of even the short period of the Session that remained to introduce measures of relief, they would do themselves more good, and confer a greater benefit on Ireland, than any stringent measure for curtailing the liberty of the subject would ever enable them to do.

said, he was apprehensive that the House had forgotten the question which was really before it. That question was simply this, whether an Act of Parliament for the better prevention of Crime and Outrage in Ireland, which would expire in the present Session, ought to be continued until December next, and thence until the end of the next Session of Parliament. The grounds upon which Government had felt it to be their imperative duty to ask for the renewal of that Act, had already been stated by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. The nature of the Act which they sought to renew was this: The first seven sections empowered the Lord Lieutenant, with the assent of the Privy Council, to proclaim any disturbed district—not necessarily a county or the whole of Ireland, but a part of a county or part of a barony, as the circumstances of the case might require—and, having proclaimed a district, His Excellency was further empowered to send an additional constabulary force into that district for the purpose of preserving the peace which had been violated. Other sections of the Act provided that the district should contribute to the expense of that additional force; that no person should be permitted to I carry arms in the district without a licence 'obtained from certain officials responsible to the Executive Government; that when a murder had been committed in a district, the authorities should have power to call upon men who were described in the Bill to assist in tracing the offender, and who, if they refused to do so, would render themselves liable to punishment for a misdemeanour; and further, that no person under prosecution should be permitted to procrastinate the time of his trial by what was technically known as a traverse. Now, where was the necessity for such a measure? He begged the House to bear in mind the statement of facts which was submitted to them by his right hon. and learned Friend in introducing the Bill. That very morning a return had been laid on the table of the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Louth, of the number of outrages which had been committed in three counties from 1849 to 1852; and he (Mr. Whiteside) would undertake to say that there was no impartial man who would not declare that the ordinary law was not sufficient to cope with the offences specified in that return, and that therefore there must be some other means of protecting life and property; and certainly none more gentle, or less oppressive, than the one which had been proposed by the Government could be submitted to the notice of the House. How was the Government circumstanced? The grand jury of Louth presented a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, calling upon him to send experienced police officers into the county, to endeavour to discover and put down a conspiracy intended to disturb their peace and blast their prosperity. A Special Commission was sent to the county of Monaghan; but it failed in respect to the principal offenders, though it succeeded against two men, who were found guilty and punished for an offence under this excellent Act, committed while the Judges were sitting in Monaghan. But that was not all. After the failure of the Special Commission, a meeting of the magistrates of Louth, Monaghan, and Armagh, was held, and a memorial was agreed to, which was signed by 136 gentlemen, and sent to the Government, calling upon them to pass an additional Act for accomplishing that which should be the first object of all government—the protection of life and property. With these documents before them, and with returns in their possession, which he would not weary the House by reading, all showing that offences were increasing, what were the Government to do? His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland moved for a Committee to inquire what should be done to remedy the existing evils. That Committee reported and recommended different things in addition to the renewal of the present Act; and because the state of the Session made it impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, the argument of hon. Members opposite was, that things ought to be left in a much worse condition than they had found them, and that even a measure so moderate and indispensable as the present—a measure which did not interfere with the ordinary tribunals of the country—that even this small modicum of protection to life and property should be withdrawn from the people of Ireland. He confessed he could not understand the arguments by which the measure was resisted. It was said that the time was inconvenient. He had hardly ever known a measure introduced with reference to Ireland with respect to which this had not been said; but the fact was, that in the present case it was impossible, from the state of business, that the measure could have been introduced sooner. It had been said, also, that if people wanted protection, arms should be given to them, rather than taken from them. The answer to that was, that if an honest man wanted arms, he had only to apply to the Government for a licence, and he should have it. Then it was said, that it might be enforced during the elections that might hereafter take place. Well, and where would be the harm of that? It was enforced during the late election for Cork, and yet it did not prevent the electors from returning the hon. Member opposite (Mr. V. Scully). Nor would it interfere with an honest