20 FEBRUARY 1836, Page 2

Debates; anti Prom/Omni in parliament.


A petition from Mr. Nicholas Aylward Vigors, in answer to the allegations in the Carlow and Bath petitions respecting his conduct in the matter of the election for Carlow in June last, was presented to the House of Commons on Monday, by Mr. CHARLES BULLER. Mr. Vigors denied the truth of the "charges and imputations conveyed in the petitions." He averred that the money transactions alluded to were "strictly legal, constitutional, and honourable ;" and that the great majority of the Members of the House were "accustomed to make similar money turangements in respect to their seats in the Commons House of Parliament." Ile declared that Mr. O'Connell was the per- son with whom, "at the request of Alexander Raphael," and with his Vigors's) consent, "the monies referred to were lodged by 'imolai consent;" that Mr. O'Connell " duly and honourably accounted to such monies, in no ways interfering with the appropriation there, and that no part of such monies was illegally or unconstitutionally ex- pended." A fter detailing several circumstances connected with Carlow election matters, Mr. Vigors earnestly requested to be " rigidly ex. amined in all matters without reserve relating to all his said election matters, and without limitation as to time and circumstance;" but he represented, that in order to do impartial justice, the House ought to institute all inquiry into " the peculiar circumstances of the Carlow election contests in 183.2 and 1835," as these rime stalk-us dis.- closed "ann unexanipled system of Tory persecution of tin- electors, and of conspiracy against the freedom and purity of election ;" which ap- peared from the evidence given before the Carlow Election Committee of 1835. but which evidenee was never printed, and from the evidence of the Reverend James Maher, "a gentleman of indisputable integrity,

education, intelligence, and local knowledge of Carlow eounty,",before the Intimidation Committee. The petition went on to state-

" That during and subsequently to the last three contested elections for the re- presentation of the county of Carlow, viz, in December 1e82 and in darnuary and June 1835, the most scandalous corruption and inhuman intimidaticn, on the part of the Tory landlords and of a Peer of Parliament, have prevaik d in the said county against honest and independent but poor electors ; that during the last few years thousands of the Catholic tenantry and ancient residi nt labouring families, by political party-spirit and religious persecution, have been expelled from their residences and lands, and Protestants substituted in their place ; that hundreds of widows and orphans have been included in this wicked and unchristian proscription and persecution ; that, by tbelear of similar persecu- tions, numbers of the electors have been coerced to give their votes for the Tory candidates, who would have otherwise notoriously supported the Reform candi- dates ; that persecution by the cost and terror of distraints for n nt and other legal processes has been extensively resorted to for political and party purposes; and that appalling misery, dissension, laeartburnings, and all sorts of cnnie, have been, and still are, the unhappy consequences of these illegal, unconstitu- tional, and wicked proceedings."

A catalogue of the expelled families was given in the petition. It appeared that, within a short period, 992 persons including 224 widows orphans, were turned adrift in the parish of Dunleckney—namely,

N92 from Lord Beresford's property, 348 from Colonel Bruen's, 9f3 from Mr. Latouche's, and 54 from Mr. Newton's. In addition to this, notices to quit have been served by Lord Beresford's agents on 94 persons, by Colonel Bruen's on 135, by Messrs. Newton's on 168,— in all 71 families, and 391 individuals, including 82 widows and orphans. These added to the already ejected, give a, total of 1383 persons, including 316 widows and orphans, turned or about to be turned off four estates in Carlow. Into all these Circumstances, closely

connected with the Carlow election, Mr. Vigors solicited thorough inquiry.

Mr. BULLER said, it was his intention to move that this petition

should be taken into consideration in any inquiry connected with the Carlow election— 'Whilst honourable and learned gentlemen opposite were calling for inquiry into circumstances affecting the purity of election, he could not believe that they would show such a hollowness of principle awl purpose as to cry out against the acts of their political opponents, and at the same time skulk from inquiry into their own conduct.

Colonel BRUEN did not dread inquiry; but he complained that he had only seen the petition at seven o'clock that evening. He should not oppose its reception, but he certainly would oppose the subject of it being referred to the consideration of a Committee appointed to inquire into the late Carlow election ; with which, he said, it had no connexion.

Mr. BULLER said that he had only received the petition that evening : it was not his fault that it was not ready before.

Mr. H. T. HOPE thought it unfair that his relative Lord Beresford should be attacked in his absence, and when no opportunity was af- forded for rebutting the charges against him.

The petition was ordered to be printed.

On Tuesday, Mr. HARDY rose, in a very full house, to bring forward his motion for inquiry into the transaction between Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Raphael. He first moved that the following extract from the Standing Orders of the House should be read by the Clerk.

" That if it shall appear that any person bath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other cor- rupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persona as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other cor- rupt practices."

Some laughter was elicited by the reading of this order, in the midst of which Mr. HARDY again rose and commenced speaking, as follows.

" Whether the risibility of honourable gentlemen has been excited by the reading of this order I know not; but of this I am convinced, that the case which I am about to lay before the House for its consideration comes within, if not the words, the very principle of that order. And, Sir, it is a matter of great relief to my mind that this matter comes before the House at a time and under circumstances fixed upon by the honourable and learned Member him. self, who is most interested in the result of the proceeding. I am rejoiced at that fact, because I did fear that the honourable and learned gentleman might have sustained some inconvenient* on Thursday last, in consequence of an omission on my part in not having communicattd to him the petition which I had to present, but which, or rather a copy of which, I have since learnt, was in his hands before it was in mine. (Tremendous cheering from the Opposi- tion benches.) Sir, there was another circumstance which I was apprehen- sive might have created some inconvenience to the honourable and learned Member ; and that was the hour at which the discussion of this case might be likely to come on, in consequence of my notice standing the ninth on the paper for this evening. Accordingly, as soon as I could satisfy myself, which was not until late on Wednesday night, that I had a perfect right to bring it for- ward in precedence as a breach of privilege, I determined to write, and the next morning wrote a note to the honourable and learned gentleman; which note• I will read to the House.

"7. Portland Place, 11th February. "Mr. Hardy presents his compliments to Mr. O'Connell, and begs leave to inform him, that it is his intention to claim precedence for his motion of this evening, respecting the Carlow election, as involving a breach of privilege."

"The answer was, that the honourable and learned gentleman was not up, and would uot be up for an hour; but in the course of the morning I received the following note— If any act of Mr. Hardy could create surprise in the mind of any impartial person, it would be, that after neglecting all the ordinary courtesies between Members, he 4,"--;, should have had the almost incredible presumption to address his first communication

sva Mr. O'Connell; who, however, cannot but feel flattered that Mr. Hardy should send Um his compliments."

[The reading of this correspondence excited great merriment ; partly owing to the ludicrous solemnity and undue emphasis of Mr. Hardy's elocution.] "Sir," he continued, " I trust, if I am to judge by- the confidence which the honourable and learned Member has displayed, he cannot but be glad that I sent him my compliments. But I trust also, that this evening the objection which on Thursday night was made to the proceeding by the honourable and learned Member, namely, that it was a' mock solemnity,' will not be repeated designation which, I think, was given by the honourable and learned gen- tleman, not with perfect consistency, because he himself thought that it was a ease for inquiry ; and how a mock solemnity' should occupy the attention of the House, or how, if it was fairly a case for inqui , it could be a mock so- . tidy, I know not. If, however, it was a case o mock cmcouov. , Me. Raphael again— Thursday, nay, no longer ago than last night, steps have been taken by two honourable Members which have given this question a solemnity which it never possessed before. I have had an opportunity of conversing with the honour- able Member for Ipswich, who a few nights ago treated the question very lightly ; and who stated, to show what his feelings and opinions were respect- sing it, that it was his intention to move fur an account of all the transactions and agreements between all the Members of this House. Whether, upon considera- tion, he found that such an inquiry would not suit all his purposes, I know not; but, from considering the present a case of no importance, it became, in his estimation, of such a magoitude and interest, that he last night gave notice that he would move for its being heard at the bar of the House. Another honourable and learned Member last night presented a most extraordinary peti- tion, which I did not hear, but which I have read in the Votes of the House, and which appears to me to proceed upon grounds the most extraneous with 'respect to this matter ; for it was presented from a gentleman of the name of Vigors, who in June last was elected a Member for the county of Carlow, and who complains of the imputations cast upon him in the two petitions upon the table: whereas the petition from Ilath never mentions his name at all ; and in the petition from Carlow it is only mentioned twice, incidentally; and yet the petition presented last night by the honourable Member for Liskeard complains of illegal, corrupt, and unconstitutional conduct on the part of the former peti- tioners. But, Sir. I say that my motion has become one of great importance ; for had it not been for my motion for inquiry into this subject, two hundred and forty-nine unhappy families, amounting to nine hundred and ninety-two individuals, and three hundred and sixteen unfortunate widows and orphans, would never have bad their wrongs and distresses brought under the considera- tion of the House. ( Great laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear r from Mr. O'Connell.) Ay, the honourable and learned gentleman calls ' Hear !' but where was he when, as it is stated, the distressing circumstances mentioned in Mr. Vigors's petition took place. Why did not the honourable and learned gentleman bring forward the wrongs of these unhappy widows and children? Why is it that the circumstances of their ease are so peculiarly connected with the circumstances of mine, that those circumstances have only now come out, although it is stated iu the petition that they have been persecuted for years?"

Mr. Hardy then addressed himself more particularly to the subject of his motion, which, he said, lay in a very narrow compass.

" Most gentlemen must recollect, that on the 27th of last May, the Committee then sitting to consider the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for the county of Carlow, declared the election of Colonel Bruen and Mr. Kavanagh to be void. On the 28th of May, the next day—so that the freeholders of the county of Carlow could not have been consulted on the sub- ject—the honourable and learned Member for Dublin called on Mr. Raphael, and proposed to him to become a candidate for the county of Carlow, at the same time telling him that the expense could not exceed '2000/. After that a meeting between the parties was appointed at the house of the honourable and learned Member for Dublin; but owing to some mistake, it did not take place. On the 29th of May, only two days after the seats had been declared void, the , honourable and learned gentleman wrote the following note to Mr. Raphael.

"9, Charges Street, May 29, 1835, " My dear Sir—I remained at home, at some inconvenience, until after the. hour I mentioned. I was sorry I did not remain longer. as you called shortly after : but as you left DO letter or other indication of acceding to my proposal, I take for granted that

you decline my offer. Be it so. only add my belief that you will never again meet so safe a speculation. I am quite sure I never shall hear of one. "I have the honour to be, my dear Sir, your very faithful DANIEL O'CONNELL."

Now, Sir, this reminds me of what has been quaintly said by one of our poets. ("Oh, oh! ") The thing for sale calls forth the seller's praise ;" and certainly if it had been wanted to puff one of the seats for the county of Carlow, nothing could have been better than the expression used by the honour- able and learned gentleman, when he assures his friend that it is so safe a specu- lation that he will assuredly never hear of such another. It would seem, Sir, from his earnestness in the cause that the honourable and:learned Member for Dublin was very anxious that the county of Carlow should be honoured by having so distinguished a representative as Mr. Raphael. In consequence of this note, a meeting between the parties took place at the house of the honour- able and learned Member, on Sunday the 1st of June ; at which meeting the honourable and learned gentleman wrote and delivered into Mr. Raphael'a hand the following letter. "9, Charges Street, June 1835."

"My dear Sir--You having acceded to the terms proposed to you tor the election of the county of Carlow—viz., you are to pay before nomination 10001.—say 1000L—and a like sum after being returned—the first to be paid absolutely and entirely for being nominated, the second to be paid only in the event of sour having been returned, hereby undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any and every other ex- pense whatsoever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel, petition against the return, or of any other description; awl I make this guarantee in the fullest sense of the honour- able engagement that you should not possibly be required to pay one shilling more is any event or upon any contingency whatsoever.

"I am, my dear Sir, your very faithful


A bargain was thus entered into between the honourable and learned Member for Dublin and Mr. Raphael. I ask his Majesty's Attorney-General if he will favour us with his opinion, if he ever witnessed a more complete bargain and sale ? What was the subject matter of it? A seat in Parliament. If it had been a bargain for a horse, there can be no doubt that it would have heists enforceable in a court of law ; but it is not enforceable in a court of law, because it is a bargain for a seat in Parliament. Will any man tell me that Mr. Raphael would have sat in this House as representative of the county of Carlow, if it had not been for the 20001.? Will any man tell me that Mr. Raphael would have been recommended to the electors of the county of Carlow by the honourable and learned Member, if it had not been for the 2000/. ? What more is wanted for a bargain ? As it is necessary to show that the honom able and learned gentleman did not think the money of no importance, I beg the attention of the House to the notes which the honour- able and learned gentleman subsequently wrote to Mr. Raphael, in which he asks over and over again for the 10001.— " 9, Clarges-street, 4th ofJune 1835.

