observed that, in the course of the debate on the Volunteer Corps Vote the other evening, he had made a statement on a matter of fact which he found was not quite exact, and wished to correct it. He had stated that at the time of the massacre at Manchester, in 1819, the price of corn was 42s. a quarter. What he intended to say was that at the beginning of that year the price of corn was much higher than at the time of the massacre; that in consequence of the change in the value of money caused by the Act, commonly known as "Peel's Bill," which passed in the spring of the year, prices began to decline, accompanied by great distress, agricultural and commercial—that this decline in prices generally continued, together with great distress, till in two or three years, the price of wheat had falled as low as 40s. or 42s. a quarter. The distress, therefore, was not owing to the Corn Laws, as asserted by the Member for Manchester, but to the change in the value of money, for great prosperity had existed for two years prior to "Peel's Bill," and again arose for a limited period subsequently owing to an illegitimate action on the currency in 1822–3. At the end of which time, namely, 1825, another commercial crisis took place, producing a general distress and discontent which produced the agitation for the Reform Bill in 1830.

said, he would move that the Offences against the Person Bill, the Larceny, &c., Bill, the Malicious Injuries to Property Bill, the Forgery Bill, the Coinage Offences Bill, the Accessories and Abettors Bill, and the Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill, all of which were on the paper for Committee, should be referred to the same Committee of the whole House.

said, it was true a Select Committee had carefully considered the details of these Bills, but then a Committee upstairs was by no means a satisfactory tribunal to deal with any great principles of criminal law. The Committee was composed of a large number of Members, but some of the important questions involved were decided by only five persons. Therefore, he hoped that any question of principle would be raised in the Committee of the whole House, in such a manner that it might be fairly discussed, and that the deliberate judgment of the House might be taken upon it. The first of those Bills contained a proposition of such magnitude, and one which the House considered so important, that on a former occasion it had the effect of changing the Government of the day; and surely it was impossible that the House, at a morning sitting, should review and reverse that decision. He wished, then, that those important questions should be reserved for the Report. There was only one technical difficulty, that no question could be raised upon the Report unless some Amendment was to be made in the Bill; but as he understood that some small Amendments would be proposed, he would not object to considering the Bills in the manner now proposed.

said, that he had given notice of a motion with respect to the punishment of death, but it was postponed in Committee because the question was considered of such great importance that it should be reserved for the consideration of the House. He entirely agreed with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets.

said, he had understood from the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the Bills were not likely to come on soon, and he was therefore surprised when the noble Lord at the head of the Government made a statement that they would be brought on at a morning sitting on Tuesday. He had himself in Committee divided the Committee upon the fourth Clause, which was carried only by the casting vote of the Solicitor General, and, therefore, he was resolved to take the sense of the House upon it. However, on the understanding that an opportunity for so doing would be afforded, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, he would offer no opposition to the course proposed.

said, that he must express his surprise at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) as to 'the effect of a recent conversation which had taken place between them with reference to the time at which it was probable those Bills would be taken in Committee. He (the Solicitor General) had not the slightest recollection of any such conversation; and, therefore, either the memory of the right hon. Gentleman or his own must he entirely at fault. He certainly did state in answer to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that it was the determination of the Government to bring forward these Bills as speedily as the public business would permit. He (the Solicitor General) had given notice of certain Amendments which he intended to propose in the two Bills earliest in order, namely, the Offences Against the Persons Bill and the Larceny Bill. He had, likewise, some verbal Amendments to propose in the Malicious Injury to Property Bill, the Forgery Bill, and the Coinage Offences Bill. Therefore, not as a matter of concession or arrangement, but as a matter of right, it would be open to any hon. Member upon the report to introduce any Amendment which he might think fit. He had every reason to suppose from what took place in the Select Committee that no hon. Member would feel himself called upon to propose any Amendment in the Accessory and Abettors Bill. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, and proceed to consider the details.

said, the hon, and learned Gentleman might have totally forgotten the conversation, but he (Mr. Henley) could not have imagined that such a conversation had taken place.

expressed a hope that every possible effort would he made to carry these Bills for the Amendment of the criminal law, through the House with as little delay as possible.