voter at any election. He contended that all that he had stated formed a strong justification of the course which the Government was adopting on the present occasion. How would the Bill interfere with the elections? His hon. Friend (Mr. V. Scully), had begun the old story of tenant-right, and this Bill and that Bill. What argument was that against the Bill now before the House, either in morals or in justice? What the Government wanted was to paralyse the arm of the assassin; and the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding, asked, where was the Tenant Right Bill? The assassin, how- ever, should not be parleyed with, and his (Mr. Whiteside's) sympathies were all with honest men. In the evidence taken before the Committee, a Roman Catholic gentleman had stated that he was touched on the arm in the market-town by a countryman, and asked to go down the next lane. He did so; and the man, after explaining that he was afraid to be seen speaking to him in the street, told him that Mr. Fortescue, late a Member of that House, would be shot at on a given day. This statement was afterwards found to be perfectly true by the police. Mr. Fortescue had to have a guard of six men on his way to church, and he was at this moment, in common with many other gentlemen, an exile from his own country, because his assertion of the rights of property had brought him under the ban—not of his own neighbours, but—of men whose business was assassination. The hon. Gentleman had on one occasion asked, why deprive the farmers of their blunderbusses, which they only used to shoot sparrows? Unfortunately, however, it was not to shoot sparrows, but men, that they were kept; and as the end of all law was liberty and order, so it became necessary to assert it in this manner. The hon. Gentleman said the Members for Ireland were embarrassed by the Bill. Who ever was embarrassed by it? The hon. Gentleman certainly was not; nor, indeed, were there any symptoms of such embarrassment in other quarters. The hon. Gentleman had said the Lord Lieutenant, in his recent journey to Cork, had touched the Blarney-stone—having made promises that he did not perform. That was unfair to the Lord Lieutenant, and unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. The Lord Lieutenant spoke to the warmhearted people of the south in the warm language of a friend; and his wish was to do all he could for that unfortunate country. That language should be mentioned with respect by the hon. Gentleman, and not in the manner it had been mentioned, if it was only for its kindness to the Irish people. The hon. Gentleman then took the subject of May-nooth—a subject which he had on a former occasion made a three hours' speech upon, and should, therefore, know something about; and, passing from that, he referred to the recent proclamations against processions. That proclamation, however, was in strict accordance with the lave, and should be enforced equally alike upon all parties, Catholic and Protestant, who should violate it. He thought it an ad- mirable Proclamation, and one, moreover, perfectly well-timed; for when he read the account of the procession referred to, he could not help thinking that it was very like some he had seen abroad, and which, he hoped, he would never see in this country. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lawless) next adverted to the memorial in favour of Mr. Smith O'Brien, and said it was signed by several persons who supported the Government. It was so. It was signed by his (Mr. Whiteside's) own proposer in Enniskillen, and it was signed by several others of his supporters and friends. But why did they sign it? Simply because they were independent of the Government, in nowise responsible to it, and therefore yielded to the promptings of their own nature in the case. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that they had no fear of Mr. Smith O'Brien; but they disliked the ascendancy of a system which they believed to be intolerant, without any objection to the individual. They signed that memorial, therefore, not under the sanction or authority of the Government, but simply because they chose to do so. The hon. Gentleman had, however, insinuated that the Government had got up that memorial. This was a mistake and a misconception on the part of the hon. Gentleman; and he (Mr. Whiteside) appealed to the House whether that was the candid way of dealing with the question? If the counsel of Mr. Smith O'Brien were asked whether they wished his liberation, and they said yes, it was most unfair to torture this into getting up the memorial on the part of the Government. The insinuation was absurd and irrelevant; and it should never have been made by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken asked what were the Government doing, and why, in their three months of office, they had not passed useful reforms? To this his reply was, that measures for the reform of the Court of Chancery had been considered by the present Lord Chancellor immediately on coming into office, but that they had been inevitably postponed, owing to the want of time to pass them this Session. As regarded the common law, the Bill for the reform of the Superior Courts was in his (Mr. Whiteside's) possession; but it was utterly impossible that its 250 clauses could be discussed this Session, and it was consequently postponed also. But had the Government done nothing else? On the contrary, they had assisted railways in Ireland—they had reduced the interest on loans made to Irish railways, and they had made advances to railways, which would he of the utmost utility to Ireland. If, then, these things were done by them, and done to the best of their