Debatts nub tlroutbings in VarliamEnt.

STATE OF IRELAND: THE ARMS BILL.

In the noose of Commons, on Monday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM was baited with questions by several Members, to ascertain whether, in dismissing Magistrates from the Commission of the Peace for attending Repeal meetings, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had acted on the receipt cf communications from Downing Street. Sir James replied, that the Lord Chancellor, on his appointment, was in- structed to use all his powers to discourage any attempt to dissolve the Legis- lative Union between the two countries. The Lord Chancellor had made the communication to Lard Ffnneh and other Magistrates, in consequence of the declarations against Repeal made by Ministers in Parliament. Mr. Tientsin- TON asked whether Sir Edward Sugden acted then on the newspaper reports of those declarations? Sir JAMES GRAHAM only repeated his answer. Mr. WYSE asked whether Magistrates were to be dismissed for attending public dinners ? Sir TAXES GRAHAM would not answer to hypothetical- cases : gentlemen had been dismissed from the Magistracy for attending public dinners and drinking certain toasts, by a former Government. (Cheers.) Sir JAMES GRA.HAM having moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Arms (Ireland) Bill, Lord EmoT explained the nature of the measure—a of the bill was to amend, consolidate, and continue the laws now .1&det. but which were about to expire. The subject of the possession of 'eland, and of the importation of arms into that country, had been eel by:kasv for a period of nearly fifty years; and, beginning with the the' Geo. IlL c. 2, prepared by a namesake of Lord Eliot's but a introduced by Sir Arthur Wellesley as chief Secretary for o. merated the successive enactments which have modified the e last introduced by Lord Morpeth in 1838, and now about to expire. Lord Eliot admitted that the state af Ireland had changed in the fifty years: for the original Arms Bill was supported by Mr. Sheridan, as

necessary to maintain the connexion of the two countries ; and by Mr. Grat- tan, on the ground of the menacing attitude assumed by France at that time ; and he recommended three ulterior remedies for the state of Ireland,—general education of the people, commutation of tithes, and Catholic emancipation. The present measure was more analogous to that proposed by Lord Morpeth. He admitted that it imposed a restraint on the liberty of the subject, only to be

justified by paramount necessity. It was proposed, however, to remove a dis-

ability imposed on Catholics in the time of William the Third, subsequently relaxed, and supposed to be removed by the Catholic Relief Bill ; but opinions as to the fact vary : it is a question whether Catholics not possessing a certain amount of property can carry arms like their Protestant brethren ; and the bill would place Catholics on an equal footing with Protestants. Lord Eliot proceeded to bring evidence of the necessity of the bill. He first quoted the following passage from a communication by Colonel Macgregor, a gentleman who was at the bead of the Constabulary force, and who had the highest character among the Members of that House for conduct unbiassed by his private opinions, whatever they might be. ("Hear!" from Mr. Shed.) Colonel Macgregor wrote thus —" I have forwarded to the Irish office, accord- ing to your wish, numerous Constabulary reports connected with the illegal possession of arms ; and I may embrace this opportunity of expressing my conviction that an amendment of the present Arms Act is imperatively called for. There can be no question, from the information I have received, that vast numbers of unregistered arms are in the hands of the people, and are fre- quently applied, as the reports of crime will show, to the worst purposes. Few of the parties engaged in house-attacks, or in visiting houses by night, either for objects of revenge or intimidation, go unarmed ; and I conceive that the

possession of arms by all such tends in many instances to stimulate them to outrages of a character which they might not venture to perpetrate were they not thereby inspired with additional confidence. Though it be highly credit- able to the Irish peasantry, that amidst their extreme poverty and destitution they rarely are guilty of robbery in its usual form, yet, such is their vehement desire for the possesion of fire-arms, that there is no risk to which they will not expose themselves for the sake of obtaining them. Hence the frequent robberies and demands of arms, and the violent struggles and assaults that are the consequence. Besides, it is supposed, and I fear with reason, that some of the most murderous deeds are carried into effect by means of registered arms, that have been lent from fear, or favour, or even more questionable motives. Yet the present enactment makes no provision for identifying such arms. A man, indeed, may be detected with an unregistered arm, and be made to suffer the penalty due to such an offence; but, unless the arms be branded, it seems

