said, he had to present a petition from Mr. John Patrick Somers, which set forth that the petitioner had represented Sligo in Parliament for fourteen years; that he was a candidate at the last election, which took place in July of the present year, and that Mr. John Sadleir was also a candidate; that the latter gentleman was declared to be duly elected, but, believing that his election had been procured by bribery, treating, and personation, Mr. Somers had presented a petition against Mr. Sadleir, complaining of the return, and praying a scrutiny of the votes. The petitioner stated that he had found the necessary recognisances for the prosecution of the petition, but that one of those had been tampered with by an agent of Mr. Sadleir, and, by a gift of 50l., had been induced to make an affidavit that at the time of his becoming one of the sureties he was not worth 500l. In consequence of this the petition was vitiated, and Mr. Somers now prayed for inquiry and redress.

said, he trusted the House would permit him to make one or two observations on the subject of this petition. In the first place, he earnestly hoped the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) would not delay taking some step to submit the several allegations in the petition to the test of a trial, and of a public and deliberate inquiry before a properly-constituted tribunal. It was due, he (Mr. Sadleir) thought, to his own personal position, as well as to the public position which he occupied as a Member of the House of Commons, that he should declare in the most solemn manner that, so far as regarded himself, the various allegations contained in the petition, reflecting on his conduct and acts, were altogether unfounded and void of truth. He had had no opportunity of communicating with any of the other parties against whose conduct allegations were also made, except Mr. Walker. As Mr. Walker was in London, he called on that gentleman to give him a statement on the subject. Mr. Walker assured him in the most distinct and positive manner that he had no knowledge whatever of the alleged transactions—that if they had taken place it was without authority and direction on his part, and entirely without his knowledge. He (Mr. Sadleir) might also mention that he had no communication, directly or otherwise, with, and had no knowledge of, a man named Simpson spoken of in the petition. It was not the fact that another person named in the petition acted as his agent. No person was authorised to act for him in the matter of the petition presented against his return save Mr. Walker. The sooner the allegations contained in the petition were made the subject of an investigation, the better for every individual affected by the petition. He could not but regard it as a misfortune, that a petition of this character, imputing improper, illegal, corrupt, and unconstitutional conduct to parties, should be presented at the close of one Session of Parliament, when it was utterly impossible to submit those allegations to any test whatsoever before the commencement of another Session of Parliament. He hoped, however, that the hon. and learned Member would take the earliest opportunity of submitting those allegations to public investigation. This petition bore a curious resemblance to one presented in 1848, and he thought it probable that the same fate would attend it. He remembered very well the petition presented in 1848, charging a gentleman who was his predecessor as Member for Sligo with corrupt and illegal acts, and unconstitutional interference with the privileges of that House. That petition was referred to a Select Committee; and the authors of those allegations were obliged to appear before the Committee, which reported on the allegations, after a careful inquiry, as unfunded, and as not having been proved. It was very possible, he apprehended, that the promoters of this petition would find their present attempt as abortive as the attempt of 1848.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he should take the earliest opportunity of proposing an inquiry. The petition had been put in his hand by a gentleman who had been a Member of that House. He (Mr. I. Butt) said nothing with respect to the allegations; and, while he should regret doing anything to prejudice the hon. Gentleman, he thought the hon. Gentleman would have done better had he abstained from stating anything to prejudice the petitioners.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, what sum was included in the aggregate Vote of 281,765l. for public education in Great Britain for establishing new schools in towns where no town councils exist, in conformity with the Minute of Council; whether the sum so voted for this special object would be expended during the suspension of the proposed Education Bill? Also, in the event of that Bill being ultimately wholly withdrawn, whether the Minute of Council in question would be rescinded, and the money deducted from the current year's educational grant, thereby reducing the large excess of 100,000l.. as compared with the expenditure of 1852?

said, that so far as regarded that portion of the Minute which applied to places having town councils, no money would be expended; but with respect to the establishment of schools in towns where no town council existed, he had to state that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that, where cases of that kind occurred, and were brought before the Members of the Committee of the Privy Council, grants ought to be made in conformity with the Minute. With reference to the question whether, in the event of the Education Bill being withdrawn, the Minute of Council would be rescinded, that was of course a matter for consideration hereafter, and he could not at present afford any information on the subject to the hon. Gentleman. He could not say how much of the whole sum granted for public education would be expended in the establishment of new schools in towns where no town council existed. The estimates were merely conjectural, and a great deal would depend upon the number of applications which might be made. However, there was to be a meeting of the Educational Committee of the Privy Council to-morrow, when the whole subject would probably be discussed and determined upon.