ability, was it not most unjust of the hon. Gentleman to ask such a question? But whether the Government was right, or whether it was wrong, he had always noticed that those hon. Gentlemen who called themselves "Members for Ireland," put the facts in the worst possible light. He had remarked a singular dislike in those hon. Members to the coming elections. That was strange, considering the high position they professed to hold in the eyes of the constituencies of that country. The Government, however, had no fear of the elections; they appealed to the country fearlessly, because they did not intend to govern as for parties or sects, but for the entire nation. As to the absurd statements about Orange cries and Orange processions, all he had to say to the hon. Gentleman who made them was, that if they furnished the Government with evidence of the facts, the Government would undertake to prosecute the offenders. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Scully) also talked of the affair at Dolly's Brae. That, however, took place in the time of the late Ministry. But this he (Mr. Whiteside) was prepared to say, those whom the hon. Gentleman called assassins had on that occasion been acquitted of blame; while those who brought the charge against them had had true bills found against them. The Government, however, wisely discharged both parties. The subject was a stale one, as well as a worthless one, and had, moreover, no bearing on the Bill now before the House. Nevertheless he could inform the hon. Gentleman of a fact worth his knowing. In the Committee a witness was asked to point to any one of a long list of crimes that had been committed, and say if it was perpetrated by those persons whom the hon. Gentleman so unjustly maligned; but he could not name a single one. In conclusion, he must express his regret that there should be any opposition to a Bill so necessary to give peace and prosperity to Ireland.

said, he should not attempt any reply to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside), While admiring the great eloquence of that speech, he still could not blind himself to the total irrelevancy of the greater part of it to the subject before the House. He would not refuse to the Executive Government any powers which they might declare to be necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland; but the system of Coercion Bills had now been tried for many years, without in any way eradicating the evils they were intended to remedy, or improving the tone of society in that part of the Kingdom. He thought it might be possible to call on the gentry and farmers of Ireland to protect their own lives and property without having recourse to measures of that kind. From his own knowledge of both those classes of the people, he was sure they would promptly and effectually respond to such a call if it were made. There was no class in the community who had a better right to complain of agrarian disturbances than the farmers of Ireland. The life of a farmer there was one continued season of terror. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) had spoken of the disturbances in the counties of Louth and Monaghan. But let him (Mr. F. French) remind his hon. and learned and Friend and the House that the disturbances in the county of Louth arose out of certain demands which were made for the reduction of rent. Those demands were refused, and what was the consequence? An agent was shot, and the reduction was made. The same thing was done at a place nine miles distant. A demand was made for the reduction of rent, and refused. The result was that another agent was shot, and the reduction was again made, His opinion was, that if the gentry in Ireland did their duty, the peace and tranquillity of the country would be maintained without any recourse to Coercion Bills, He thought it was worthy the consideration of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether a different system of legislation might not be adopted towards Ireland. He believed if the people of Ireland were thrown on their own resources, the sequel would show that they were well able to protect themselves.

said, he must deny the accuracy of the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Whiteside's) assertion, that the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had won all hearts; he denied that, unless his having aggravated the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in the House of Lords, could be called winning all hearts. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely passed over the toast, either drunk or proposed, lately, at an Orange dinner in Enniskillen; and he (Captain Magan) did not know if he would not be out of order in stating the terms of the toast to the House; but he thought it only right to say that they were of the most offensive character. One of his reasons for objecting to this Bill was an Act passed in the reign of George the Third. He might be told that that Act was repealed by an Act of William the Fourth; but it was only repealed in so far as related to the punishment of death, for which transportation was substituted. That Act said, that any person carrying any offensive weapon should be liable to transportation. Now, with the feeling exhibited in Ireland, by Her Majesty's Government, he did not know if a man carrying a crowbar or a pickaxe might not come under the Act. Another provision of the Act made it penal for a man to blacken or disfigure his face. Now, that was a thing might happen to a sweep, or the Ethiopian serenaders, if they ever were in Ireland; he, therefore, hoped that no Gentleman with a dark complexion would ever go to Ireland while that Act was in force.