" My dear Sir—I have heard from Mr. Vigors this day, our prospects are quite bright."

Now as the bargain had been concluded only on the 1st of June, and as this note was written on the 4th of June, what could Mr. Raphael's prospects have been ? The honourable and learned gentleman's recommendation of Mr. Raphael had not arrived in Carlow-; and I am therefore at a loss to divine what could be meant by " our " prospects. The note proceeds- " I will arrange your address for to-morrow's post, and my own for immediate pub- lication. I at present entertain no doubt of success. You hear again from me to.morrow. Who is Mr. Hamilton with whom you have dep,sitert the low 1 do net know any person of that name in London. I hope I MIMI 913011 have the pleasure of sitting by your side in the House. Till tomorrow I have the honour to be.

" Your very faithful servant and friend.


On the 8th of June the honourable and learned Member for Dublin writes to y, some- "London, 8th of June 18116. behalf. All my accounts confirm my opinion or au ensy victory. I doubt whether there will he more than the show of a contest ; bat I am assured in any event of suc- cess. I send you a slip of a Carlow newspaper, bhowitig that you are already nomi- nated under the lutist favourable auspices. I also send you the draft of an address. I beg of you to peruse it and to return it to me with any corrections you may deem necessary, or if you approve it, then %lib your signature ; my wish is that you should alter it as little as you possibly can. I also send you a sealed letter from Mr. Vigors. I beg ot you to return the addresses as near to four o'clock this ilay as you can, that I may transmit it to the Doldin Pilot for publication on Wednesday next. All the good men of Carlow see that paper. Let me know who the Mr. Hamilton is with whom you del)°, ed the 10001: I expected you would have lodged it at Mr. 1Vright's. It is time ti sore done. " Faithfully yours,


This, continued Mr. Hardy, was the bargain into the circumstances of which he asked for inquiry. The House would recollect that on a previous night he had said that he did not from these circumstances infer that any part of Mr. Raphael's money went into Mr. O'Con- nell's pocket. Members would have seen that much weight was attached to that admission-

" They must have seen that though I am but a little man when I accuse, when I acquit I become of great magnitude and importance. But, Sir, on the occasion to which I have alluded, I was going on to say that, although in con- sequence Of the contest which had taken place for the county of Carlow, and of the petition which had followed, there might not have remained any sheer money in the honourable and learned gentleman's pocket, yet that that did not signify. There are men to whom the gratification of their ambition is a matter of much greater consequence than any money consideration ; and if the honour- able and learned gentleman believed that his political influence and importance would be increased by adding Mr. Raphael to the number of his party in this Rouse, we can easily understand his anxious inquiries about Mr. Hamilton. But, Sir, when I recollect that the petition was abandoned by the honourable and learned gentleman (as appears by the newspapers) on the second or third day of the sitting of the Committee, I do not very clearly understand how the money in question could have been expended. Carlow is a small county, with scarcely as many voters in it as there are in the borough which I represent. I must believe, therefore, that the contest could not have been very expensive. But what would have been the case if there had been no contest ? And if there bad been no contest, of course there would have been no petition. And 1000/. was given solely for the nomination ; when the honourable and learned Member expected not merely an easy victory, but not even the shadow ot opposition. What then would have become of the balance of the money, if the rival candi- dates had relinquished every effort? I find it a part of the bargain that Mr. Raphael shall not be called upon for one shilling more; but I do not find it a part of the bargain that any portion of the money shall be returned to him."

Mr. Hardy said he had seen no defence of this transaction except in the columns of a newspaper, and in Mr. Vigors's petition, where it was stated such bargains were common—that it was usual for members to snake similar money arrangements. But he could not understood how they could be culled legal. He could not allow that Mr. O'Connell was merely Mr. Vigors's agent in the matted; he should rather say that Vigors was Mr. O'Connell's agent in Carlow. The consequence of the bargain was, that Mr. O'Connell put in two Members for Car- Iow,—OTIC his friend ex aninto, Mr. Vigors ; the other his friend ex eontractu, Mr. Raphael.

Thus the honourable and learned gentleman gained to himself a very great advantage in that which is the chief object of his ambition—the maintenance of his influence in Ireland. But whilst the honourable and learned gentleman obtained this advantage on the one hand, it appeared on the other to be matter of very little importance or consideration what sort of a Representative the people of Carlow might happen to get. He has influence in Carlow; he exerts that influence, and returns Mr. Raphael. What do the people of Carluw know of Mr. Raphael ?—they never see him ; they never hear hint ; they have no ocular demonstration either of his physical or intellectual abilities. All they know of him is his address, and in that there is nothing about him but his Dame. ( Cheers and laughter.) Now it is said that the honourable and learned Mcniber exercised upon this occasion nothing inure than his 'korai influence in Carlow. But I humbly contend, and I am in the hvaring of a great many other lawyets in this House, that if a man possess a moral influence in a borough or a comity, he has no right to make use of it for a money consideration. I have seen a new writ moved for this session, in order to replace a noble and learned Soil who, some time the third part only of a Chancellor, has at length become a whole one. (" Oh, oh !") A seat in this House having thus become vacant, a new wt it has been moved for, and a gentleman has come forward as a can- didate for the borough which the noble and learned lord lately represented ; in which borough, it is well known, that a noble lord of the highest respectability —and mimic respects him more sincerely than I do, and I know him well— possesses a vet) great deal of moral influence. Now, I should like to know what would be said of that noble lord if he went and made such a bargain as this for the sale of ltis moral influence. Nay, I will put a still more analogous ease. I believe there are some constituencies in the country who would be glad to receive a candidate recommended by the right honourable Member for Tam- worth. I will suppose a gentleman to whom that right honourable baronet should go and say= I know very well that if I recommend you for such a borough or county, you will be sure to be returned; give me IOW for putting you in nomination, and another 1000/. when you ate returned, and then I will send you a laudatory letter which shall introduce you to the constituteuts of the place, hod make sure of your election.' I should like to know, if such a circumstance had transpired with respect to the right honourable baronet, whether the walls of this House would have been stout enough to stand the vibration of the cheers with which the honourable and learned Member for Dublin would be saluted when shooting forth those arrows of invective with which his quiver is ever so abundantly supplied?" ( Cheers.)

Why was it necessary to apply to Mr. Raphael ? Was there no Irish patriot to be had as a candidate for Carlow ?-

U Was there no man except an unknown London merchant, who could spend, if necessary, the trilling sum of 20001. in legal expenses for the purpose of yin. 'heating the people of Carlow, and doing justice to Ireland? (cheers.) It ap- peared that there was a gentleman who did make inquiries upon the subject—a gentleman whom I respect for his straightforward conduct during the time that he sat in this House—I mean Mr. Feargus O'Connor. He, it appears, had made inquiries upon the subject ; but as soon as this is intimated to the honourable and learned gemleman, he at one writes a note to Mr. Raphael, in which he says— It is not my fault that Mr. Feargus O'Connor called upon you. Refer him and everybody else to me. ( Cheers and laughter.) I want part of the 10001. to send over.' (Renewed laughter.) And on the same day this note is written to Mr. Hamilton- .' Sir—I beg you will hand my son, Mr. John O'Connell. 10001. placed with you by Mr. Raphael for my me. My sou will give you a voucher for it. " I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,


k was upon this ground that I made the observation I did the other evening with respect to tl e honourable Member for Youghal ; because, although he was th. bearer of a awe from the honourable and learned Member for Dublin, claiming payment of a sum of money deposited by Mr. Raphael in the hand* of Mr. Hamilton, it did not follow that he should know for what purposes that money was to be delivered to him. However, if this inquiry goes on, it will be fur the Committee—supposing one to appointed—to inquire into all the circumstances of the case."

Mr. Hardy concluded by moving-

" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the traffic and agreement alleged to have taken place between Daniel O'Con- nell and Alexander Raphael, Esquires, touching the nomination and return of the said Alexander Raphael as one of the Representatives in Parliament for the county of Carlow, at the last election for that county; and to report the minutes of evidence taken before them, with their observations thereon."

The SPEAKER said, that by the courtesy of the House Mr. O'Con- nell would have a right to speak before the question was put. Mr. O'CONNELL then rose and commenced his reply.

" My first observation is that I think the resolution just moved by the honourable gentleman an extremely paltry one. It does not sufficiently extend the inquiry It challenges and demands. With that observation I leave the case

in the first instance. My next observation is dilected to that part of the honourable and learned gentleman's speech—the commencement of it—in

which he introduced the correspondence that took place between him and me previous to his motion on Thursday last. The honourable and learned gentle- man prefaced Isis remarks upon that point by stating that I had been furnished with a copy of the petition before the petition itself had been placed in his haus

That is a fact I utterly deny : I utterly deny the truth of that statement. Anti yet the honourable and learned gentleman stated it as a fact, and was cheered by four fifths of the honourable gentlemen who sit on that side of the house.

'1 his I suppose was a specimen of the impartiality with which the circumstances of the case are to be heard and the determination of the House expressed. But I am not surmised that they should not be impartial; and I believe they have not the hypocrisy to assert that they are. (" Hear, hear !") Yet when I heard the cheer of the party opposite, it put sue in mind of a circumstance which was desclibed to me by the present Chief Justice of Ireland—Chief Justice Bushe. After the Rebellion of 1798, (I had the statement from his own lips,) when the amnesty had been passed granting pardon for all crimes committed during

the Rebellion, murder alone excepted, Chief Justice Bushe being at that time

at the bar, was engaged as counsel for a prisoner at Wexford. This loan was tried upon an indictment for murdering a yeoman, named James White ; and

two witnesses appeared upon the table to support the prosecution. The case was tried before Baron Michael Smith, the father of the present

Baron Smith—in that family judgeships are hereditary. Well, two witnesses appeared upon the table to prove what certainly was the fact, that the prisoner had been engaged in the Rebellion; and they, more- over, swore that they saw him kill with a pike the yeoman Janie% White. With that evidence the case closed on the part of the Crown ; and Mr. Bushe was asked whether he had any witnesses to call for the prisoner? Oh yes, he had one witness, and but one ; but upon the evidence of that witness he should confidetitly look for an acquittal. With that he placed the yeoman, James White, in the witness-box ; who swore positively that he was alive, and kid never been killed. The witnesses for the prosecution were in Court, and no doubt could have identified the man ; but the Judge thinking the ease was at an end, left it to the Jury to pronounce their verdict. The Jury retired and deliberated for a short time, and at length returning into Coutt gravely pro- nounced the prisoner guilty. Guilty !' said the Judge, ' how can you con- vict a man of murder when the party supposed to have been killed by him is alive and looking at you?" Oh,' said the Foreman of the Jury, ' the prisoner ruined a gray horse of mine, one of the finest in the kingdom : lie will escape any punishment because of the Indemnity Act ; and so we are deter- mined to hang him on the charge of murder.' This was described to me by the present Chief Justice of Ireland as a literal fact. Now, when I heard the cheers of the honourable gentlemen opposite to-night, I thought that I, like the prisoner at Wexford, was to be convicted of one offence because I had com- mitted another—that I was to be convicted of corruption because I had put down Toryism. (Much chtering.) That is my real crime. It is Ind that a man was returned at the trifling expense of 2000/. for a contested county elec- tion, but that seeing Toryism on the gray horse again, riding rough-shod over Ireland, I forgot every passion and prejudice of may own—forgot all my own wrongs. (" 01i, oh !" and cheers)—yes I did—and threw the whole of illy in- fluence in the country in opposition to the Tories. (Cheers.) Yes, my offence is, that I put myself forward as an instrument to support the peseta Government, and to keep you (addressing the Tory Members on the Opposi- tion benches) where you now are, and I trust always will be. ( Cheers.) I call upon the House, then, to look upon this matter, not as a mock solemnity— although I certainly cannot Delp thinking that there is something of mockery in it — but as a matter of grave and serious consideration. The honourable and learned Member for Bradford heard flue the other evening when I stated that I knew an individual who declared that he (Mr. Hardy) had expended upwards of 7000/. on his own elecOin The honourable and learned gentleman heard nie speak of that election : he heard me repeat the statement. Yet neither on the former evening, nor in the course of his speech to-night, has he said one word in contradiction of it. Oh, then, I know what his mock solemnity is. Oh, then, I know what his straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel means. (Loud cheers.) For mark, his party was accused of purchasing votes at from 3/. to 20/. a piece."