impossible to trace them to their owners, and thereby discover whether they have been either improperly lent or stolen. Under the present act a constable may meet the greatest ruffian in his county with a gun in his hand, which he is

morally certain is not registered, at least in his own name ; yet he has no power to detain him, nor to summon him with a reasonable prospect of procuring a

conviction. Searches, too, for arms are rendered comparatively so ineffectual

by the circuitous, and in some parts of the country the almost impracticable process required by the act, that the chief advantage of undertaking them

seems to consist in the expectation that the arms in the district so visited will

be secreted, for some time in bogs and similar places of concealment, where they will become unserviceable. Without entering, however, into the details

of the proposed bill, which I have seen, I may confidently express an opinion,.

in which I am persuaded the resident Magistrates generally as well as the officereof the force will concur, that unless greater difficulties be opposed to

persons of bad character manufacturing, vending, or otherwise disposing of or obtaining arms, and greater facilities be presented for tracing the ownership of all arms, it will be quite impossible for the Constabulary, with their utmost

exertions, effectually to prevent, or even materially to diminish, the evils

arising from the unlawful multiplication of arms in the country." Colonel Miller, the next in authority to Colonel Macgregor, who has for fifteen. years been in the habit of classifying the returns of crime, described the facility given to outrage by the possession of arms, and pronounced existing enact- ments of restraint inadequate. Lord Eliot read extracts from the Police re- ports, enumerating many of the cases of violence with fire-arms reported its

the papers within the last few years ; beginning a list of assassinations with that of Lord Norbury on the 1st day of 1839. The average number of criminal

offenders committed to gaol in England and Wales in the last five years, and acquitted, was 23 per cent ; whilst in Ireland the average number of acquittals was 53 per cent. Lord Eliot explained some particular provisions of the bill. All fire-arms, for whatever purpose, in the possession of individuals, are to be registered, and their owners licensed, under certain regulations, with penalties for non-

compliance. With respect to the possession of unlawful arms, as pikes and daggers, the existing law imposes a punishment of a twelvemonth's imprison-

ment for the first offence and transportation for the second, without discretion to the Judge : by the hill, a discretionary power would be given to the Judge, as no minimum of punishment would be fixed; and if the accused could show that the arms were deposited in his house without his knowledge or sanction, lie would be altogether exempt. Instead of the warrant of two Justices in order to search districts for arms, which is required by the existing law, and which in practice has been found inconvenient, one Justice is to grant a search- warrant; in which, however, the Police, to whom it is intrusted, are to be named. And it was proposed to give to the Lord-Lieutenant power to issue his war- rant to certain members of the Constabulary force not below the rank of Sub-

Inspector, which was that of an officer in a regiment. The existing law for- bids the purchase of more than two pounds of gunpowder at a time, of any one

dealer, but does not prevent the purchase of that quantity from each of any number of dealers : the bill would abolish that restriction, but would impose a penalty on the selling of gunpowder to any person not licensed to purchase it. The term of imprisonment on the non-payment of such fines would be reduced from two to one month.

MY. SHARMAN CRAWFORD opposed the bill—

The time was come when Ireland should be governed by good legislation and not by coercion : but the bill, providing that licence to possess fire-arms should only be granted on certificate from two householders, would have the effect of

placing it in the power of Protestant householders to prevent the Catholics from procuring arms. Mr. Crawford proceeded to condemn as unjust and op- pressive other parts of the bill : the requiring every person in whose possession arms are found to disprove a guilty knowledge; the inquisition by constables meeting persons with arms in their hands; the power to commit persons to

gaol on merely being accounted auspicious; the penalty for the indefinite

offence of possessing "any weapon capable of being used as a pike or spear ": and in all these cases thel*vidence of one witness would suffice to convict I