said, he held a high office in the society of Orangemen, and could not allow the attack that had been made on that body to pass unnoticed. He must protest against the impudent and stupid abuse, the infamous statements, of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Lawless) with regard to the Orangemen of Ireland. Whatever might be the opinions of the hon. Member, that body would continue to act upon their principles, and to be distinguished by loyalty and obedience to the law.

said, he thought the observations of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Archdall) were not fair or courteous to his (Mr. F. Scully's) hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Law less) in his absence. In times gone by, he (Mr. F. Seully) remembered that very body (the Orangemen) had been condemned by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. He knew more: that an Act of Parliament had been been passed to put down that very body as an illegal society. It was the duty of the Government to watch very narrowly the proceedings of that body in the north of Ireland; for it was a society possessing signs, pass-words, and other marks of a secret association; and in his eyes it was just as exceptionable as a Ribband society. He (Mr. F. Scully) was opposed to the Bill, because it proposed to apply to the proclaimed districts the most atrocious enactments of the Whiteboy Acts. In other parts of the United Kingdom, the police could not break into a man's house without good cause; but, in Ireland, that would be done on the merest rumour. He also objected to the Bill, because it would tax the innocent population in a very cruel and oppressive manner. On comparing the returns, he found that the agrarian crimes committed in Armagh, Down, and Monaghan, bore no proportion to those in the other parts of Ireland; and therefore there was no reason why the Bill should not be applied to those counties. He complained of the Government for postponing so important a Bill till such an advanced period of the Session. He very much regretted that they should have adopted the policy of their predecessors in smuggling important measures relating to Ireland through the House, at periods when few Members interested in the subject could be present. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had alluded in sarcastic terms to his (Mr. P. Scully's) friends; but a very short time would show who were the most popular men in Ireland. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about putting down religious processions; but he (Mr. F. Scully) was not aware of any in Ireland that were of a character to give offence to the Protestants. But if there were, the Government gave their sanction to similar processions in the Colonies, where the military were ordered to attend at them. He considered the proclamation as a wanton insult upon the people of Ireland. The Government would never gain the support of the people unless they brought in measures of a different character from Coercion Bills. The Irish population had no confidence in their rulers, and were leaving their country in shoals. If they did not introduce some remedial measures, Ireland would soon really become what the Premier had called it—"almost a desert"—a country which would contain none but the people in the workhouses. Irishmen expected great things from the present Government, after the excellent statements in the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer's address. Let him give them an earnest by withdrawing the Bill for the present Session, and by stating what were the measures he intended to introduce in the next Parliament.

said, that the present Government when out of office had pledged themselves to oppose the principles of this Bill. Why then had so extraordinary a change taken place, that they now brought forward a Motion for its continuance? The opponents of this Bill upon its introduction received every possible support from the present right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. President of the Board of Trade. They received an assurance of the sympathy of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and were in direct communication with the present Lord Chancellor of England, those high legal authorities being then of opinion that the ordinary tribunals of the country ought not to be superseded. The Government took this party by surprise, when they announced their intention of continuing the Incumbered Estates Act, and some of them were determined not to abandon their former principles, whatever the Government might do. Had not the Bill worked mischief enough in Ireland? Was not the House content with having swept away half the gentry, and almost depopulated the entire country? Sir Robert Peel saw the probable depreciation of property from throwing so many millions worth upon the market at once, and he had contemplated that it should be held over for a certain time; but this precaution had never been taken, and property had been sold often at a depreciation of half its value. He regarded this continuance Bill as the first step towards making the Commissioners a permanent Court. He saw no necessity whatever for the Bill. In the meantime, however, the number of the petitions had been diminishing, and there was an accumulation of property befre the Court to the amount of 28,000,000l. still to be dealt with. On these grounds he would oppose the Government measure. He believed the Government would find some names among the opponents of the Bill they little expected, and, if unsuccessful in that House, they would make such a fight, in another place as would astonish them.