A MES1BER—" Not at the last election."

Mr. O'CONNE1.1.—" Oh! no, not at the last election. Votes ranged other- wise at the last election. No one but the honourable and learned Member him- self knows what were the costs and expenses of the last election."

He would now come to the question. Every man in the House, and out of it, knew that this was a party attack—the attack of a party which had used the press and bribed the press to assail him—that very press, amongst others, which belonged in a great measure to a Member of that House, who had expended between 30,000/. and 40,000/. in his own election for an English county. He was acquitted, if not by Mr. Hardy, at least by 240 or 250 .Members on his own side of the House of all corruption. But he would take up the case as put by Lord Stanley—the case of personal corruption and pecuniary corrux tion; and he feared not the result- " You may by a majority name a Committee before which I will not go. ( 011, oh !) Yes, you may do this; but if you do, I tell you your Committee would be so stigmatized by its formation that the public at large would pay no regard to its proceedings. I want an independent Committee—a Committee whose vote of disapprobation would be a real censure, but whose verdict of acquittal would really be a purification from the charge. (cheers.) That is the Committee I want ; and shame upon you if you have congregated bete to put partisans on the Committee against me. (Cheers.) Well, I take up both the cases put by the noble lord. Am I guilty? Is there any charge against me of personal corruption ? Is there any proof of my having improperly used that moral influence which the honourable and learned gentleman supposes me to possess? And here let me remark, for one moment, on the honourable and 1. trued geatleman's great candour—his Christian candour on this subject. " I admit that I have a degree of influence which ought not be left with any one man in Ireland. I admit that I have a dangerous influence in Ireland.

I have an influence, which in a sound state of society' no man possibly could have in Ireland. ( Great cheering.) Would you wird to make that influence

all-powerful ? If you do, take up the unjust, the partial, the (I will not call it odious, but) criminal statement which has been made by the honourable and earned gentleman. If you take up his view and confirm his statement, will ,ou diminish my power in Ireland ?—will you diminish my influence with the oppressed in that country ? No; you will add to it by another injustice. The people of Iraland will say—' It is not the fact which has been condemned, but the advocate of our rights, the defender of our privileges, the sustainer of our liberties; and thus another gross and glaring injustice has been perpetrated upon us.' I certainly never heard any thing so perfectly and completely framed for the purpose merely of injustice as the statement of the honourable and learned gentlenian ; yet if he refuse to do me justice—if he refuse to give me a liberal and enlightened Committee—does he not know that he win be adding ten fold to my power in Ireland ? Nay more, I have sonic influence in England too I I may meet the honourable and learned Member at Bradford, and there I shall be at liberty to proclaim against him the history of the election at Ponte- fract—if, indeed, the honourable and learned Member should ever stand for Bradford again, which, from all I can hcar, I am disposed to think W6 exceed- ingly doubtful. Does he wish to increase my power in England ? If so, let him persuade the House to do me an injustice, and he will be taking the surest means to secure his wish, because my power is bottomed entirely upon injustice —partial injustice in England, general and universal injustice in Irelaud. I have influence in Ireland ; nay more, I admit that lam the hired servant of the people of Ireland : I admit that they have indemnified me for having given up my profession, and the reasonable prospects I had of enjoying, after some years of toil, the otium cum dignitate of the bench, and the ease and abundant income which would thus have been secured to me in my old age. But for tire abandonment of this prospect, the people of Ireland have amply indemnified me; and it is my duty to exert every power I possess to procure for them in this House representatives of their wants and their wishes—to exclude from this House, whenever I can. those who are indifferent or directly opposed to their intarests—and, above all, to exert all my influence against those inhuman creatures who, deaf to the widow's tear and the orphan's shriek, can smile amidst the wo and wretchedness they have created about them, and who, whilst human beings fall and perish at their very threshold, think only of the triumph of their party, and of their individual importance as Members of this House." ( Cheers.) Mr. O'Connell then be. efiy detailed the circumstances of the last thrreCarlow elections, tu:d the brutality w:th which the Tory !andlorda had persecuted the tenants' whose votes were given to Liberal candi- dates. He reproached the Tories with.the measures they employed_ their Carlton Club subseription-purse and intimidation—to procure the return of their candidates- "' Well, in Ireland, this plan was carried on with very considerable success. How did the present Members obtain 'their scats fur the county of Carlow? Let the inquiry commence, and you will have from every part of that county abundant proof of the means by which those seats were procured. You smile at this. If you knew all, you would tremble. The whole of Ireland was assailed by the Conservative party. I am speaking now of the election in January last. Carlow was attacked by two men of fortune—one having large property in the county, the other known to be a possessor of very great wealth. These men entered into the contest, determined at any expense to carry their election. Under these circumstances, Mr. Blakeney retired from the contest, and Mr. Wallace would not promise to come forward. Thus the county was left without a candidate in the Liberal interest. If it be a crime to seek fur a candidate, I was guilty of a crime. I sought for a candidate—I sought for two candidates—I sought in vain. For the first time, under these circumstances, Mr. Raphael introduced himself to me. This was at the general election which took place after the accession of Sir Robert Peel to office. His agent, Mr. Pearson, wrote to me upon the subject; stated that Mr. Raphael was High Sheriff of London for that year, and gave him a high character for respecta- bility and political integrity. I had never heard of the man before. He pro- posed that he should stand as candidate for the county of Carlow, declaring

that he would instantly purchase a large estate in that county (if there should be one to be purchased), if he were returned a Member for it. I answered Mr. Pearson's letter, and I will insist upon having my reply to that letter laid be- fore any Committee that shall be appointed by this House. That was my first step—for this thing has been taken up by the honourable and learned Member for Bradford as if the 28th of May was the first time I ever heard 41f Mr. Raphael. Indeed, the honourable and learned Member does not appear to have read my answer which was inserted in the papers: if he had, he would have seen that Mr. Raphael admits that the 28th of May was not my first

acquaintance with with him on the subject of an election. I stated to Mr. Pearson what my views were generally ; and as to Carlow, I stated particu- larly that I would make further inquiries and give him the details respecting an election for that county. I told him that it could be ascertained what number of electors would vote for Reform candidates, what number for Tory cana

didates, and what number were doubtful ; and that unless the number of ascer-

.aaained Liberals exceeded that of the Tories and doubtful together, Mr. Raphael aeglit not to stand. I got a letter from Mr. Pearson, telling me that Mr. ataphael had offered to stand as a candidate fur Pontefract, that he was High S! eifl'of the City of London at the last general election, and that he bad stood as candidate for Leeds. However my opinion of Mr. Raphael may he altered now, I knew nothing of hint at that period to his disparagement, nor do I know any other disparaging circumstance of him now except this truism- • bon. My excuse, then, towards the county of Carlow, and towards this House, for recommending him to be the Member for Carlow is, that at that period I had heard nothing derogatory of Mr. Raphael."

The Liberals were left without candidates for Carlow; but such was the.popular detestation of the Tories, that a young gentleman only Just from the University, and his eldest son (Mr. Maurice O'Connell) already returned for Tralee, were nominated as candidates, and ran the Tories hard ; and why were they not returned ?

" Because the law agent of Mr. Bruen put the long oath to every voter that came up to vote for Mr. Kavanagh ; and the law agent of Mr. Kavanagh put the long oath to every voter that came up to vote for Mr. Bruen. Was that all? isto. the agents for the popular party feeling a repugnance—it is only the sanctified man who does not—at this profane use of the oaths, said to the

H; has read the charges n ads spinet me: would it net have been as cha- agents of Bruen and Kavauagh. We know your object—your object is delay; ritable if he had also read my reply to those charges? Awl when he talks of Mr. you gain three minutes between every second vote : now we will give you those

Vigors, as if that gentleman was a person inferior to him in any thing, would three minutes, and save putting the oaths. That proposal was accepted. there not have been as much of Christian candour in his statement if he had (Loud cheers.) What dues the conscientious Member tor Bradford think et informed the House that Mr. Vigors distinctly asserted that not one farthing of that? ( Cheers.) What was the next step ? The next morning the apatite" the money remained, or was ever intended to remain in my hands. Oh, I Bruen and Kavanagh said, " three minutes are not enough—we can wear oat thank you for your candour. I thank you for your Christian charity, and I five by reading the oaths slowly ; and if you do not allow five minutes betweee thank you for your kind forbearance." every two voters, we will put the oaths.' It was found by experiment that He laughed to scorn the charge of pecuniary corruption, and would they could wear out five minutes, and accordingly they got five. ("Hear, meet that of personal corruption. He would begin by admitting, that hear !") Well, they fumed that even five were not enough, and iterated to extend he hud very considerable influence in Ireland— it to six or seven; but the opposite agents would not give more; Si) the other party continued, after a short, interval, to put the oaths, until they actually entirely put the county out of court—the polliug-days were at an end, hut the county was not polled out."

These facts were proved before a Committee, on a petition against the election, by Mr. Vigors, and the then sitting Members were unseated.

" Now the House may wish to know what was the first step which the un- seated Members, Mr. Bruen and Mr. Kavanagh, then took. Mr. Austin WON counsel for the petitioners—the successjid consist 1 ; and mark, the very moment the Committee decided that they should be unseated, that eery instant )Ir. Austin was retained by them for the petition that teas to follow the next election, thus marking the deterntination to bring the ease again before another Committee. Now I ask the house, did they ever hear of such& proceeding as that ? (Much cheering.) And do yoe wonder, note, that the gentry of Ireland, who play such pranks, have not any authority there, and that he who stands up against them, and fir the people, has power and influence in that countiy ? (Loud cheers.) I implore of you take away that influence. You can have it in one moment by doing justice to Ireland; but by continuing injustice to Ireland, and injustice to me, you only augment it. Well, that was the situation of things. Was I wrong, then, in looking out for a candidate to oppose that party e (Much cheering.) Mr. Wallace had given little, I believe nothing, towards that contest and the petition. Mr. Vigors had had the misfortune to be before a Committee, and any gentleman who has been twelve or fourteen days before a Committee of this House knows what a quantity of dry money (as Mr. hardy termed it) is required on such ea occasioe. Mr. Vigors, who, although a gentleman of independent cir- cumstances, was II Ot so rich as the Members for the county, had expended money enough. Here, then, was a county vacant, and the popular detestation excited by the outrages that had been com- mitted on the unoffending Catholic peasantry by the Tory landlords.

It was necessary to have a candidate who could afford the inevitable expenses. In the first place, every effort was made to get some Irish gentleman to stand. Forgetting his own quarrel, he made an overture to the Latouehes, but in vain. Vhat then occurred?—

" Why pending the writ, Mr. Raphael, as Sheriff of London, came to the bar of this House, with all his paraphernalia of office—in which, no doubt, he looked very dignified. I saw him received by many honourable Members in the most friendly manner. He spoke to me and wrote to me in the kindest and most flattering terms. People, indeed, had told me more than once, that there was no relying upon him—that he was a faithless person. Why, Sir, I confess I never believed it. He was the first Catholic who for three hundred yeais had been Sheriff of London. In Ireland for forty. five years—I wish the House to mark this—in Ireland for forty- flee years Catlinlies had beau capable of being member, of the Corporation of Dublin ; and yet during those forty-five years not one single taitholic was made a member of it. Now, recollecting that fact, and seeing that the Corporation of the City of London had elected Mr. Raphael their Sheriff, I put this question to the House—if it be true that what his calumniators say of ham why did they not come forward and state it at the time of his election in their Comnton Ilall ? But, instead of being accused, be was lauded. I found him, then, the High Sheriff of the City of London, expressing the strongest feelings with respect to Ireland, mid the strongest Anti-Tory sentiments. Why should I listen to his calumniators? Don't I know what calumniators are ? (Loud cheers.) Is it new to me that calumniators are liars of the worst description? Why, for the last thirty years, no living man has been half so much assailed as I have been. Six times a week in three Dublin papers, twice a week three papers in Dublirt, once a week four papers in Dublin, have been assailing me with calumnies. I confess, therefore, that I disregard calumniators; and I did disregard the calumnies against the first Catholic Sheriff of London. But what had he bee. doing? He had been in constant communication with Mr. Vigors and the Reform Carlow Committee (I mean those who were attending the Corn- flutes of this House in London), telling them that he would becomo a candi- date, and promising to become the purchaser of an estate in Carlow. Under these circumstances, where is my personal turpitude because I took up the cause of Mr. Raphael, and recommended him to the county of Carlow against the Tory candidates. (Loud cheers.) I took up the cause of the High Sheriff of the city of London, and recommended him to the county of Carlow as a fit and proper candidate. Is there any turpitude in that? I am now separating the two parts of the case—the personal grounds from the pecuniary grounds. There is my case as to personal grounds; and is there any man in this !louse who will tell me that Mr. Raphael was not as fit a person to represent the county of Carlow as either of the present Members? Oae of those honourable Members has an hereditary estate: it is said that he ia de- scended from Macmurrough, who fought against Strongbow—he is certainly of high genealogy, and of large fortune; but these do not give him a feeling fiw wishing the peolae of Carlow to be in a better condition—these do not qualify him to represent their wants and their wishes. The other honourable Member is a gentleman whose father was a successful counnissary in the American war, and invested his savings in the purchase of lands in Carlow : he had a perfect ight to do this, but does that give him a title to trample on the people of

('snow? (Low! cheers.) Mr. Raphael was a gentleman who was abun- dantly able to purchase land in that country—who had tuld the deputation that he would make such purchase—who was High Sheriff of London—who ha

proclaimed his attachment to those principles which I prefer, and who had even in his written declaration stated that he would go as far as I would for

the good of Ireland. That declaration contained nothing; but an uncivil °cal

abhorrence of the principles of a Tory Administration, and an unequivocal ad- herence to a Liberal Administration. I put it to the I Irma° and to the curia- try, where I was iii the sliOtest degree criminal in adopting that man ?