said, he objected to the clause on the ground that it made the removal of fixtures by a tenant, punishable by the criminal law, instead of leaving such questions to be settled, as hitherto, in the civil courts. The clause had been taken from an Irish Act, but he objected to the introduction of such stringent provisions from Ireland, where they had been productive of no good, but of much evil.

said, the law had worked satisfactorily in Ireland, and he would remind the hon. and learned Member that one of the objects of these Bills was to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland in the matter to which they related.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury on what basis the Salaries of District Registrars, appointed under the Probate Act of 1857, and hitherto paid by Fees, has been calculated, and whether he would have any objection to laying any Treasury Document which there may be, explanatory of such calculation, on the table of the House?

said, the basis on which the Treasury had proceeded was, the number of grants in the different districts of the registrars for each of the last three years; also, the emoluments of the officers in those years, the relative importance of the places in which these registrars were situate, and the amount of probate duty paid into the Treasury. There were no documents connected with the matter except the Treasury Minute, which was already before the House.

said, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Council of Education, "Whether the Department of Science and Art have received any information from the Royal Dublin Society that, at a special meeting of its members on Monday last, it was resolved to refuse compliance with the desire of the Department that the Botanic Gardens at Glasnevin should be open to the public after the hours of Divine Service on Sundays; and, if so, whether it is intended to take any further steps to secure the carrying out of this object?

said, he had to express his regret that he had been prevented by unavoidable business from attending in his place on the preceding evening for the purpose of answering that question. The Department of Science and Art had received a communication of the description to which the hon. Gentleman referred from the Royal Dublin Society. That Department had given it as their opinion that the Glasnevin Gardens should be open on the Sundays in the same way as the gardens at Kew and at Hampton Court; but they had no power to coerce the Society to throw open those gardens, unless they were to recommend to Parliament to withdraw the sum voted for that purpose; and that course they were not prepared to take. The Society were to receive £8,000 from Parliament this year, against a sum of £1,300 subscribed by its members; and the proper time for the consideration of the question would be when the Estimate was brought before the House.

Sir, with respect to negotiations which had been going on at Constantinople with regard to a settlement of the affairs of Syria, I said that I hoped to be able this week to state to the House what has been done upon the subject. I am now able to state that, although the details are not completed, there has been a meeting of the representatives, and they have agreed upon the main question—namely, that there shall be a Christian Governor of the Lebanon.