said, he thought the course adopted by the Government in asking the House to read the Bill a second time, the best they could adopt for the interests of the owners of land in Ireland. By the Act of Parliament under which the Court was created, the Commission was to continue five years, which would not expire for two years to come; but the period for making presentments was limited to three years, which would expire in July next; and unless that term was extended for another year, the result would be serious depreciation in the value of land in Ireland. Were they to leave the Court in that position, the consequence would be that just before the time for petitioning closed, they would have a large number presented, praying for sale, and a still larger number to have no sale. This might be inferred from the proceedings of the Court, which had already transpired. It appeared that from the date when the first thirty petitions were presented, four months and twenty-five days elapsed before they were brought to a conclusion; and in the case of the last thirty, the period was eight months and three days. At the same time, he admitted the right remedy would have been to have reformed the Courts of Equity, and to have adapted them to the necessities of the times. If that had been done many years ago, it would have been much better for the profession and the public. The Court of Chancery, however, was not in a condition to deal with the emergency which had arisen, and that condition was hardly yet anything improved. The wisest course, therefore, for the Government to adopt, appeared to be to extend the powers of this Incumbered Estates Court for another year, in order that they might have time quite to complete the reforms of the Court of Chancery, and to see whether the jurisdiction might be continued further still, with modifications in the Incumbered Estates Court, or whether it could be transferred to the reformed Court of Chancery. Before the year expired, he hoped the Government would be in a condition to reform the Irish Court of Chancery; and he thought this Bill was in a manner auxiliary to those reforms.

said, he had come down prepared to hear the second reading of this Bill moved, and to make a statement to the House which he thought would have induced the Government to pause before they resolved upon the adoption of the course on which they seemed to be rather too much bent. The Bill, which was framed upon the recommendation of his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls, had been adopted by the Government in compliance with his right hon. Friend's suggestion, and was supported by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, upon the ground that, whether the system on which the business of the Incumbered Estates Commission had proceeded for years was good or bad, it was desirable to continue it for another year, in order to prevent the pressure which would occur in the presentation of petitions if the existing Act were allowed to expire, as it would otherwise have expired, in the month of July.

said, the period for presenting petitions would expire on the 28th of July, but the Act would not expire for two years.

The period for presenting petitions terminating in July, it was conceived that unless this measure were agreed to, such a number of petitions would be presented as would have the effect of greatly depreciating the value of land in Ireland. Petitions had been presented to the Incumbered Estates Court already for the sale of estates incumbered with debts to the amount of 28,000,000l. The estates already sold had produced 5,000,000l., and a little more than 3,000,000l. had been distributed amongst creditors. The price of land had averaged from ten to twelve years' purchase. The depreciation of land in Ireland, and the amount of property of creditors confiscated, presented a spectacle never before seen in the annals of economic legislation. Upon every principle of justice he thought this system ought to be put an end to. He should take every means of drawing attention to the injustice perpetrated under that system, and he now moved that the Bill be committed that day three months.

seconded the Motion. Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Monday next," in order to insert the words "this day three months" instead thereof.