( Cheers.) Had he been in this House at this moment, is there any man to

reproach hint? Why, he was in this Iluuse, and was met by every gentlemaa as air equal, and was treated by them upon full terms of equality ; and I want

to know whether an English merchant who has acquired property in trade is not to be treated on the footing of a gentleman ? Why, is not that how all large properties are realized? Is trade any disparagement ? Well, Mr. Raphael

set up to represent a county. I am just reminded that he was a member also of Brookes'e Club. (A laugh.) Ile had gone through that ordeal. I do laugh to scorn, then, all those who say I did wrong to support him as a candidate for the county of Carlow. I do candidly admit, however, that I did not do it till I had exhausted Ireland."

He would appeal to the Tories themselves to say whether he was te blame for his support of Raphael? Perhaps he did wrong to make this appeal, seeing that he was their constant theme of abuse—at every

dinner, at every public meeting : he was the stock in trade of nine- tenths of them. Even the Member for Bradford had assailed him at a public meeting-

" And yet, when I recollect what occurred between him and me—we happened to be in the Temple together—when I met him afterwards' I confess the recol- lections of early youth came over me, and I regarded hint with feelings of personal friendship ; I greeted him as one of my earliest acquaintances with a warmth of heart which he affected to return. (" Oli I") Yes, I will do him the justice to say he affected. ((Jheers.) What did I hear next ? Why that he had got some persons to give him a dinner at Leeds before this Raphael affair huppened at all—" Mr. BA1NES—" Not at Leeds."

Mr. O'CourrieLa—" Oh! well I perhaps read it in the Leeds Mercury. (A langh.) I suppose it was on the honourable gentleman's own—but I wont call it by that familiar and unsavoury name. (A laugh.) But what was my surprise to find that the man whom I had treated with the warmth of friendship (" Oh oh !")—well, I don't care—what was my astonishment to read a speech he made there, in which he alluded to the religion I respect, and treated it in the lowest terms of ribald abuse? Not only was there a spirit of fanati- cism running through that speech, but there was a most gross personal attack upon myself. I have the newspaper, and can produce it : I read it and marked it at Brookes's three or four days ago. (" Hear, hear, hear !" and a laugh.) I put it to him whether, in assisting Mr. Raphael in the county of Carlow, under the circumstances stated, I did any thing unbecoming the station that I bear towards the Irish people, and the station I bear as a gentleman; for by birth, by education, and all but one practice of gentlemen (and for

the avoidance of which let me suffer the taunts of the world) I am in every thing his equal ; and even when I say that I bow to the House, I ask how I have degraded myself in the slightest degree from that station? What have I done inconsistently with my station to the People of England or the People of Ireland, in bringing forward Mr. Alexander Raphael to the consideration of the Irish constituency. (Loud cheers.) So much as to my personal corruption, as it is called. 'Am Ito blame in endeavouring to get two votes on this side of the House? ( Cheers.) Am I to blame in wishing to throw out the preload Members for the county of Carlow ?" ( Cheers. )

As to the charge of pecuniary corruption, he wanted neither pigmy nor giant to acquit him of it-

" There is not a man in or out of this House who does not feel that I am totally free from the slightest taint. I defy calumny. I defy the charges of those who read selected letters, and rest their charge upon particular passages. The honourable and learned Member for Bradford says he never heard of one moan undertaking for another. Why, surely he has not forgotten his professional lore? The very word used — " guarantee" — is the very word which one man uses to answer for another. What are the facts? During the Election Committee, Mr. Raphael was in constant conanu- Ideation with Mr. Vigors and with the county of Carlow. Ile had writ- ten me a letter without announcing to me that he had written to Carlow.

He happened to be present with Mr. Vigors at the Zoological Society in Regent Street. A messenger arrived to announce that the Committee had declared the election void. Mr. Raphael instantly said to Mr. Vigors, ' I am your

man.' They talked of terms. Mr. Vigors stated that it was absolutely necea:ary that funds should be furnished to ne et the legal expenses of the elec-

tion; for said he, I am now exhausted.' Mr. Raphael spoke as to the amount : lie thought 2000/. a large sum. Vigors then said that he must be off to Ireland ; and asked whether Mr. Raphael could not name a mutual friend to to conduct the transaction. Raphael named use. ( Tremendous cheering.) Now monk—I tell the House that I will prove that distinctly. I had it from Mr.

Vigurs's lips ; Mr. Vigors has written it ; and I implore the House to carry this with them, that throughout this tissue of slanders, by the Staariard, the Times, and everybody else, Mr. Vigors's conduct has not been impeached by any human being as to his integrity arid honour as a man and a gentleman. (Loud cheers.) NOW that was the strongest point which could he attacked, if those newspapos could have tarnirdad the character of Mr. Vigors when he came forward with that most unequivocal declaration contaiced in his letter to rueand I now ask the honourable and learned Member tOr BradMal how he could avoid noticing that declaration? (Cheers.) The very moment Mr. Raphael published his letter, Mr. Vigors stated that I paid every fraction to him. What was the reason for suppressins; that fact. ( real cheering.) The honourable and learned Member for Bradford was once a Recorder : what an admirable judge le must have mask, if lie was in the habit of hearing only one part of a case and leaving out all the rest !"

He called for a fair Committee—a full inquiry. To decide a ques- tion on bearing only one part of it, was un-English to the last degree. But the Member for Bradford had suppressed every fact which told in his favour-

" Good God! where are the cheers I heard from those benches (the Oppo- aition) when the honourable and learned Member made his statement ? Are there more Englishmen there than the honourable and learned Member for Bradford ? Englishism is banished. (" Oh, oh 1") I like that groan ; it well becomes the honourable and learned Member for Norwich—(" Hear, hear !")—ay, from the Member for Norivich—(Tremendous cheers)—"

Mr. SCARLET?—" Mr. Speaker"--(" Order, order ! Chair, chair !")

The SPEAK rit—.' If the honourable and learned gentleman has any observa- tions to make, he will have the opportunity for making them when the honour- able and learned.Member for Dublin sits down."

Mr. SCARLET?—" Sir, I beg to any that I did not—" (" Order, order! Chair, chair 1")

The SPEAKEIL—" Does the honourable Member rise to order ? I think he is speaking merely because he considers himself to have been personally alluded to. If so be will have an opportunity to make his observations when the honourable and learned Member has sat down."

Mr. SCARLET?—" I rise to order, Sir. It was, however, my intention to preface what I had to say by declaring that I did not give any groan nor any exclamation at all—" (" Order ! Chair!") The SPEA KER—" The honourable Member is quite aware that he cannot rise for the purpose of making any observation.

Mr. SCARLET?—" I assure you, Sir—" (" Order, order Chair, dreier) I hope I may be believed when I say—" (" Chair Order!") The question is : I wish to state—" (" Order, order!")

The STE A ra—" Mr. O'Connell."

Mr. OTONNE LL—" Tam sorry I have given the honourable gentleman so much °fence ; I am sorry I mistook him. However, I did not mistake him in calling 'Question' a while ago. Well, Sir, I have stated that part of the case that re- lates to pecuniary corruption. Now I beg to remind the House, that at the pe- riod in which the question arose as to the amount to be given by Mr. Raphael towards the expellees, counsel was retained by the rejected Members for another petition. And here I have to complain of the honourable and learned Member kr Bradford, who, in putting this case of pecuniary corruption did not tell

lb. House how Mr. Raphael's share of the expenses was paid. He could not have

a contest in a county in Ireland for live days, nor even the appearance of a coated, without rocarring expenses. Is not that manifest? (Cheers.) Was any one 6 see engaged iii &contested election who bad not money to pay for legal and itimate expense*? Now, when I stated to the House the conversation tween Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors on the 28th of May, I also stated (and I am ready ti prove it), that my name as the depository of the money was first mentioned by Mr. Raphael. Mr. Vigors then came to me, and stated that it was impossible for him to go to the contest with a less sum than two

thousand pounds. My answer was, that it was not likely two thousand pounds would be given for the mere chance of being returned ; but that if he could get one thousand pounds to be joined with money of his own to pay the expenses of the contest, then he would be entitled to be reimbursed any extra expenses which the contest might lawfully put him to; and if there was any surplus remaining over, there were the widows and orphans of those who had fallisur victims to the merciless conduct of the landlords, and whose wailing* ind screams weir in vaiu assailing the ears of their oppressors for bread

keep them from starving. (" Ola, oh !" and loud cheers.) But as to a peti • lion against the return, there was no doubt there would be one, because Mr.

Austin had already been retained by the unseated Members; so that they

must have a contest, or a show of a contest, in order to have afterwards a petition. Well, Sir, there was a contest, and there was a petition. Is there

any evidence of the slightest allegation that I was to get one penny of the 2000/. for myself? Where is the allegation? I challege the honourable and learned Member to read that allegation. Has Mr. Raphael made it ? He has not. ( Cheers.) He has said directly the reverse.. In one of my letters I

said—' Return me this letter, as it vouches 8001. for me.' But where has the honourable and learned Member found the allegation ? He has not made it—

I do him the justice to say he has not made it. The party by whom he is supported shouted him on to make it, but he has not; and here I defy any man to make it who reads the documents that have been published." ( Cheers.)