Lord Eliot had shown himself to be influenced by the most superficial views

respecting the state of Irelarid:'% why should the people desire to have arms? was it judicious to war with the symptom instead of destroying tile cause ? A far better plan than an Arms Bill would be to ameliorate the condition of the

people ; and the evil lies in the relation of landlord and tenant. What other causes of complaint have been removed? There is still the Law Church, with

tithes : a Poor-law has been attempted, but calculated to give no satisfaction. Mr. Crawford urged the certainty that Ireland would be beat subdued by equal laws, good institutions, kindness, and impartiality of legislation; and he con-

eluded by moving as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord CLEMENTS seconded the amendment—

Be only regretted that the amendment was not "that the Sergeant-at- Arms be ordered to kick this bill out of doors." At the same time he bore testimony to the straightforward manner in which it had been introduced, instead of being smuggled through the House as former bills of the kind had been. Why had not Lord Eliot, however, identified himself rather with some bill for the improvement of Ireland—one to amend the abuses of the Manor. Courts, or to amend the Grand Jury laws ? Where was the Registration Act ? the Petit-Sessions Act? the Charitat le Loan Fund Act ?

But this measure was not needed. During the last two years, outrages had been considerably on the decrease. He felt himself as secure in Ireland as in England, without any such measure as this. Had there been no outrages in England ? Let honourable gentlemen look at Manchester. Nay, had not people been shot in the streets of London in open day ? Let them recollect the melancholy case of Mr. Drummond. Not long ago, a clergyman was shot at, in the neighbourhood of London, through his window, when retiring to rest. Let them recollect the outrages committed on the person of the Sovereign. But did those outrages lead to any bill of pains and penalties on England? No : murder, in England, was assumed to be committed by madmen; in Ire- land, by Roman Catholics. Sir Robert Peel had enacted a whipping at the cart's tail for firing at the Queen ; but the life of a squireen in Tipperary being of more importance, the Irish were to have this Arms Bill. In debating the Coercion Bill in 1833, Sir Robert boasted that his language had always been, a Try the ordinary laws; there is great evil in coercive measures ": and Lord Clements believed, to continue in Sir Robert Peel's words, that the present measure would " widen the breach between the richer classes, for whose protection, and the poorer classes, for whose punishment, it appeared to be in- tended." In 1832, Lord Stanley condemned the Clare Magistrates because they asked for extraordinary measures; and they succeeded in repressing disturbances by the diligent exercise of the ordinary law : he believed that the same could be done now. He could inform the House, that when he had made application for the surrender of arms in his neighbourhood, they had at once been given up to him ; and he wished to ask honourable gentlemen opposite, whether, if they required the poachers on their pre- serves to give up their arms, they would comply with such a request ? Lord Clements said that the existing Arms Act is so little enforced, that not a blacksmith's forge is registered: but if it had been so unnecessary to enforce such odious laws, why revive them, when there is no pretence that the dangers threaten the country which existed in 1796? In 1819, the Arms Act was allowed to expire ; but all Ireland was not shot, nor did any insurrection take place. In 1830, a time analogous to the present, Lord Stanley introduced an Arms Bill, and withdrew it ; in 1831, it was revived for one year ; and subse- quently renewed by a continuance bill. By way of showing the extraordinary degree of coercion which had been adopted towards Ireland, he would give a sketch of the coercive measures which had been passed from time to time. From 1796 to 1802, the Insurrection Act was in force. Martial law was esta- blished from 1803 to 1805; the Insurrection Act from 1807 to 1810, from 1814 to 1818, from 1822 to 1823, from 1823 to 1825; but there it stopped. Then came the Courts-Martial; then a mitigated Coercion Act from 1834 to 1835; then the Habeas Corpus Act suspended from 1797 to 1802, from 180$ to 1806, and again in 1822; and there was also the White Boy Act in operation for one year. Experience had shown that coercion acts were of no use in govern- ing Ireland ; and during no period of its history had the country been so amenable to the laws as since 1835. But if arms must be taken up, why not tall in those which have been intrusted by Government itself to the Yeomanry, and which are used for the most mischievous purposes, and pass into different hands, sometimes even being raffled for? Mr. BarasoN was no friend to coercion, or to the suppression of dis- cussion; but this bill would not fetter discussion; and as to increasing disaffection, he believed that those who were disaffected were hopelessly so. But after this strong measure of correction, the patient would need nourishment, in the shape of measures to provide employment for the people of Ireland.