said, the present Government had found this Court in active operation, and had not established it, and he admitted that some Members of the Government did not approve of the principle of it; but it was a very difficult thing suddenly to abolish a tribunal that had been in operation some years. And when the House remembered that some time ago it Was proposed to continue the Act for five years, he did not think the Government were to blame because they had mitigated the continuance of it to one year. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. Stuart) said the value of property would be depreciated in consequence of the Bill; but he thought he could satisfy his hon. and learned Friend that the Court was wearing itself out. When the Act first came into operation, there were presented in one single month not less than 135 petitions; but in April last, to which the return only came down, there were but thirty-two; and it was his belief that they would become less every month. If it had not been for the announcement that the existence of this Court would have been prolonged for one year, he knew for a fact that many estates would have been flung into it before the 1st of July that now would not be brought into it. As to the depreciation of property, he could state that property belonging to a noble Lord in the neighbourhood of the town he represented, which had been recently sold, had fetched twenty-one or twenty-two years' purchase—not a bad price for land in Ireland. He thought the evil consequences which his hon. and learned Friend anticipated from this Bill would not result from it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very unwilling to detain the House at this late hour; and if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland will give me a full and fair opportunity of discussing the principle of this Bill on a future occasion, I am willing to make the observations I now propose to offer, on the Motion for going into Committee; and I think I could then show that this Bill will vitally affect the interests of many persons in Ireland. If that opportunity is denied me, I must throw myself on the indulgence of the House, and now make those observations, which I can assure hon. Members only a strong sense of duty could induce me to offer at this hour of the night. Sir, this is the first time I have ventured to address the House, and I am sure I shall not appeal in vain to that proverbial indulgence which is ever generously extended to those who address this Assem- bly for the first time. Sir, I have said the subject we are now considering vitally affects the interests of many persons in Ireland; and I can only express my sincere regret that on the first occasion on which I address the House, I should feel it incumbent on me to oppose a measure, I will not say brought forward, but nevertheless sanctioned by a Ministry to whom I am most anxious to give a cordial support. And, Sir, first let me be permitted to allude to an argument used tonight, the force of which I confess I am unable to understand. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland tells us, that, by way of precluding petitions, and of preventing the accumulations of business in the Incumbered Estates Court, thirteen months are to be permitted for the presentation of petitions instead of one. Sir, I Confess I cannot comprehend that argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there will be a run of petitions at the close of the Court; but surely there will be the same run of petitions this time twelve months. This Bill was originally introduced by the Master of the Rolls in 1846, and then the Act gave throe years for presenting petitions for sale, it being settled that the Commission should last five years. Five years were allotted to sell the estates and wind up the business of the petitions that would be presented in them. What is now proposed is this—and I ask the attention of the House to the proposal, for I must deal with the case as I find it—it is proposed not to extend the period for distributing the money produced by the sales, to leave the period as to the sales as originally settled. But leaving this period as originally fixed, you increase the time for the presentation of petitions. I confess I oppose this Bill, because I think it one to which it was impolitic for the House to give its sanction. It is perpetuating what I believe to be a wrong; but I am prepared to oppose it on grounds common to me with those who supported the original Bill. Sir, there were stronger constitutional objections urged by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, and stronger language employed on that occasion than I confess I should wish to use. The Bill did not merely give facilities for selling—it extended the right of selling; and I ask the attention of the House to this fact, that it gave the right of selling property to persons who had never before possessed such right. If any man had a mortgage on an estate, no subsequent creditor could come in and sell the estate without being prepared to pay off the mortgage; but this Bill enabled any subsequent creditor to force the estate into the market without any reference to the mortgage. Now, Sir, I think this an injustice to the rights of the mortgagee, and one which ought not to be sanctioned. There were, however, other and perhaps stronger reasons by which the measure was opposed. It was contended, when the Bill was introduced, that the glut of property it would occasion in the market of Ireland would depreciate the value of property far lower than it ought to be; and when the Bill had only been one year in operation, the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls came down to the House and stated that the amount of property brought into the Court far exceeded all his calculations—that the glut so far depreciated property in Ireland, that it became necessary to provide an artificial stimulus for lawyers; and he proposed, in order to obtain purchasers, that every person who purchased in the Incumbered Estates Court might incumber his property to one half of its value. This was the result of a measure which superseded all our ancient Courts, and disregards all private rights? As a proof of how vain the expectations were which were raised upon this Bill, I need only remind you that when the measure was but one year in operation—a measure introduced and justified only on the ground that it would rid us of an incumbered proprietary—the author of that measure proposed to amend it by giving to every purchaser under it a cheap and easy method of incumbering his estate. Nothing but necessity could have forced him to such a proposal. But what was the necessity? That even three years' petitions would bring into the market more estates than could be sold in five! Surely before we impose additional business on the Court for these five years, we ought to know what at present they have to dispose of in that time. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given us any precise information of the state of business in this Court? No: whatever information we have on the subject is derived from the Return I have moved for myself. Now, what is the state of facts upon this Return? It there appears that of the entire number of the petitions in which absolute orders have been made, there were only thirty in which the whole lands have been sold. I know that this Return is so far incorrect, as I will show you immediately. I caused an application to be made to the Court, and my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland has received from the Commissioners a correction of that Return, the mistake in which they said was occasioned by the fact of their not having understood the exact nature of the Return for which I had moved. Instead, then, of the number of petitions being thirty, there are, it appears, 931 petitions still to be disposed of, and the property which the Commissioners have ordered for sale, and must sell within three years, amounts to 800,000l. a year. Now, I ask, is there not a sufficiency of business to employ the Commissioners for three years at least, without any more petitions being presented? The business of the Court, in my opinion, only really commences when the land is sold. When they get the money, then arises the judicial business of the Court in the distribution of the money amongst the different claimants. Out of 1,631 cases there are not 500 in which the Commissioners have finally adjudicated the rights of the different claimants to the money. The present sales amount to 5,000,000l., and out of that sum 2,500,000l. lies impounded in the Incumbered Estates Court, because the Commissioners have not been as yet able to decide the rights of the several parties claiming. They have 10,000,000l., in fact, to decide upon, and questions may arise in the distribution of this money as difficult as have ever yet arisen in any Court of Equity. With this amount of business before them, I appeal to you whether it is reasonable to ask the House to depart from the original Bill by giving another year for the presentation of petitions without extending the time of sale. It is evident, Sir, that this Court has more business before it than it can get through within any reasonable time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the depreciation of the value of the property which would arise from a sudden glut of these petitions. The measure before the House is, however, in my mind, a most extraordinary way of preventing such a glut. Why, Sir, every petition presented under this measure will not only depreciate the value of the estates themselves, but it will also depreciate the 800,000l. rental of the property, which must be sold in the next three years. And what has been the result of the sales that have already taken place? The average amount of the estates sold was not more than ten years' purchase. Everything conspired to depreciate the property. The measure was put into operation at a time when the country was suffering under the destroying influence of a prolonged famine. The change in the Corn Laws—whether wisely made or not I do not discuss—unquestionably lowered the value of land. The novel enactment of outdoor relief had imposed upon the land a burden the extent of which no one could see. This was not all. The circulating money of Ireland was diminished. The issue of bank-notes had diminished from 7,000,000l. in 1846, to 4,000,000l. in 1849. And just at that moment of unexampled depression, when everything conspired to depress the value of the soil, you passed a law to fling upon the market an amount of property for which even in the best times purchasers could not be found: you called an auction of the estate of every man who was in debt. The result has been what was to be expected. Sir, I believe in my conscience that the operation of this Court has produced more individual misery and more individual wrong than any revolution that has ever taken place in any civilised country. And yet, with all these facts before our eyes, I am asked to consent to this measure for another year. I will not quote the words of my hon. and learned Friend against himself; but I must ask the House to bear with me while I quote the words of the noble Earl now at the head of the Government, when on a former occasion he moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The language used by the noble Lord was this, that "being a Bill of a most exceptional character, he wished that it should not be carried further than the exceptional nature of the case required." Now, that is simply all I ask. This Bill was never brought forward to facilitate the settlement of the claims of creditors—it was brought forward for the purpose of transferring to unincumbered proprietors the land of Ireland. Its only justification was the importance of getting money even at the cost of individual suffering of proprietors whose embarrassments disqualified them from discharging the duties of a resident gentry. This was the justification of the measure. Can it be assigned for its extension? Have not the last three years supplied a test sufficient to prove the person whom it is desirable to sell out? Will any man say that the Irish proprietor, who has managed to keep his ground for the last three years, is a man that it is well to get rid of? I feel I owe an apology to the House for trespassing at this unseasonable hour so long upon their patience; I can assure the House I would not have dared to do so if I did not consider that the injustice of the measure was sufficient to warrant my interference. Thanking the House, then, for the very kind attention with which my observations have been heard, I shall conclude for the present; but, with the leave of the House, I shall probably take an opportunity of again addressing it when going into Committee on the Bill.