Mr. O'Connell then gave some particulars as to the mode in which he bad paid over all Raphael's money, and by mistake I51. more. Was it not cruel that he should be subjected to a charge which no man dared make in that House? Why was the evidence in his favour to be overlooked, while he was arraigned in good set terms and rounded periods, and beautiful impromptus two months old, were delivered, excellent jests retailed, and even Scripture quoted against him ? The Member for Bradford, who had made a digression about Monboddo tails (an impromptu which called forth vehement cheering,) being defeated on realities, talked of possibilities- " The honourable and learned Member says this money might have been applied to eel tain purposes. Might! He must take the circumstances of the

case. Was there not abundant room for expenditure in the situation in which

the people in the county of Carlow were placed, and in the distresses of the poor? And am I to be shut out from proving the reality of that expenditure,

and the magnitude of that distress, in order to show the utter impossibility of one penny less being spent by anybody. Now, Sir, I come back again—after I have been hunted through the newspapers for six months—after I have been the subject of every Tory meeting, every Tory dinner, and every election that has talon place, I ask the House whether it is not unbecoming a man to give the slightest countenance to charges of this kind ; when all I ask is a full,

complete, fair, and fundamental inquiry. Let that inquiry be made by fair and honourable men. I say by fair and honourable men ; for men who are fair and honourable for other purposes, are not so when they have political or personal interests of their own involved. I see before me, not judges but accusers, not jurors but partisans, not arbitrators but persons interested, humble as I am, in putting flue down. (Loud chs-ers.) It may be vanity in nie to suppose so, but can I avoid that vanity, when I read the newspapers for the last six months, although I see the men who condemn me behind my hack sitting opposite congregated together, and disclaiming any intention to pack the Committee against me? Now, I will not be put down by an attempt to pack the Committee. ( (Jheers.) I will not submit to it. There was a Counnittee agwed upon, I am told, and that arrangement has been broken off. All my life I have been battling—and one of the misfortunes of Ireland is, that all my life I have been battling—against faction, gamblers with the loaded dice, who have the chance in their own hands. Am I to submit to a Committee of this description? Oh, I entreat you, honourable English gentlemen, who may be led away by party—I regret that I connot carry the adjuration feather than England and Scotland—I call upon honourable English.. men and Scotchmen to protect me against a packed jury—a packed jury deter- mined not to try, but to convict me. (Much cheering ) As to my accuser himself, I have no objection to his being my accuser ; but I have the strongest objection from the manner in which he has treated me, to his being one of my judges. Yes, I have ; and it was on this account that I alluded a while ago to the O'Sullivan meeting. Time honourable gentleman was one of those who made that attack on the Catholics of Ireland, on which they were shut out from any defence, unless indeed they sent over to Ireland to the Catholic Bishops for authority. Now, when I know this—when I hear the honourable gentleman's speech—when I see him coming forward under pretence of neutrality and attacking me, and when I see acts of injustice reiterated in his place, and re- peated at a dinner at Bradford, I own I would rather be tried by a certain black gentletnan who holds his coutt in a certain hot region, than I would by the honourable Member for Bradford." ( Cheers and laughter.) After again referring to the Tory malepraetices at the last election, and calling upon the House to assist him in passing a bill, to be intro- duced by him that night, to give indemnity to witnesses who disclosed such illegal acts, Mr. O'Connell concluded by saying, that he had already been acquitted by the People of England, and was sure to be acquitted by the House. The cheers were prolonged some time after his sitting clown.

The question having been put,

Mr. WALTER rose and said—" The learned Member"—(Here Mr. Walter was interrupted by the noise of Members leaving the House)-7 " The learned Member" had spoken of the public press, connecting it with himself, as he understood— He should hare little to say in ;reply, because be was very certain, and so must be the learned Member, that he had no authority for his assertion.. He could, however, assure the learned Member, that he was much better satisfied with his attacks in that House, than with his menaces out of it—of which there had been plenty—among his dignified followers. It might perhaps not have been quite safe to reply to him before those gentle personages ; but in that House he could repel his slanderous insinuations without fear, except that de- gree of timidity which any one unused to speak often must feel. The learned Member overrated his own importance if he supposed that he (Mr. Walter). had ever thought it worth his while to make the learned Member the object oE attack in any publication whatever. Ile was himself as well qualified as an one to judge of the effect of such attacks ; for horn the moment when, in com- pliance with a public requisition, be sought to obtain the station he occupied in that House, and in that county which he had the !MIMI to represea4 exec.' species 'of libel had been heaped upon him by his political opponents : but those libels failed in his case ; and it they had lot equally failed in that of the learned Member, he could tell hint why—and he regretted that the learned Member had left the House without hearing this part of his aoswer—because their characters were different : to him these libels were mere matter of con- tempt, because they were false ; they galled the learned Member for Dublin— they provoked his wrath in the House, his menaces out of it, for the opposite cause—he knew, he felt them to be true ; and with this observation he would leave that branch of the subject.

alWith regard to his election expenditure, there was great error and exaggeration in what was said on that subject. Whatever he had ex- pended came from his own pocket : he extorted nothing in pence from the poor and needy.

Mr. WASON complained that Mr. Hardy had improperly alluded to a private conversation between them. He observed that in the opinion of Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. O'Connell was acquitted of any charge more serious than that of using indecorous language ; as Sir Francis had on that account only wished him to be expelled flout Brookes's—passing by the more grave accusations.

Mr. WARBURTON said that Mr. IIardy's resolution did not go far enough ; and he proposed an amendment, that the following words should be inserted after the word "county"_ . . . .

"and the application of the monies said to have been received, and the circumstances under which the same were received and expended." Mr. HARDY thought the addition unnecessary, but would not op- pose it.

Mr. HUME wished to remind the House, that the real parties to the bargain were Raphael and Vigors —not Raphael and O'Connell. ("No, no ") But he would repeat, that such had been proved to be the fact.

Mr. WYNN objected to the amendment, if it was intended to sanc- tion the extension of the inquiry into the circumstances of the widows and orphans of Carlow.

Mr. ScantErr said that the Reform Act was passed to prevent such practices as those of which Mr. O'Connell was accused. Some years ago he thought there was occasion for "a little Reform ;" but a "small Reform" was not adopted.

Lord SANDON put a question to ascertain the practical extent of Mr. Warburton's amendment.

Mr. IlraltatntroN wished to inquire into the actual application of the sum in question_

If, for example it appeared that it was given to such or such a family for such a purpose, then, without going into the whole state of the county of Carlow at or before the election, a few questions more would show whether or not the money had been fairly appplied.

Lord SANDON expressed himself satisfied ; and the resolution, as amended, was passed.

Mr. HARDY then rose to name the Committee. He proposed the following list— Mr. Ridley Colborne, Lord Francis Egerton, Mr. Bannerman, Mr. Barneby, Sir Ronald Perguson, Sir John Yarde Buller, Mr. William Orde, Sir Charles Broke \rem, Mr. Warburton, Sir Eardly Wilmot, and Mr. H. G. Ward.

Mr. WARBURTON thought it necessary to mention the arrangement, which had been alluded to by Mr. O'Connell, with respect to the Committee. Arrangements made out of the House were not, in- deed, binding in the House; but a certain weight was generally allowed to that which was fairly and honourably adjusted between parties with the view of saving trouble to the House. Mr. E. J. Stanley and himself on one side, and Lord Granville Somerset and Sir George Clerk on the other, had met and agreed upon a list. On the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell himself, Sir Robert Peel was to be put in nomination on the one side of the House, and Mr. Poulett Thomson on the other ; and altogether eleven gentle- men, including the Chairman, were selected. But Sir Robert Peel objected to serve, and then Mr. Poulett Thomson's name was with- drawn. With the exception of these names, he considered the list as final. The following were the names on that list— Mr. Ridley 'Colborne, Mr. Bannerman, Sir R. Ferguson, Mr. W. Orde, Mr. R. Clive, Lord Francis Egerton, Lord Eastnor, Mr. H. G. Ward, Sir C. Broke Vere, Mr. B. Hall, and Mr. Wilson Batten.

Sir GEORGE CLERK then gave his account of the arrangement His object, and the object of all parties, was to have the Committee chosen as impartially as possible ; but it was first necessary to establish the general principle on which they were to proceed. He thought it desirable, as a matter of delicacy, that no Members for Ireland should be on the Committee ; and he thought, also, that as there must out of eleven Members be a balance on one side or the other, that the mover of the resolution ought to have that balance in his favour. The honourable Member for Cheshire, however, thought that, in a personal case, the balance ought to be in favour of the accused ; and Sir George acceded. The Member for Bridport then said that gentlemen not likely to be biased by party considerations were likely to be found on both sides o f the House, and suggested the names of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. P. Thomson. He answered that there were circumstances which would render it impossible for Sir Robert Peel to act on the Committee. The Member for Bridport con- sidered the 'appointment of these two gentlemen a sine qua non. Both the Member for Bridport and himself felt that no person should be appointed who could not devote the whole of his time to the Committee. The negotiation, however, was broken off before several of the names now on the list were put

He did not therefore consider himself bound to keep any particular names on the list, and denied that he deviated from his agreement.

After some remarks, which were not distinctly heard, from Mr. E. J. STANLEY, the list was read by the Speaker.

Mr. WARBURTON objected to Mr. Barneby; and proposed that Mr. Posey, or Mr. Wilson Patten, shall be substituted. Mr. Barneby had lint sufficient weight in the House, nor was he of sufficiently long standing to entitle him to be placed on such a Committee.

Mr. WILSON Parma said, it would be very inconvenient for him to serve.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought, that since the debate had gone off so much more quietly than might have been expected, the Committee as moved by Mr. Hardy might be allowed to stand. He advised Mr. Warburton to withdraw his motion.

Mr. WARBURTON acceded ; and Mr. Hardy's Committee was ap- pointed. It was also agreed, after some further conversation and

demur, that in order to preserve judicial calmness in the Members— very liable to be disturbed by the excitement and bent of severe cross-examinings—Mr. Sergeant Wilde should act for Mr. O'Connell us his nominee, and Sir Frederick Pollock as nominee for the Oppo- sition before the Committee, but without th right of voting.

On Thursday, Mr. WALLACE begged to postpone a motion which he had placed on the paper, for a Commission of Inquiry into the facts stated in Mr. Vigors'a_petition, until the Carlow Election Committee had reported. Colonel Baurts entreated Mr. Wallace to bring forward his motion at an early day ; as be was most anxious to have an opportunity of clearing himself from the imputations which bad been cast upon him. Mr. WALLACE promised to indulge the Colonel, as soon as possible, with the inquiry he sought.

2. IRISH POLICE, Lord MORPETH moved the House of Commons, on Thursday, for leave to bring in it bill to amend the Acts relating to the Constabulary force in Ireland. He explained the leading provisions of his measure, which in the first place repealed the laws by which the Constabulary and Peace establishment in Ireland were at present regulated, and vested in the Lord-Lieutenant the power of appointing one Inspector. General and two Deputy-Inspectors, as well as Sub-Inspectors, Store- keepers, Paymasters, and Constables ; the Inspector-General to have the power of making laws and regulations for the government of the force, subject to the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant. The power of appointing the policemen would be transferred from the local Magis- tracy to the Government. This was an important but most desirable alteration. It would tend to prevent the appointment of partisans to the force. At present men belonging to secret political societies were made policemen. Within the last three months ninety-six constables and sub-constables had been dismissed on that account. He proposed that, in future, constables should takessn oath that they belonged to no secret society. It was also intended to establish a supernumerary reserved force, to be called out only on special occasions. Such were the chief provisions of the bill.

Colonel CONOLLY and Mr. LUCAS eulogized the Irish Magistracy, and disapproved of a measure to transfer powerfrom them to the Lord- Lieutenant, who already had sufficient.

Lord CLEMENTS denied that the Magistracy would have cause to complain of the alteration. The Bow Street Magistrates had not the appointment of Policemen ; why then should the Irish Magistrates ?

Sir ROBERT BATESON could not sit still and hear Irish Magistrates compared to those of Bow Street. Ile disapproved of the bill. Par- tisans might be appointed under it. lie had complained to an officer of the conduct of a constable ; the officer said the man had a bad character, but he was a Catholic ; and as he (the officer) could not afford to lose his place, be would not report the constable as desired to Sir Frederick Stowen, the Inspector of the province.

Mr. O'CONNELL supported the bill, and observed that Sir Robert Bateson, though he named Sir F. Stowell, refused to give the name of the officer.

Mr. SHAW remarked upon the increase of patronage the Govern- ment would gain by the bill, and referred to the recent appointment of thirty Catholic Crown Solicitors out of thirty-four.

Lord Joitx RUSSELL insisted on time improvement the bill would effect, and eulogized the character of Sir F. Stowen ; but it was not the intention of Government to make him Inspector. General. It had been determined to select a gentleman for that office who had been one of the most efficient persons in protecting the peace of this country in difficult times—he alluded to Colonel Shaw Kennedy.

Sir ROBERT PEEL bore testimony to the high character of Colonel Shaw Kennedy, to whom he had himself offered the command of the Metropolitan Police. He was glad to hear that he would probably be appointed to the Inspector- Generalship ; and he suggested that he should have the selection of the men, for whose conduct he would be responsible. He thought that the appointment of Police-officers had better be intrusted to a representative of the Crown than to any local authority.

Colonel PERCEVAL said, the appointment of Colonel Shaw Kennedy would remove much of his objection to the bill.

Mr. O'LOGHLEN, in reply to M . Shaw's observation, said that orly twenty-four new Crown Solicitors had been appointed : and of those eight or nine were Protestants. The emolument to each would not be more than 101. a year; and he had never thought of their religion in making the appointments.

After some remarks from Mr. LEFROY, Mr. BARRON, and Sir R. PEEL, leave was given to bring in the bill.