said, he begged to ask the noble Lord the Member for London if any information had reached the Government with reference to a late decree, said to have been passed by the Queen of Portugal, and sanctioned by the Cortes, by which any subject of that kingdom was condemned to fine and imprisonment, varying from one to three years, if he should do anything, by word or in writing, which, in the opinion of the Government, might be considered as an insult to any of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic religion, or attempt to propagate doctrines contrary to that religion, or celebrate public acts of worship differing therefrom, and by which any foreigner convicted of similar offences was to be banished from that kingdom? and, if so, whether be had any objection to lay a copy of such decree, or extract therefrom, on the table of the House? Also, if any provision had been made for the protection of the rights and liberties of the subjects of Her Majesty resident in or visiting that kingdom, in conformity with the treaty of July 3, 1842, by which treaty the right was guaranteed to them of building and maintaining, without hindrance, places of public worship, and the free exercise of their religion was promised to them? and, if so, whether he would lay a copy of such provision on the table of the House, together with copies of any correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Queen of Portugal, on this subject? The main question, however, was, whether the Government had a distinct assurance from the Queen of Portugal that the rights of British subjects in Portugal were not infringed by that decree?

, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had called the attention of Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon to the decree with reference to the punishment of persons who in any way might have insulted the Roman Catholic religion, or celebrated public worship in a way different from that which was ordered in the Roman Catholic mode of worship. Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon had sent house only certain articles of the decree. He had not at any time sent a complete copy of the decree in question. With respect to the further part of the question—namely, that relating to the treaty of 1842, one could conceive that there might be no infringement of that treaty, because there had been no complaint from any British subject that the treaty had been infringed. The treaty was very precise—that British subjects should be allowed to meet together for the purposes of religion, without the smallest hindrance. The practice, he (Lord J. Russell) believed, had been in conformity with the treaty. Unless there were any complaint that the treaty was infringed in any respect, he did not see that it was nocessary to treat the decree as an infringement of the treaty.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Member for London whether the attention of Government had been further directed to the case of Mr. Edward Murray, a British subject, condemned to imprisonment for life by the Government of the Pope, and whether they would take any further steps for obtaining his liberation?

said, it appeared that Mr. Freeborn, the British Consul, had applied in January last with respect to the case of Mr. Murray, and was told that no further remission could be made. In pursuance of his (Lord John Russell's) instructions in January last, Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Florence also applied, and received a similar answer. A further application had been made at a still later period by Mr. Petro and Mr. Freeborn, and the last answer that had been received was this, that the Papal Government had been subjected to many reflections on account of the clemency which had been already shown to Mr. Murray; that it had been said that the persons who had been executed for the same crimes had not been more guilty than Mr. Murray; that, consequently, the relations and friends of those persons who had been executed were indignant that so much mercy had been shown to Mr. Murray; and that, under those circumstances, the Papal Government would not extend any further mercy to him. He really thought, therefore, he should be holding out false hopes to the noble Lord if he said he thought the Government would obtain any further remission of the sentence by any further application. For the present, at least, he did not think it would be of any avail to make any further application.

said, he thought it desirable that the House should agree to the Lords' Amendment. If those who had supported this clause originally should still think, as he did, that it was desirable, it might be brought in as a separate measure next Session. His view of the subject was this, not simply that the prohibition of dog-carts was desirable as a measure of humanity, or as a preventitive of danger—but that they were the vehicles of a great quantity of stolen goods—that they were the vehicles by which numbers of small plunderers and pilferers—apprentices in crime—were able to convey what they had stolen to some other town, where they sold it to receivers. Under present circumstances, however, he thought the House would do right in acquiescing in the Amendment.

said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was extremeley desirable to prevent dog-carts being used in the manner and by the description of persons he had referred to; but the truth was, that that object would only have been partially effected by the clause in question, because it would still have left persons at liberty to use those vehicles on highways. He would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be better to insert a clause for the purpose in a Highway Act than a Turnpike Act.

begged to say, on the part of the noble Lord the Member for South Shropshire (Viscount Newport), who introduced the clause originally, that his object had been to prevent the numerous accidents which were constantly occurring from their use. He hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) would turn his attention to the subject, and endeavour to provide a remedy.