said, that he rose to move the Resolution of which he had a notice on the paper to address Her Majesty to take into consideration the present position of officers promoted to the rank of colonel for distinguished service in the field in 1855 and 1856; but as Her Majesty's Government had agreed to the address, and intended to appoint an official Committee, it was only necessary for him to show that he had brought forward a case deserving the attention of the House. He did not give notice to move for a Commission, because there had been two Royal Commissions in 1854 and 1858, and he thought the subject was so well understood that no further inquiry by those means was necessary. The officers whose claims he advocated were the most distinguished of their rank during the Crimean war. They obtained that rank in 1855 and 1856. On the 28th of November, 1854, a new system was introduced, by which it was settled that no officer should rise to the rank of colonel except by serving three years in command of a regiment. While the system was being carried out in the following two or three years, these officers were promoted to the rank of colonel for distinguished service in the Crimea, and they fell into their places according to the dates at which they were promoted. But the effect of the rule of November, 1854, was that it applied to a great mass of distinguished lieutenant colonels who obtained their rank previously. It was at the time considered unjust, and during the next three years it became so intolerable that several Motions having been made in the House on the subject, Her Majesty's Government appointed a Royal Commission for the purpose of investigating the case of those officers and other matters. The Commissioners acknowledged the injustice done to the superseded lieutenant colonels, and advised that they should be replaced in their former rotation in the list. The injury done to the distinguished service officers was by the mode in which the superseded lieutenant colonels were reinstated. They were reinstated by antedating their commissions before November, 1854. There was no necessity for antedating them. It might have been done in another form, but it was done, and Lord Herbert informed him that during the consideration of the Report of the Commissioners of 1858 the claims of the distinguished service officers, who were a small body compared to the whole mass of officers, were overlooked. Having thus stated the means by which these distinguished service officers had been made to forfeit the position which they had enjoyed at the time they were promoted for those services, it would be sufficient to show to what extent they had been injured. They were affected in two ways—first, in the position which they held with regard to the chance of rising to the rank of general; and second in the position which they held with regard to the seniority and priority for command. The first case he would notice was that of Sir Thomas Troubridge, who was one of the aides-de-camp when Her Majesty distributed the first medals granted for the Crimean war. That gallant officer lost eighty-five steps—that was to say, he was eighty-five steps further removed from promotion to the rank of general. He would name three or four officers who obtained rank for their services in the Crimea, and had been serving in India, and who had since lost their position:—Colonel Percy Herbert, Colonel Edwards, the Earl of Longford, Lieutenant David Wood, and Lieutenant George Barker. At the close, of the Indian mutiny, after serving in two wars, they found themselves not one whit better off than if there had been no war at all. Colonel Lake, who assisted Sir Fenwick Williams in the defence of Ears, was promoted in September, 1856, and he had lost fifty-six steps in proximity to the position of general. With regard to the second division of the inquiry, as to command, Colonels Gordon and Chapman had lost nine steps in their own service, and 104 steps in the collective service. If an army were in the field the Commander-in-Chief had detached commands to give, on which officers would serve; and, therefore, for such commands Colonels Gordon and Chapman found themselves 104 further off than they would have been had they remained in their former position. That was entirely separate from the principle of selection, because if the senior officer was killed and the second in command was at the top of the list he would naturally succeed to the command. He did not wish to criticise the conduct of any of the officials concerned. It was well known that the Government had simply carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners of 1858, and Lord Herbert said the case of these distinguished service officers was overlooked. If they were reinstated in their former position, the natural result would be to alter the position of other officers, and some who had gone above would have again to come below them. He regretted it, but their case would also come before the Committee which the Secretary of State intended to form, and their interests would receive fair consideration. He would not detain the House further; but, with the conviction that the case would receive that attention which Her Majesty's Government had promised to give it, he would move,—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the present position of the Officers promoted to the rank of Colonel for distinguished service in the field during the War in the East in 1855 and 1856, who, when the List of Colonels was revised in 1858, were unfortunately overlooked in the recommendations of the Royal Commission of that year, by which their prospects in the Service have been seriously injured.

said, the hon. and gallant General was quite correct in stating that the Government had assented to the Address which he had moved, and that it was the intention of the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, in conjunction with His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, to appoint a Committee to consider the position of those officers who were promoted to the rank of colonel for distinguished services in the field during the Crimean war. Under these circumstances it would be obviously inexpedient to discuss the question at that moment, or enter into any detail as to the circumstances which had placed them in their existing position. The hon. and gallant Member had also stated quite correctly that the present position of those officers depended upon the Reports of two Royal Commissions, and that no blame could be laid on the administration of the army in the matter. He was sure that no one would be more willing than His Royal Highness to recognize the merits of the officers in question; and it would be observed that seven or eight of them were either now employed or had been very recently employed in the Horse Guards. He trusted that, although the question had, through ante dated and post-dated commissions, been encumbered by technical difficulties of too complicated a character to be readily explained, some mode might be found of meeting the case.

said, he could not but complain of the unfortunate position in which military men were placed by the vacillation of the War Office. An ex post facto order had deprived Indian officers, except under certain conditions, of the brevet rank of colonel to which they were entitled by a former arrangement. A Royal Commission had recommended that these officers should be replaced in the position from which they had unjustly been removed; but, owing to the irregular promotions of the War Office, the matter could not be set right except by doing injustice either to one set of officers or to another. Again it had been the rule that an officer should be entitled to half-pay after twenty-one years' service, but a recent order had fixed the necessary period of service at twenty-five years. The consequence was that many officers who had retired as entitled to half-pay were liable to be called upon to serve the additional period. In conclusion, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary when the account of the Reserve Fund which had been promised would be submitted to the House?