A long discussion arose on Thursday, on a motion by Mr. Snot. for a return of all processes which have issued out of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in the cause of Knox versus Gavin and others, and copies of orders made by Government with reference to the em- ployment of Police in the service and execution of such writs, in the years 1823, 1825, and 1833. Mr. Shed called the attention of the House to the parties by whom these proceeaings in the Exchequer Court were set on foot. They were members of the Lay Associa- tion, which was a branch of Orangeism ; as would appear from the names of the trustees—Earls Roden, Enniskillen, and Bandon, Lord Farnham, Lord Lorton, and others. No fewer than 617 bills had been filed for the recovery of tithes in the Court of Exchequer by the Lay Association, since the 1st of August last. Some of these were for sums as low as Is. 9L; though all tithes under 101. were recoverable by civil process before a Magistrate. But the object of the Lay As-

sociation was to increase the costs of the debtors ; and how well they succeeded, would appear from the instance of a man whose costs on a bill filed by the Association were 191. 9s. Sd. on a debt of 22/. Mr. Sheil then referred to the laws and regulations of former Governments for the management of the Police; and showed that Chief Baron Joy, as Solicitor. General in 1823, had declared it to be illegal to employ

the Police in the collection of tithes, and sanctioned a regulation pro- hibiting their employment in that service. Mr. Goulburn, as Secre- tary for Ireland, confirmed and approved of the prohibition. Mr. Sheil went on to relate the proceedings of the Court of Exchequer in the case of Knox versus Gavin, and particularly their writ of attach- ment against the Police for not interfering in the collection of tithes in obedience to the commission of " rebellion " issued by the Court. He explained that, in England, this process had been abolished ; that for two htaidred years it lay obsolete in Ireland, but was purposely re- vived in order to bring the Court into collision with the Government, and to obtain the assistance of the Police for the tithe-owner. They made the commission of rebellion, instead of an obsolete fortii,.a fear- ful reality ; for by it they invested a common process-server with the power to call out an armed force for the collection of tithe. Chief Baron Joy (who had sanctioned the resolution in 1823 against employing the Police), Baron Forster, and Baron Smith, decided in opposition to the Government Law Officers, and decreed to give force to the commission of rebellion. Baron Smith, who had been absent by reason of inability to attend his duty from the 2d of No- vember (when he was present at Mr. Reynolds's trial and condemna- tion) to the 26th of January, appeared on the bench on that day when the case was tried—be became fortunately convalescent. Mr. Shell concluded by enlarging upon the danger which would spring from the decision of the Court, and a perseverance in the practice of issuing commissions of rebellion to any person whom the plaintiff in a suit might select.

Mr. DEVONSTIER JACKSON defended the Lay Association : and de- clared that not an eighth part of 617 bills had been filed by its officers. It was necessary to aid the clergy against the anti-tithe conspirators ; especially when so extensive and formidable had the conspiracy become, that Mr. Sheil himself, in a letter addressed to ,a clergyman to whom he owed tithes, said—" You must be aware that, as Member for Tip- perary, I must elect between the payment of tithes and the loss of my seat." . [Mr. Shell here expressed a wish to have the whole of the letter read : but Mr. Jackson would only read what "suited his purpose."] Mr. Jackson then mentioned several instances of violence used towards persons employed to serve Exchequer notices, in justification of the means employed by the Association. With regard to the commission of rebellion, it was not obsolete either in England or Ireland. Persons were attached under it in England, in consequence of some offence committed on an oyster-bank ; and Lord Brougham, when applied to, refused to liberate them. In the Exchequer Court of Dublin, in 1834, a person was arrested on a writ of rebellion, and received judgment. The law ought to be upheld ; and, please God, it should be upheld. lie concluded by moving an addition to the motion of Mr. Sheil- " That the teturn should comprise the number of bills filed in the Court of Exchequer from and after the 18th of August is:35, specifying the parties by whom and against whom they were filed ; how many had proceeded to a bear- ings in how many cases the verdict was for the plaintiff; and how many had been dismissed without a hearing."

Mr. Hume suggested, that the names of the attornies, and the amount of costs, should be added.

Mr. Jacxsoe would not object to the addition.

Mr. O'Loonr.est said, no bill filed since the 1st of August could have come to a hearing.

Mr. JACKSON said, that Mr. O'Loghlen was present himself when there was a decree of sequestration in many of these cases.

Mr. O'LOGIILEN said, it was impossible : there were three stages between the answer and the sequestration. The return might be amended so as to include a list of the bills filed between the 1st of August 1834 and 1st of August 1835.

Mr. JACKSON acquiesced.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that Mr. Jackson was utterly mistaken in his law. The Court of Exchequer was not a criminal Court. The Judges could not usurp the powers of the Executive. Ile had yet to learn whether, by a writ of rebellion, the Court could take the com- mand of the military and police force of Ireland. Mr. Jackson's law was that the plaintiff can name the veriest vagabond, and such a person can take out the entire police and military. The decision of the Court of Exchequer was a political decision—a Lay Association decision.

Mr. LEFROY was amazed to hear Mr. O'Connell impugning the authority of the Court to issue a writ of rebellion. It was not a familiar process, but was resorted to when the law was resisted, as at present. For a confirmation of his assertion he would appeal to the learning and candour of the Attorney-General for Ireland.

Mr. O'Locireesr did not deny that the practice of issuing writs of rebellion existed ; but as long ago as 1770, a writer on the practice of the Exchequer Court described them as obsolete. The Court of Chancery in Ireland had abolished them. There was no precedent to be found recorded in any report for such an order as the Court had issued in the case in question.

It was not the mere issuing of a writ and the arresting of a party that the public had a right to complain of; but it was thia—that the Court of Ex- chequer had not merely ordered it to be executed, but it had taken upon itself to commit two individuals who had declined to take part in the execution of that writ—one of those persons living at a distance of eighty miles from where the other was called upon to assist in its execution. The question is notes to the issuing of the writ, but whether that House was prepared to sanction a Court M declaring this—that it would attach for contempt every man who refused it bailiff to go and assist him. And this was a question which affected the liberty of every individual ; because if it were tolbe held that the Police constables were to he attached for not obeying the summons of a commission to a wi it of rebellion, there was no person in the community safe—nay, the Chief Baton himself might be attached for a similar proceeding.

The Police of Ireland, 7000 in number, owed their origin to an Act passed in 1822. The cost was defrayed half out of the Consolidated Fund, and half by a tax on the counties in which they were employed. Under the Act, the Lord. Lieutenantcould frame rules and regulations for their conduct, and point out exactly the duty they were to perform. In 1823, Chief Baron Joy, then Solicitor-General, framed a rule dis. tine! ly.lirying down that the Police were not to interfere in the execu- tion of civil process unless called upon by a Magistrate, or the Sheriff in.person ; and immediately after, it was regulated that no Sheriff's Whir should be a Police constable. A question erose between the

Sheriffs and the Magistrates on this question. The former insisted that the Police sliou!d aid them in the execution of these writs ; but Govern- ment insisted that the Policeman was only to be a preserver of the public peace. Chief Baron Joy in 1823, in reply to an application from Lord Carbery, stated that only in cases of breaches of the peace

could the Police be employed. The Sheriff of Limerick applied for the aid of the Police in 1823; and Government refused it. The Sheriff enclosed the opinion of Messrs. Saurin and Pennefather, who said that the Police could be taken out : what was the answer of So- licitor.General now Chief Baron Joy ? Mr. O'Logblen read the reply from the Irish Under Secretary, to which were appended opinions of Messrs. Plunkett and Joy-- sr We have already, on full consideration, given our opinion that the proper duty of the constables appointed under the new Act is to act in the execution of Magistrates' warrants in cases only where a breach of its peace is com- mitted ; in all other cases, the Magistrates are at liberty to proceed as they have hitherto done; the power of appointing constables for such other pur- poses remaining unaffected by the late Act. The Magistrates, therefore, will direct their warrants as usual, but should not deliver them for execution to the - new constables."

Was it not absurd to suppose that any bailiff could do that which the High Sheriff could not do ? Two similar applications were made in 1824, one from Limerick, and another from Clare ; to svhich the same reply in effect was returned,—the applicants were informed that " the Police could not legally be employed in the execution of civil process."

This was the opinion given by the Chief Baron, who now said that it was a contempt in eonstables who refused to aid a writ of rebellion. There was no lawyer in the House, or out of the House, who would contend that a writ of rebellion was any thing more than a civil process to enforce civil rights. The treason was purged by the paying the plaintiff's attorney his bill for costs ; opon that being done, the rebel ' was pardoned. The pi mess was to enforce an appearance; but it never was contended, by any lawyer, that it was a cri- minal process.

On the 19th of December 1835, a gentleman of Fermanagh applied for the aid of the Police in the execution of tithe writs, because, he said, " I have been hitherto opposed in the execution of my duty by large armed parties, riotously assembled together, bearing flags, and otherwise apparently determined to commit a breach of the peace, should I have persisted therein." To this application a distinct refusal was sent from the Castle, though the Sheriff was authorized to attend with the Police for the protection of the process-servers.

In January 1826, the Sheriff was beaten, and the application was renewed ;. when Mr. Joy wrote an answer to the application, in which he stated that the constables might be employed in the event of personal violence, but that, 0 they were not to be called on to assist the Sheriff in the execution of civil pro.. cess—(" Hear, hear !" from Me Ministerial side of the House)—except as part of the posse comitatus. (" Hear, hear ! " from the Opposition benches.) As part of the posse comitatus, certainly ; but did any one ever hear of any Court of Justice attaching a person for not obeying the Sheriff? Persons refusing might be proceeded against by indictment ; but did the Court of Exchequer ever attach them for contempt for not obeying the Sheriff? Ile would venture to say that no court of justice had ever entertained such an idea as that they could attach, not merely constables, hut any one, for such refusal.

In 1826, Mr. Goulburri remitted a fine imposed on a Policeman by the Magistracy for refusing to assist in the service of a civil process. Mr. O'Loghlen said he could produce many similar instances, up to the time of the decision of the Court of Exchequer.

He should say no more of that decision, than that it was a novel decision, and it was his duty to point out the consequences. It aught be exercised inju- riously, and to the prejudice of the liberty of any person in the COM-. munity ; for if a constable was bound to obey this order, a soldier on parade might be compelled to go where the Court pleased, and when, and even to break open houses. Was this state of the law to continue? Ile admitted that the process existed, hut he asserted that it was obsolete. The process existed, but it bad rarely issued, and its present exercise was objectionable as a prece- dent; for, on the plea of disobedience, any person in the community might be attached by the Court of Exchequer.

Mr. Slimy defended the Judges of the Court of Exchequer, and repudiated the idea that they could possibly be actuated by party mo- tives. He complained that Mr. O'Loghlen should have come down to the house prepared with letters taken from the Government archives.

Mr. RICE said, it was no doubt painful to Mr. Shaw and his friends that Mr. O'Loghlen had come down to the House armed at all points — points which had inflicted severe wounds. He protested against the practice, common among the Tories, of representing the officers of Government to be leagued against the execution of the law.

Lord Moarern would not entangle himself in the legal subtleties of the question ; nor, while cases were pending, would he cavil at the opinion of the Exchequer—

He believed he had had a narrow escape from the Court of Exchequer. The vengeance of the law had been pretty significantly intimated against all offenders of whatever rank or station. He had only to say, that be did not shrink from any of the consequences that might attach to his conduct. The Court of Exchequer had issued its attachments against l'olice constable Malone and Chief Inspector Miller. He avowed that those individuals had his authority for the course they had taken, and he therefore exclaimed,

" Me, me, whom qui feci, in me convertite imam."

( Laughter.) Let the Exchequer point against him its commissions of rebel- lion, and attachments more deadly than the shock of any Rutilian spear. If he had done wrong, he had been misled by grave authorities. He read an actual commission of rebellion ; and then a letter from the justices of Navan asking what they were to do with it—not being certain of their jurisdiction. To this application a letter was returned, in March 1835- A letter which lie felt rather reluctant to quote from ; though be could baldly say that the writer was not present, yet he was there in such a situation as to be unable to answer for himself. He should be sorry to place an indivi- dual whom he'esteemed so much, and whose duty it was to attach others, in a condition to be attached himself. ( This allusion to Sir W. Gossett, the Ser- geant at-Arms, excited a good deal of laughter.) However, he would venture to proceed. The letter informed the Magistrates, "that their communication had been received, and laid before the Lord-Lieutenant,"--not, be it observed, Lord teMulgrave, but Lord Mac Haddington—and that the writer had to ac- quaint them that "the law adviser of the Government did not think the Police should be employed to execute a process of that nature "—( Great cheering from the Ministerial benches)—" nor that the Magistrates had any jurisdiction to direct them to do se." (Renewed cheering.) The letter added—" lithe

interference of the Police was asserted to be necessary to preserve the public

peace, a proper case must be made out to that effect., ' This communication was signed " William Gossett." (Laughter.) Into whatever illegality or error he had been misled, he felt greatly consoled, because he had acted, lie be- lieved, under the advice of Chief- Baron Joy, and he was sure, after the ex- ample of the Earl of Iladdingtou.