Mr. SHELL condemned the measure—

Be contended, speaking particularly of Tipperary, with which he is well acquainted, that the want is, not an Arms Bill, but a less impotent adminis- tration of justice. Offences of a class which are prosecuted by the local soli- citor before the Assistant-Barrister have greatly decreased: but at the Assizes

the prosecutions are conducted by a gentleman of great ability, it is true, but one quite unacqurinted with local circumstances and with the witnesses ; and, hurried about from town to town, he is unable to do otherwise than hastily prepare briefs for counsel: on the other hand, they are met by counsel amply instructed by local solicitors, by whom every imaginable expedient for the frustration of the Crown is employed. Another want is, adequate protection for witnesses : spies are employed by Government, but honest witnesses have no protection. Some years ago, the house of a person of the name of Crawford was attacked, and he was beaten almost to death : he was afraid to prosecute : he lived in the neighbourhood of Mr. Sheil, who obtained from the Government an under- taking that he and his family should be sent to one of the Colonies, and should be provided for : he was prevailed on to prosecute, justice was done, and a most useful example made. Again, the attendance of Protestants and Roman Catholics of station and influence on Petit Juries should be enforced. Such means would be better than an Arms Bill : for an Arms Bill will not deter the wretch who is not appalled at murder; and if murder be lucrative, he will easily evade the law that deprives him of the more noisy implements of his trade.

But his main objection to the bill was founded on the distinction between Ireland and England which it established. " ' Repeal the Union—restore the Ileptarclayl' Thus exclaimed George Canning:, and stamped his foot as he gave utterance to what he regarded as a comparison in absurdity which has been often cited. But that exclamation may be turned to an account different from that to which it is applied. Restore the Heptarehy—repeal the Union. Good. But take up the map of England, and mark the Saxon subdivisions into which this your noble island was once distributed; and then suppose that in this assembly of wise men—this Imperial Parliament—you were to ordain that there should be one law in what once was the kingdom of Kent, and another in what once was the kingdom of Mercia; that in Essex there should be one municipal franchise, and in Sussex there should be another ; that among the East Angles there should be one Parliamentary franchise, and in Wessex there should be another ; and that while through the rest of the island the Bill of Rights should be regarded as the inviolate and inviolable charter of British liberty, in the kingdom of Northumberland an Arms Bill, by which the ele- mentary principles of British freedom should be set at nought, should be enacted : would you not say that the restoration of the Heptarchy could scarcely be more preposterous ?" Nor would the English endure such a mea- sure. In 1819, an English Arms Bill, one of the Six Acts, was proposed by Lord Castlereagh: it was comprised in a single page; while Lord Eliot's bill was a whole volume of coercion : in the English act no penalty was inflicted for the possession of arms ; under the Irish bill an Irishman could be trans- ported for seven years for having arms in his possession. Yet when the Eng- kA bill was proposed, Lord Grey entered a strong protest against it in the House of Lords ; and in the House of Commons, Henry Brougham—not Lord Brougham—asked if he was an Englishman, and offered up an aspiration that the people would rise up in a simultaneous revolt and sweep away the Go- vernment by which a great sacrilege upon the constitution had been perpe- trated. What would he have said—how would Lord Castlereagh have been blasted by the lightning and appalled by the thunder of his eloquence, if a bill had been brought forward, under which the blacksmiths of England should be licensed, under which the registry of arms was made dependent.on a bench of capricious Magisterial partisans, under which an Englishman might be trans- ported for seven years, for exercising the privilege secured to him by the Bill of Rights ? Lord Eliot said that the measure originated with the Whigs : the Whigs prepared a measure of coercion and relief; the Tories turned them out on the measure of relief, and of the measure of coercion took a conservative care.

Alluding to Sir Robert Peel's use of the Queen's name, Mr. Sheil read a letter from Lord John Russell, written by command of the Queen on her accession to the throne, to Lord Normanby, approving of his policy ; and he contrasted the spectacle which Ireland now presents with that which It then offered to the contemplation of the Sovereign. He concluded by exhorting Sir Robert Peel to follow out in Ireland the policy which he had pursued in

Canada.