(Coventry) said, he was glad that his hon. Friend had acceded to the Motion, though he had never seen on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the War Office, or on the part of the Commander-in-Chief, any disposition to act otherwise than with the greatest liberality and fairness in the matter of promotion to all branches of the service. The Commission of 1854 recommended that no officer should be promoted to the rank of colonel until after he had seen three years of effective service; that recommendation was adopted by the military authorities. In carrying it into effect certain officers complained that they had been omitted, having a right to be included in the list of promotions, and in consequence of that complaint a second Commission was appointed in 1858. That Commission reported that these officers had reason to complain, and that justice ought to be done them by placing them in the position they would have been in if they had not been so unjustly treated. The position of the officers the hon. and gallant General had brought before the House was this:—They were promoted between the promotion of the lieutenant colonels originally promoted, and those whose complaints were referred to the Commission. Then the question arose whether the promotion of the latter officers was rather a matter of favour than a matter of right and justice, and in either case there was a difficulty. These alterations could not be made without causing some complaint, and he thought it right that when a complaint arose it should be dealt with in the way proposed by his hon. Friend. While he was speaking on the subject he would mention a case of another kind, which he thought ought to be brought before the House. Nearly thirty years ago a Committee of that House, on which the noble Member for the City (Lord John Russell), the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), and Sir Robert Peel sat, recommended that no staff appointments should be held by any officer for more than five years. About twenty-five years after the Committee made that recommendation it was adopted by his noble Friend at the head of the War Office, but Sir Edward Lugard had been taken from the category of officers on the staff and placed as permanent Under Secretary in the War Office. There could not be a better officer selected than Sir Edward Lugard, but he had the greatest objection to that appointment, because it was a deviation from the rule.

said, he could not but express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought forward such a complaint. He must have forgotten that Sir E. Lugard was taken from half-pay and not from the staff. If it was a regulation that a staff officer should only only serve five years, why, he asked, was that regulation to be confined to the army and navy officers, why should it not be applied to civilians? The name of Sir B. Lugard must be known to every one from his gallant services; he was chief of the staff during the whole of the war under Lord Gough; he went out as chief of the staff to the Persian war; and greatly distinguished himself in the Indian mutiny; and if that did not entitle an officer to all the rewards which could be bestowed upon him he did not know what would.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellis) had introduced a question quite foreign to the Motion before the House, namely, whether a rule that officers who had staff appointments should only hold them for five years had been violated, and he took occasion to illustrate it by referring to the appointment of a permanent secretary in the war department. He thought that was a very inconvenient mode of discussing the matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to call the appointment in question, he should submit a separate Motion, or take some other opportunity of doing so. He (Sir George Lewis) would, therefore, only enter his protest against its being supposed that the Government acquiesced in the doctrine that the right hon. Gentleman laid down. He could not admit that the office of permanent secretary could be considered as an army staff appointment, or that there might not be good reasons why a General officer should be appointed to that office, and should hold it upon a tenure different from that of an ordinary staff appointment; nor must it be understood that the Government at all concurred in the views of his right hon. Friend.

expressed a hope that not only the case of the officers complaining, but that of others who had been aggrieved in the same manner, would be brought before the notice of the Committee; and that, above all things, it would be fairly constituted, so as to enable it to lay down some general sound principle.

said, he would thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for sub- mitting the matter to the House, for it was a question of justice to the whole of the ordnance corps. He knew two officers of that corps, who having, contrary to the rules of the service, obtained the command of brigades in India, and received the Knight Commandership of the Bath for their conduct in that capacity, had been superseded by officers promoted under the warrant of 1858. Motion agreed to.