Mr. SHEIL replied, and the return was ordered.


Mr. EWART moved the second reading of this bill on Wednesday. As the reasons for introducing such a measure were precisely the same as those he stated last year, be would not repeat them.

Mr. O'CONNELL, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Dr. LITSHINGTON, and Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, strongly supported the motion. Sir F. Pot.- Lock said, that The present state of the law on the subject was d. sgraceful to the House and dangerous to the country. Ile deprecated the distinction between civil and criminal eases; and could not see on what principle the assistance of counsel, which was allowed in the former, was itsfused in the latter. He asked any Alember whether, if he were exposed to a criminal charge, he would not desire to be defended by counsel ? It was said that the Judge acted as the prisoner's ,counsel, but it was impossible that a Judge could he so instructed in the pri- soner's case as to act with effect. Theiudge only knew thecase against the pri- soner. On every ground of reason and justice he supported the bill, and trusted the House would allow it to be read a second time.

Sir EARDLEY WILMOT believed that nine-tenths of the bar and of -the Judges were opposed to the measure ; and he moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. POULTER, Mr. ['summer, and Sergeant GOULBURN, supported the amendment, which was rejected, by 179 to 35, and the bill was read a second time ; and subsequently referred tu a Select Committee to arrange its details.


In the House of Peers, on Thursday, Lord WYNFORD moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the State of Agriculture, and the causes of the distress which pressed -upon it.

Lord MELBOURNE gave his concurrence to the motion ; but he did not agree with those who expected extensive benefit from the labours of the .Committee. He wished to guard against the supposition that Ministers sanctioned in any degree the proposal of tampering with the currency. The operation of the Corn-laws would of course come under their con- sideration; and he hoped the Committee would make an inquiry into 'the efftxt of any proposed remedy on the other interests of the country, previously to recommending it for adoption ; for it was impossible to depress commerce or manufactures without injuring agriculture. He would also remind their Lordships, that the agricultural interest was not suffering in England alone : in France and in Holland the land- owners were complaining; and in the latter country the Government -bad, be regretted to say, departed from its ancient policy and imposed taxes on foreign corn.

Lord ASHBURTON thought that Parliament could do no more than it had done for the agricultural interest, which bad already the monopoly of the consumption of the country. If the currency were depreciated, the Corn-laws would cease to benefit the landowner who, in fact, of

all men would be most injured by the depreciation. If standard were depreciated, the value of the protection to the agriculturist would be reduced from 60.s. or 65s. to Vs. a quarter on corn.

Lord WINCHILSEA was one of those who laboured under the delusion 'that the state of the currency had a great deal to do with agricultural ,distress.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER said, he should have better hopes of • relief from the Committee if he thought they would recommend the substitution of a small fixed duty on corn for the present Corn-laws. Monopolies always failed of accomplishing the end proposed, and were always prejudicial to the public interest. The Corn-laws had com- pletely failed as a protection to the landed interest. He utterly de- nounced the project of tampering with the currency.

After a few words from Lord 1VYNFO1ID, the Committee was ap- 'pointed. 6. DIVISIONS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. WARD, on Thursday, called attention to the Report of the Se- lect Committee on Divisions, which sat last year. A room had been erected for the purpose of taking the votes by double nominees.

The plan suggested by the Committee of last year was contained in four re- solutions, which were as follow—" let. That upon every division the House be entirely cleared • the Ayes and the Noes being sent forth into two separate lobbies. 9.d. That four tellers and four clerks be appointed, two of each to he atationed at the entrance of the respective lobbies. 3d. That the doors being simultaneously opened by the Speaker's order, the names of the Members he taken down by the clerks, on ruled paper, with numbered lines, as they reenter the House by the opposite doors; the tellers counting and announcing the result at the table, as at present. 4th. That the lists of the division be then brought up to the table by the tellers; and deposited there for insertion, in alphabetical order, in the Votes." Now he would venture to suggest an alteration in refe- rence to the third resolution; and it was, that the names should be marked off 'on a printed list, which had been prepared in a tabular form under the direction of the Speaker ; which would afford greater facility not only in taking the votes, but also insure greater accuracy, especially where the names of honourable Members differed only in their Christian names.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the best argument in favour of the motion was the erection of the new lobby, of which be knew nothing *till he found it built. He thought that loss of time would result from the new arrangement— With regard to the inaccuracies of the list published in the newspapers, he must admit such was the case; but before he frilly assented to the excel- lence of the plan proposed, he must In satisfied that it would not he likely to be productive of errors. It was one thing for a Member to say he did not vote in -such a way, and it would be another for him to have to complain of a wrong entry of his name on the Journals and, after a declaration of that 'iact to the House to move the insertion on die Journals of a correction, lie thought this would 'be productive of much greater inconvenience ; but he nevertheless would consent to the trial of the plan proposed.

In reply to a question from Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. WARD said he left the appointment of the four clerks to the Speaker. Sir Holum!. PEEL thought that tellers mig:it perform the work sf the clerks : and suggested that the power to modify the regulatim should be given to the Speaker.

Mr. GROTE was glad that the:plan was:to have a fair trial.

Sir Roma INosis said that the plan had been tried, and had failed, in 1834.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, it had not been tried— The experiment of which Sir Robert Inglis spoke was an attempt made to take down the names of the Members while sitting in the House. That was undoubtedly a very difficult task, and it was wonderful that no more than one niistake was made. The great advantage of the proposed plan would be that the constituent body would know, not only the names of those Members who attended to their duties in the House, but also the names of those who absented themselves.

Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE thought that the present system enabled the public to judge correctly of the yeheral way in which every Member voted ; and he doubted very much whether any better system could be devised.

Mr. IlumE was surprised at the tone of Sir John Ilobkouse's re- marks : for himself he doubted not the superiority of the new plan.

The resolutions of the Committee of last year were then adopted.


On Wednesday, Mr. Hawes, after a few preliminary remarks, moved the following resolution-

" That it be an instruction to the Committee appointed to consider and report on the plans for the two Houses of Parliament, to inspect all the plans that have been submitted to his :Majesty's Commissioners, and to receive tile estimates of the said plans from such architects as may be willing to furnish them to the Committee."

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that if this resolution were agreed to, the whole matter would be reopened Without derogating from the individual merits of any member of the Com- mittee, of which he himself was one, he did not think it was the moat fit tri- bunal to pronounce upon the merits of the ninety. four plans sent in. It was with the view of relieving the Committee from this duty, that the Commis- sioners were appointed. The Committee would has-e to pronounce as to the best of the four successful plans; hilt in the mean time they would have the opportunity of seeing the others, which he understood the artists themselves intended to exhibit.

Sir ROBERT PEEL Wished to know whether the parties who fur- nished plans were limited as to the expense.

Mr. SPRING RICE said they had no limit but their own imaginations.

Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to put this practical question— When the Committee should select one of the four plans which had been ap- proved of by the Commissioners, would their decis;on rest on the most beautiful and commodious, without reference to the cost ? Theo, if that were so, the artist, as he bad befiire said, who sent in a 1•1,1n on the assumption that 3,000,000/. or 5,000,0001., or any given large sum, linglit be required to coin. plcte such a building, would have a decided advantage over one who feiL it ne- ce,sary to confine his plan to a smaller scale.

Mr. SPRING RICE believed that the most beautiful and commodious plan would be selected, without reference to cost.

Mr. HUME thought that two errors bad been committed— One was the appointing Commissioners before all the plans were sent in. He had heard that some of the artists had published their plans, and that some of the Commissioners haul seen them out of Court. The 'Ilan of Mr. Barry, the most successful of the candidates, was one of these. The next error was in having selected any plan without reference to the expense. He regretted that the House had not allowed the exhibition of the plans ; as that course would have been satisfactory to the public, and all parties i llll uediately concerned.

Mr. RICE denied that any improper communication had taken place between the Commissioners and the artists. So little was known of the intentions of the Commissioners, that one of the successful candi- dates bad arranged to exhibit his plan among the rejected ones.

Lord STANLEY wished to know what had been actually done with regard to the prizes— It had been reported that one of the artists haul received 1500/., and the other three 500/. each. Now, unless he was greatly mistaken, the Commis- sioners had no power to make such awards, nor to select plans as those to be ultimately agreed upon by the House The Commissioners had power to select not less than three, and no more than five plans, and to subunit them to the House; each of which plans so selected was to receive 500/. Anil Inc believed that the further recommendation of the Committee was that upon whatever plan Parliament ultimately decided, the artist elected should, if not employed as the architect to build the Howe, receive 1000/. Now, if he haul remem- bered the case correctly, it could not be true that the Commissioners had awarded 1000/. extra for the first artist. Was he correct or not ?

Mr. RICE replied, that Lord Stanley's recollection was quite accurate.

Mr. Hawes's motion was then rejected, by 120 to 48.


Mr. ROEBUCK, on Monday, moved for a Select Committee to inquira into the Administration of Justice in the Mauritius. He brought forward several charges against the Governors and Judges of the Colony, and the Colonial Office in England. He stated that there was evidence to prove, that several persons bearing high official rank continue to be slaveholders, in defiance of the law ; that among these was the Chief Justice of the Colony, who was supported by the Governor; and that every obstruction was thrown in the way of Mr. Jeremie, sent from England to inquire into the proceedings; of the Colonial authorities. The principal charge against the Colonial Office was, that although Lord Goderich described the conduct of sonic of the Judges iii Mauritius as treasonable, the administration of justice was left in the hands of these persons; and that although Lord Stanley knew that the island was in a very excited and disorderly state, he actually omitted for it whole year to send a single despatch to the Governor. Mn. noclittu•k also dwelt upon the necessity of ascertainims what was and what was not legal slave property ; as it was notorious that a va,t number of slaves had been illegally imported into the island.

Sir GEORGE GREY, in a very long sync), replied to Mr. Roebuck ; but lie spoke hurriedly and in a low tin e o! voice, so that he was vely imperfectly understood. He defended the conduct of the Goren.- done to all parties. lie objected to the motion, on the ground that no of the poor. he believed it would he {md t- ie totally ineffectual.

the motion. Mr. BUXTON said, with reference to the illegal traffic in f m fact was quite notorious there; the Governor even had said it was impossible seemid reading. Sir Rober was even brought to justice. And the reason assigned was, that no court ,,,,, , would convict, that no legal authorities would recommend a prosecution, and that no public functionaries would countenance the man who dated to interfere

with the favourite and lucrative trade. If a charge was made, the person im-

knew the man who was not highly applauded and exceedingly popular there, enter into particular cases, but there were many which he could instance. convenient to produce it. Sir G emir; I.: GULY said— 9. RUSSIAN POLICY AND PoseEn.