Mr. T. B. C. SMITH defended the measure— Mr. Shell did not oppose the similar bill whEn it was introduced by Lord. Morpeth ; and though Mr. Hume did, only one Irish Member supported hint. Remarking that the year after the letter which Mr. Sheil had read was written the Precursor Society was formed in Dublin, Mr. Smith called for a. eb!hnition of " Justice to Ireland." According to the claims of the Repe.,..rs, it Includes " manhood suffrage," abolition of the tithe, rent-charge or spoliation of the- Established Church, " fixity of tenure," or transfer of the fee-simple from the landlord to the occupying tenant, abolition of the Grand Jury ccss, short- ening of Parliaments, and confiscation of the property of absentees.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL took occasion to compare the policy of the late Government and of the present- " No doubt, a bill was introduced in 1838 in many respects similar to the pre- sent, and continued in 1840 and 1841 ; but the whole policy with which those bills were connected was different The late Government had to deal with a country which had long been misgoverned—in which not only the laws, but the habits and opinions of their administrators, were at variance with the main- tenance of order, and with the social happiness of the people. The change which was to he produced was to be a change inducing the people of that country to confide in the law for the redress of their injuries. Such a change— a change the most desirable in itself—was not to be effected by any single act of the Legislature, or by one, or two, or three years of administration. It must be the work of various measures—of a considerable lapse of time—of the greatest caution, and I must add, of the kindest disposition of those who were intrusted with the administration of the law in Ireland. Lord Normanby and Lord Morpeth deemed it their duty from time to time to continue the laws relative to the possession of arms, though they did not regard them as constitutional: but they did not think that it was consistent with their duty, that while more beneficial changes were going on, those who were dishonest, those who were accustomed to disregard the law, should be allowed to continue active in assaults upon life and property, until the ultimate effects of these changes should have been realized." Many measures were begun by his late lamented friend Sir Michael O'Loghlen, whose views were directed to an effectual and constitutional enforcement of the law : one change was, not to deprive the people of any party or religion from serving on the Jury by which the wrongs of.their countrymen were to be redressed ; another was, placing in the Commission of the Peace men who had the confidence of the people, who would induce them to repose more trust in the law and to leave off faction-fights. Beyond that, the Marquis of Normanby had so governed, by command of the Queen, as to win the good feelings and sympathies of Ireland. "Why, Sir, by such methods we might gradually but surely induce the Irish people to confide in the ordinary administration of the law, to confide in the administration of the law as it is usually administered in England, until from time to time you could let go and part with these extraordinary measures, which must be a reproach to this country, and which must be an ni,grateful task to any person—I am sure it is to the present Government—to bring for- ward." But when Mr. Smith talked of this measure as one of the late Govern- ment's, bad the majority of their measures been persisted in ? Had the sympathies of the people of Ireland been gained ? had persons been selected for the Bench who felt for and with the majority ? and even now, were Ministers not pressing forward measures with respect to the Magistracy which would add to that feeling of alienation which their predecessors had done some- thing to do away with. If you deprive some men of their poweras Magistrates because they have attended meetings which the highest law authority in Ire- land seems to declare not to be illegal—if you thereby invite martyrdom upon the part of the others for similar acts—if you place the popularity of men known to the people upon being deprived of the Commission of the Peace—you will again widely separate all those who have to administer justice from the people among whom it is to be administered. Don't tell me that the Arms Act rests entirely upon any precedent afforded by the late Government. If you take this as a specimen of the doings of the late Government, I uish you would imitate them in other respects." After expressing his confidence in the good motives of Lord Eliot and Lord De Grey, (of whom, however, he knew less,) he asked whether it did not somehow happen, with respect to the mass of the Administration, that the Government of Ireland is the government of a small minority, from which the great majority are excluded; and that the Irish have not a government equally impartial with that of Canada? Seeing the continued necessity for the measure, he did not intend to vote against the second reading ; but if it was a sample of the measures by which Ireland was to be governed, he thought that before long the House should address the Crown, or take some other mode of expressing its opinion as to the government of Ireland. As to the Union, he thought the arguments in its favour so strong that he had no fear of their being discussed. Lord John alluded to the unfair conduct which the late Government re- ceived from the party opposed to them, when every news of fresh outrage in Ireland was hailed with a sort or cheer; though now it is confessed that those outrages were not the effect of any party or political movement, but belonged to the social condition of Ireland. The Ministers were defeated ; but the Irish