said, he rose to move as a Resolution, That the strong claims of Mr. Barber upon the favourable consideration of the Crown, referred to in the report of the Select Committee on the petition of William Henry Barber, made upon the 7th day of July, 1858, have not been satisfied; and that the circumstances set forth in his petition to this House, presented upon the 2nd day of May instant, in reference to such claims, are entitled to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The case of Mr. Barber had been brought before the House by Lord Ebrington when Member for Marylebone. The noble Lord then went into its minutest details, and made the House fully acquainted with all the facts connected with it. In his petition Mr. Barber alleged that he had been convicted of forgery and transported to Norfolk Island, where he remained for two years and a half; that the only evidence by which he could have proved his innocence had been kept back; and that he had in addition to his sufferings sustained a considerable personal loss. In 1858 he (Mr. Brady) moved for a Committee of Inquiry, which was granted him, and which sat for four days. That Committee, which was presided over by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding, and numbered amongst its members gentlemen connected with the Treasury, took all the evidence that could be laid before them. They unanimously decided that every allegation contained in Mr. Barber's petition was proved, and that he had suffered cruelties and persecutions which could not be expressed. In consequence of their Report a sum of £5,000 was granted to that gentleman. That amount was totally insufficient to compensate him for the losses and sufferings which he had undergone. His personal expenses, in consequence of the treatment to which he had been subjected, amounted to £4,895: and in satisfying the courts of law of his innocence, and in regaining his position, which it took six years to accomplish, he was obliged to spend £3,700 additional. When the Vote of £5,000 passed the House, he (Mr. Brady) had felt unwilling to raise the question, as it was agreed to at a late hour on Wednesday afternoon. On the 2nd of May last the petition was presented to which his notice of Motion referred. That petition stated that, previous to his conviction, Mr. Barber was in receipt of a professional income of upwards of £1,000 a year. All lie (Mr. Brady) now asked was the comparatively trifling sum of £3,700, which was the amount that had been expended in Mr. Barber's happily successful endeavours to reinstate himself in his profession.

seconded the Motion.

said, he could hardly think the House would be disposed to agree in the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. In these cases of pecuniary claims brought forward by hon. Members on behalf of those in whom they were in any way interested there ought to be something like a statutory limitation, as the practice was becoming rather common of repeating claims after they had been rejected over and over again. The present was even a stronger case, for it had been favourably considered, and a sum of money actually voted in full satisfaction by the House. On what grounds, then, could the hon. Gentleman ask the House to agree in his Motion? The case of Mr. Barber was peculiar in this respect, among others, that it was the only one in which, a failure of justice having taken place, and it being afterwards believed that the person was improperly convicted of crime, pecuniary compensation had been granted by the House in consequence of the losses which had been sustained. There were, no doubt, peculiar circumstances, connected with the treatment of Mr. Barber, taking this case out of the common class, and exempting it from the ordinary rule, and the Government of the Earl of Derby having fairly, and, he might say favourably, considered the Report of the Select Committee, to the appointment of which they themselves had consented, recommended that the sum which the hon. Member for Leitrim regarded as paltry, but which many Members of that House, regarded as a generous and liberal compensation, should be included in the Estimates. A change of Government having taken place before the Vote was passed, it was retained by the next Government in deference to the opinion of their predecessors; and it was agreed to without any remonstrance on the part of the hon. Member for Leitrim.

said, he was about to propose an Amendment, but the Chairman of the Committee told him that it could not be put. The Members were then dividing, and it was so near six o'clock that it was not thought possible to proceed any further after the division.

said, he was glad to be reminded of the circumstances, for he now remembered that the decision was come to after discussion, and after a division had actually taken place. If an intimation had been made that the former grant was not to be considered a final settlement, he thought there would have been great objection to voting the £5,000. He did not now wish to imply any doubt of Mr. Barber's innocence, but at the time he had to deal with his case, after having the assistance of the present Lord Chancellor, he could not conceal from himself that there were great difficulties in it, and that there were circumstances of great suspicion in the conduct of Mr. Barber. Those circumstances were afterwards cleared up; but it was in consequence of their existence that the Court of Queen's Bench took so long a time to consider the case. He, therefore, thought it was unreasonable to ask the House for the amount of the expenses to which Mr. Barber had been put in reinstating himself in his profession when a sum of £5,000 had already been given to him. If the House granted this further sum of £3,700, Mr. Barber would have received nearly £9,000; but there would be nothing to prevent some hon. Member coming forward at a future time with a statement that that was a paltry sum, and a demand for a further payment, to cover some other expenses. He must say that he thought the House had acted in a liberal spirit, and voted a sum which ought to cover every reasonable demand which Mr. Barber could have against the public.