He gave a detail of the conquests of Russia during the lust century

by the Russian authorities at Odessa—were till dwelt upon in detail. Arr. SCHOLEFIELD spoke briefly in support of the petition.

driven back to the forests. A war with Russia would be highly tants of Biriningham were conveyed in that petition. The meeting at popular in this count-, . The war might be carried on with ease—not, which it was adopted was not properly a town's meeting ; and a protest

howeve., on a gold currency, but with good paper. against it signed by 2000 persons bad been put into his bands. To this Lord POLLINGTON and Mr. BARLOW Ho Y made a few remarks; and protest were appended the names of 25 clergymen, 60 attornies, 40 then physicians, 135gentlemen, 2 hankers, 80 merebants, and of all the officers Lord PALMERSTON replied to SOI/le parts of Lord Dudley Stuart's of the borough except the Low Bailiff. He admitted there had speech. He denied that there was any occasion for such fear of been some mislahes, and he had scratched out some names. The petition Russia. The true policy of this country was to keep at peace, though was sent round to pot-houses for signature; children were seen to sign never to suffer insult or injury. The treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was a name after name without the authority or presence of any one. (Shouts dead letter, and he had no objection to produce a copy of it ; but he of laughter.) Ile would leave the Home to say to which document, bad not " sufficient possession" of the treaty of St. Petersburg, and the protest or the petition, the most respect should be paid. could not produce that document. With regard to the correspondence Mr. O'CONNELL said, that was exactly the question— on these subjects, as we bad resolved not to go to war, it would be Here were 20,000 signatures on the one hand: to be sure they were those of inconvenient and impolitic to rip up small differences ; and he hoped the the rabble, according to the Member for Warwickshire—a familiar name for House would not press for these papers. Lord Palmerston concluded Englishmen at present. ( (heers, and repeated cries of " Oli, oh !") On the by saying, that Ministers had their attention fixed on what was passing other hand was the protest of the honourable gentleman, among the 2000 sig.- abroad ; that the independence of Turkey would be preserved ; that natures to which he candidly admitted that there were some mistakes, which be they would not plunge the country into unnecessary war, but maintain heti scratched out. Mistakes -neant forgeries. Here were 20,000 signatures peace as long as they could. attached to a petition when nobody WTh by; and this happened, not in Potato-

Dr. Bowaiso said, that Russia had in herself too many elements of

weakness to be the formidable power she was described to be. Perhaps they asked for what he thought was unreasonable—a change -in the hlr. ROBINSON observed that Mr. A ttwood would find little support House of Lords; hut Englishmen hall a right to ask for any organic change that in his warlike proposals. No doubt, Birmingham would like a war very they thought necessary for their liberty. If they thought that there ought to well for a year or two; but after it was over, Birmingham would be no irresponsible power in the state, the People had a right to say so, arol grumble as much as any place at coming in for her share of the increased to petition the House on the seliject, provided they expressed their sentiments taxation. in iespectful language. The men of I3irmingham were entitled to entertain Mr. POUI.ETT Toomson denied that the Prussian league was formed their opinion, the honourable Member to retain his, as to the House of Lords or any other subject. But having been received with high honour at Birming- under Russian influence, or for Russian purposes. It was a German ham —(Laughter from the Opposition, followed by cheers from the Minis- league, and was advantageous to the German States. The duties on terial benches)—he feht bound to say that he saw 2000 individuals at a meet- British products were on the average but little higher than the old ones; ing in that town who appeared to him to be quite as respectable as the honour- and then there was the advantage of getting rid of ten or fifteen different able Meinber—as intelligent, as discriminating."

customhouse tariffs. Russia had recently imposed higher duties on the Mr. SCettLETT declared, that, in his opinion, the persons who asked imports from this country—which he regretted ; but still it must be re- for these organic reforms were traitors to the Slate. membered, that this was not done till a long period after our duties on The petition was laid on the table.

her corn and timber had been imposed. MINERAL TITHES. Lord JOHN RUSSELL mentioned, on Wednes- Sir R. INGLIS, Sir E. CODRINGTON, Lord SANDON, Mr. ROEBUCK, day, that he had determined to make mineral tithes the subject of a Sir STRATFORD CANNING, Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, and Mr. EWART measure distinct from that which he introduced last week, and which each spoke briefly ; and Lord DUDLEY STUART consented to call for would be read% second time on Monday next. the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi only, and not to press to a division his POOI.E MUNICIPAL ELECTION. Mr. JOHN BLACKBURNE moved,- raotion for the other papers. So, the motion for a copy of that treaty on Wednesday, for a Committee to inquire into the circumstances at..

was agreed to. tending the late election of Town-Councillors at Poole. He men-

PORT or LONDON. On Monday, a Select Committee of the House and that the conduct of the Mayor had been highly improper. The mo- of Commons for the regulation of the Port of London was appointed, lion, however, was withdrawn, in order to give time for the printing of a on the motion of Mr. POOLE?? Tuonsow. petition from Poole on this matter ; and Mr. BLACKBURNE said he should IRISH POOR. Mr. POULETT SCROPE obtained leave, on Monday, bring the subject under the notice of the House again on Monday. to bring in a bill for the Relief and Employment of the Destitute Poor In the course of the brief conversation which arose on Mr. Black- of Ireland. Lord MORPETH did not object to the introduction of the burne's motion, Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK mentioned, that he should bill, on the understanding that it was not to be proceeded with at pre- take no part in the discussion, as he was retained for one of the parties sent ; as it was the intention of Government to bring forward a motion which had relation to this subject in the Courts below. Mr. HUMS

on the subject during the present session. Mr. O'CONNELL said— sttongly reprobated this resolution of Sir F. Pollock: if his example He believed it would be utterly impossible to find employment for the people

at the public expense; because, if individual capital were not sufficiently inte- from voting against any person who chose to retain them. He thought rested in that employment, it would be impossible out of the public funds to that Parliament ought not to be precluded from examining any matter pay the able-bodied wages. The defect in the statute of Elizabeth was the because it was under litigation ; as, in that case, all that a person Inane attempt to support the able bodied by public wages. He respectfully submitted to do to set Parliament at defiance, was to go into a court of justice. Ile the honourable Member who intended bringing in the Bill, the propriety of Mr. WYNNE strongly approved of Sir F. Pollock's conduct. meta generally, and assured the House that the procee dings of Sir separating the two branches—reliel aie. :, i yatents As to the i. ;.. I uf tes William Nicola)+, who succeeded Sir Charles Colville, lied restored poor, s ion. measure should be alined b. t ie ifouse—eouse relief should this Comparative tranquillity to the island, and that justice would now be sesaion be afforded to them. As to the iu her part of the hill, the employment

a l

practical good would result from the labours of the Committee. !nisi' CORPORATION REFORNI. I. bill for the Reform of the Dr. LIMMINOTON. Mr. C. BULLER, and Mr. F. BUXTON supported Irish Munitipalities was real n first t •ae on Tuesday, on the motion o_ _ allIsOGIII.EN. the A ttornev• G at r. _'_ nil for Ireland. Sir Romer slaves, carried on in the Mauritius.— PEEL proposed that the hill shmild e •-- that stage without debate or

to e

It had existed in the colony a great many years, to such an extent, that the explanation, and thet an outline of l measure should b given tat the

t Oleg . o the excitement of the house,

to live there without wiineasing its existence. lie would beg the House to bear after the Carlow discussion, ue the esson for avoiding debate on the in mind this state of thing% and to recollect the fact, that of allthe mIscreauts first reading. engaged in the traffic, not one single individual war ever convicted—not one ASSESSED TAXES. In reply to i. question from Mr. HUME, ort aeolinay, Mr. SPRING Him: said, it a a- ititended to do awn), with the practice of giving tax-collectors a la.rventage on surcharges, and to

pay them u regular salary.

plicated was released. He knew an individual who wag accessory to the cap- Divoneye. Air- TOOKE brought ferward a motion on Monday, the t Sure of one who had been engaged in the slavetrade, and who met the offender Divorce-bills at a certain stage should be referred to a Select Commit- s few hours after; walking in the public market.place. Though a rebellion tee, and thus the disguating practire id taking evidence ht the bar be broke out twenty-one years ago, not a mingle individual who took part in it Wil9 discontinued. Several Members, int-biding Dr. LUSHINGTON, Sir R. brought to punishment. He believed that no one not resident in the colony PEEL, EEL, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, agteed !hat the subject required con- ic', better infortned tut to the affairs of the Mauritine than he was; and lie sideration, but objected to the plait of Mr. TOOKE as ineffactive ; and declared that, amongst those who had countenanced the slave.trade, lie hardly

the motion was evithdrawn.

while it was certain that he never was censured at home : on the other hand, that CANADA. Mr. ROEBUCK, On Monday, Withdrew Ill motion of which man WII9 not known who, having faithfully and fearlessly discharged public he had given for a copy of the leen notions to the Canadiat. Commis- duty by enforcing the laws, was not ruined by to doing. He would not now skitters, on understanding nom eia- raairge Grey that it would be in- The Irouse divided; aad rejected the motion, by 2-27 to 69. The House of Assembly bad shown that they were actuated by the most honest and ardent wish to promote the iiitere-ts of the colony. As, however, there was now a fair prospect of adjusting the differences between this country Last night, Lord DUDLEY STUART moved for copies of the treaty of and Canada, he thought that while negotiations were still pending, it would be Unkiar Skelessi, dated 8th July 1833, of the treaty of St. Petersburg, extremely injudicions, anti might lead to great inetnivenienee, if the instruction* dated the 29th January 1834, and several papers and letters connected given to the Commissioners were to be mad, public. with these treaties!, and the British reletions with Russia. In moving Mr. BUCKINGHAM'S CLAIMS. On Tuesday, Mr. TULE obtained for these, he delivered a speech on the subject of Russian aggrandize- leave to bring in a bill to compensate Mr. Buckingham for his alleged meta, which occupies four or five columns of the Morning Chronicle. losses in India.

BIRMINGHAM PETITION. Mr. TIloMAS ATTWOOD, on Tuesdays- and a half, to the present time ; and foretold that, without a cheek presented a petition from the Birmingham Liberals, in favour of a on the part of England, she would sewn be mistress of the Sound Reform of the House of Peers, and it Ito titer Reform of the House and the Dardanelles. She would soon afterwards attack Italy ; and, of Commons, and of the Irish Chinch. The number of signatures, uniting a Dutch and American fleet with her own fleet of 100 sail of all of which were unsolicited, amounted to 20,000 ; and the petition the line, menace England herself. The danger to our Indian empire emanated from a meeting summoned I.y ;lie Political Union, in caner- from the future conversion of Persia into a Russian province—the lore quence of the assertions of the Tories that the opinions of the people of our trade in the Levant—its injury by the Prussian, which was in of ldirmitigham in regard to Reform had undergone a change. That fact it Russian, league—and the insolent treatment of Lord Durham this was untrue, the terms of the petition demonstrated.

Mr. THOMAS Arrw000 was eager to see the Russian barbarians ;Jr. Due:DALE denied that the seetiments of the respectable inbabi-

shire, but at Birmingham. (Laughter. ) The People of England ought not to be treated with ridicule such as the honourable Member had employed.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS. tioned several facts which proved that great irregularities bad prevailed,

were generally followed, most eminent lawyers might be prevented

Rrcosu Ciimuussiou. Ms. C..flARLES BULLER moved, OD Thurs- day, for a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Cora- taiKsioners of Pohl's? Records., and into the state of those records. All hough in England and het and Record Commissioners hod cost the country between 600,0001. r.114 7(X),000/., the bush as %las not well done—could hardly be said to be done at all. What was the state of those important public tioeutnetits which the Ccminis.eioners had charge of ?— Smile were at the Tower, some at Somerset House, where they were kept in long, low, under-1r.)11nd vawits. Occasionally fires were lighted for the purpose of dispelling toe damp, mal the result was that they were alternately damp and dry, the destructive effects of which changes he need hardly point eat—he fared they might have operated extensively already. One gentleman connected with the ernwof them stud it was not w;thout danger of rhearnatism they could be touched, and he therefere never ventured to touch them. At the News, where there was mother collection of these eriblic documents, they were kept, not in rolls. new according to designation, which might be 'expected in each matters, hut ii ticks, containing .o many bushels each—he believed it was eight bushels to each sack, and the tricks were 560 in number. The records to which he was now allueisg had previously been kept, as the House might re- member, in the temporary sheds which till lately stood in Westminster Hall.

At the fire in the Parliament Houses, a quantity of records were pushed into the streets, and had since been disposed of by the labourers employed about the works—some were converted into glue, others by the confectioners into jelly. Mr. Inner mentioned several instances of the laziness, carelessness, and extravagance of the Commissioners. Mr. WYNNE and Sir ROBERT INGLIS defended the Commissioners. Sir Rohett was quite willing that the charges should be investigated, and he was sure they would be found to be groundless. • Mr. HUME and Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the motion; and the Committee was appointed.

BRIBERY AND INTIMIDATION. The Committee on Bribery and In, timidation, which sat lust session, was reappointed, on the motion of Mr. ORD, last night.

LORD SIDMOUTH'S PENSION. Mr. SPRING RICE informed the Router, last night, that Lord Sidmouth had relinquished his pension of 3000/. a year. Mr. Hume highly commended Lord Sidneouth's con- duct, and took occasion to laud Marquis Camden also. Sir E. Co- IMINGTON mentioned, that Mr. Marsden, formerly Secretary to the Admiralty, had given up his retiring pension of 1500/. a year.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS. On the motion of Mr. Fox Meuee, last night, the bill for the Consolidation of Turnpike Trusts was read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Mr. HOME presented a petition, last night, against the Newspaper Stamp-tax. He said the sale of unstamped papers was still on the increase, although there had been 729 prosecu- tions since 1831, 215-of them being between March 1834 and Septem- ber 1835.