said, he could quite understand that if this were the first occasion on which this question was brought before the House, the observations of the right hon. Baronet would be, as indeed they always were, of great weight. It might be said that a claim was being made on the House and upon the resources of the country which he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) was bound to admit was altogether unprecedented. But the features of the case were so extraordinary, the claim of Mr. Barber was so strong, and the arguments adduced in its support were so irresistible, that for the first time in the history of the country the House of Commons felt bound to establish a precedent, and to come to the relief of Mr. Barber. The same question was now raised, and it was one of the deepest moment to Mr. Barber. He himself had argued the case before the Court of Queen's Bench; and after failure of two very eminent counsel he felt disinclined to attempt it. Upon Mr. Barber's earnest request he consented to dedicate an Easter vacation to a full and complete investigation of the matter. He and the other counsel employed had, of course, acted perfectly gratuitously for Mr. Barber. When the case was again brought forward, Mr. Justice Erie, who had been counsel for the prosecution against Mr. Barber, and all the other Judges on the bench, were unanimous in thinking that Mr. Barber had been unjustly accused, that he was the victim of an accidental but great injustice, and they restored him to the rank of an attorney. It was only just to add that he had actually lost in hard money a sum of money bordering on £5,000 in defending himself upon the erroneous conviction. That sum the liberality of the House granted to him. But in attempting to replace himself in his former position he had expended some £3,000 more. He had at last succeeded in asserting his innocence, and in being restored to his rank as attorney; and would have been in a state of utter destitution, and penniless, were it not for his profession. The debt of £3,700 was now pressing upon him, and he must pay it out of his hard earnings, unless the House would consent to do him that tardy act of justice. The sum asked for was a miserable one—a mere trifle, and if the principle laid down by the Vote of £5,000 was to be observed, the present application ought to be acceded to.

said, that both the hon. Members who and spoken last had regarded the question as being of exceedingly contemptible importance as far as the public were concerned, but of importance to Mr. Barber. He fully admitted that a subject of this kind ought to be regarded without reference to the amount of the sum asked. That was not the question on which the decision of the House should be taken; but he could not agree with the hon. Members who had advocated the claim that the sum was so inconsiderable a one as they seemed to think it. Mr. Barber had already received £5,000, and the House was now told that that was a paltry pittance; but the amount now asked, with the £5,000 already granted, did not represent the claims of Mr. Barber, for the speeches made in his behalf told them so. If the £3,700 were now granted, the hon. Member for Leitrim might come forward again next year. [Dr. BRADY: NO.] Well, when the £5,000 was given the hon. Gentleman did not reserve any right to come forward and make a new demand. Had he done so—had he allowed the House to see a glimpse of his intention—it was possible that that circumstance might have had a material, and, probably, an adverse influence on the Vote. He must express his regret that his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Fitz Roy Kelly), who was Attorney General to the Government who recommended the Vote of £5,000, should now, in his independent capacity, be leading an assault on the Treasury for an addition to that sum. The argument of his hon. and learned Friend went to this—that whenever a person who was not guilty of the crime with which he was charged was found guilty in a court of justice, he was entitled to bring against the public a claim for pecuniary compensation. He challenged his hon. and learned Friend to make good that proposition.

This was a Government prosecution.

If the Government prosecuted, they did so in the public interest, and no distinction or no additional argument could be drawn from that. The matter did not turn on the question whether the Government was the prosecutor, but on the question whether, when one of the tribunals which were bound to convict the guilty unfortunately convicted the innocent, the public were bound to make pecuniary compensation? Neither the Committee nor the Government had ever adopted a principle so extravagant as that claims of a pecuniary nature were to be advanced by individuals because they had the misfortune to be convicted in a court of justice when they were not guilty. The case of Mr. Barber presented peculiarities of a different character, and the manner in which the sentence was applied, and the sufferings Mr. Barber underwent in consequence, constituted the peculiarities of his case. But the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded on the principle that all persons who had suffered detriment in consequence of an erroneous conviction in a court of justice were entitled to bring a claim for compensation against the public Exchequer. That was a question of enormous importance, and it would be a portentous innovation if any such principle were to be laid down. Fifty other cases might be brought forward with as plausible arguments in their favour, if it were to be established that it was because of the erroneous conviction, and not simply from the suffering he had undergone, that Mr. Barber had received compensation. He felt bound to say that questions of the kind could not be entered upon without starting a great many separate inquiries. Apart from the question of guilty or not guilty, one might be raised with regard to the prudence of the conduct of the gentleman in question. All such matters, and they all more or less affected character, would have to be ripped up and examined if the extraordinary principle was to be established, that the House of Commons ought to compensate every man erroneously convicted for the pecuniary loss lie had suffered in consequence. He trusted the House would refuse to entertain the Motion.

said, that in consequence of a gentleman, who had already received £5,000 of public money, making another demand for £4,000, he had felt it his duty to examine carefully the evidence relating to the case. It was painful, when a gentleman—a martyr in this case—would stir up things which had better be allowed to remain quiet. Mr. Barber, in the course of his professional duty as an attorney, was the innocent instrument by which no less than four forged documents were imposed on the Bank of England, and upon one of these documents he was tried and convicted. He had read the Report of the Select Committee in reference to the case, and if the Committee were satisfied with the evidence of Mr. Barber and three or four other gentlemen, the Committee were certainly most humane, but he could not compliment them oil being discriminating, for any bench of country magistrates would have come to the verdict which a jury was said once to have brought in—"Not guilty, but we recommend him not to do it again." Mr. Barber, if he had not suffered indignities and annoyances from the Governor of Norfolk Island, would not probably have obtained the sympathy he received, together with £5,000 of public money. Parliament thought they had a measure of kindness to deal out to one who had suffered malicious and malignant indignities beyond the intention of the law, and for that reason, and not upon the principle that any persons wrongly convicted were entitled to compensation, voted a sum of money to him. Mr. Barber had had an ample measure of justice from the Government, and it was to be regretted that he had not been content with what he had got, and with his restoration to his profession and position.

said, he should be sorry if the House were to pronounce its decision influenced by the speech just delivered, which, from its want of generosity, contrasted strongly with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk. One might suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Longfield) was arguing like a counsel for the prosecution with all the rancorous enmity—

rose to order. He submitted that the expressions which had just fallen from the hon. Member were not regular.

said, he would say "professional prejudice."

said, he must really protest against such language being allowed.

said, he meant only to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman showed that kind of feeling which might be supposed to be entertained by a counsel who had been unsuccessful in his advocacy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Baronet on the Treasury bench had acknowledged Mr. Barber's innocence; he had been pronounced innocent by a court of law, by the late Government, and by the House of Commons, and, therefore, in God's name, let no one rise in the House to damage the character of that unfortunate gentleman. When a man was alleged to have committed a crime he was prosecuted by the public, and if that prosecution did him injury, he being innocent, he had a right to appeal to the nation, and through no other tribunal could he so properly appeal as through the high court of Parliament. He should offer no observation upon the merits of the case, but he merely asked the House to take the decision already given in regard to Mr. Barber's innocence, and not to decide upon the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

in reply, denied that Mr. Barber had the proper appliances at his command for his defence; his books were taken away, and the Crown actually kept away his partner on the pretence of bringing him forward as a witness, and not calling him.

said, the question was one of principle—whether all persons who had been convicted in courts of justice "without probable cause" had a right to come to that House for compensation. Such a doctrine could not be admitted. The case now presented was an appeal ad misericordiam, and if the House were to go into all the cases of individual hardship which might be brought before it from the criminal law courts no Session would be long enough, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to promise a surplus.

said, he felt that there was great force in what had been said on both sides. It was a hardship that a man who had been erroneously found guilty of a crime and had suffered the penalties of the law should not be entitled to compensation for the expense he was put to in recovering his status in society; but at the same time there was great force in the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these were perils to which every one was exposed. He supported Mr. Barber's claim when it was last under discussion, but when the £5,000 was granted he considered the question settled, and he was surprised to find that three years after that grant a further claim was made; but while upon that ground he could not support the Motion, he thought Mr. Barber fully entitled, after the investigation the case had received to be considered as a perfectly innocent man, and he was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Longfield) had thought proper again to raise doubts upon that of which the country no longer entertained any doubt.

said, that as he saw that the feeling of the House was against him, he would beg leave to withdraw his Motion.