people did not withdraw their confidence. "I da'think," said Lord John as he drew to a conclusion, "it a remarkable proof of the generous disposition of that people, that although our legislative measures were defeated, yet by means

of our administration—by the novelty of a fair and impartial administration of affairs in Ireland—that confidence and support was never withdrawn from us while we remained in power. I do believe, that in the course of a considerable

period those reforms which we began did much to improve the social condition

of the people ; and most disappointed I shall be if I find that the present Go- vernment show not only a disposition to refuse the measures which they con- sider inconsistent with their principles, but if I End that, beside this they are going back towards the point from which we commenced; and, that without any fear (for I have no fear) of civil war or of insurrection, the result of their government is, that the people of Ireland and England are alienated from each

other, and that the Union which by act of Parliament is established is not

established in the hearts of the people." (Loud cheers, ui which thelesh Mem- bers twhemieverly joined.)

The debate was adjourned near one o'clock on Tuesday morning.

It was taken up next evening by Mr. Ross; who contended that the language at the Repeal meetings was proved to be harmless, as it had not been followed by a single insult to a " Saxon " ; and he ex-

horted Ministers, instead of continuing the Arms Bill, rather to remove it from the statute-book, and treat the Irish as brothers. Mr. STAFFORD

O'BRIEN did not consider the conduct of Government towards Ireland blameless—the measure of last session had increased illicit distillation, and some explanation was due respecting the delayed Registration Bill ,• but be approved of the present bill, as suited to the circumstances of Ireland. It would disarm the turbulent, protect the peaceable farmer and peasant from nocturnal violence, and the girl with a small portion

from abduction. Mr. REortioToN somewhat varied previous arguments against the bill. Colonel CONOLLY, as a Magistrate of many years' standing, bore testimony to its necessity. Mr. CAREW was for con- ciliation and protection of Ireland, rather than oppression by so strin- gent a measure. Lord BERNARD, supporting the measure, attacked the late Government, and imputed the evils of Ireland to a system of agitation ; and also in a great degree to the bad construction of the Poor-law, and to its administration being mixed up with politics. Mr. NtruLlAm &Errs 0-BarEN opposed the bill, on the general principle of the inequality which it would operate on Ireland as compared with England. He pronounced the only alternative of rebellion—victory over which would be almost as bad as defeat—to be ample justice to Ireland ; and he doubted whether this Government could give it. The bill would do the reverse of what Mr. Stafford O'Brien expected : it would disarm the peaceable, but the lawless would defy it. A check must be put on the exterminating system of landlords : Lord Hawarden, for instance, was said to have turned nearly 200 families from his estates in a certain number of years. Mr. Bianconi (the car-proprietor, who holds a large contract under Government) on reading the bill, had sent a subscription to the Repeal Association. Captain LAYARD de- nounced the bill as an insult to Ireland, and apprehended the most mis- chievous effect on the excitable people. Mr. WATSON recommended kindness as more powerful than coercion. Lord CLA.UDE HAMILTON vindicated the necessity of the measure.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER did not so much look to the specific pro- visions, as to the hands in which the measure fell : he should not op- pose it in Lord Morpeth's hands— In effect, all such measures had been wholly unsuccessful : they disarmed the victim, but no man lacked arms who wanted them for the purposes of murder. A different policy was needed to disarm the tendency to insurrection. No man could be blind to the fact that the recent accounts from Ireland were calculated to inspire the utmost terror. Such an organization against Govern- ment as now existed in Ireland had never before existed in any country with- out succeeding in the object for which it was called into existence. The mem- bers of that organization, which comprehended nine out of ten of the people of Ireland, appeared determined to reject all offers of good government from this country. It was clear that they had no confidence in the Imperial Legis- lature, and that nothing but a separate Legislature would satisfy them. Of course there was no English Member who would think of saying a word in faeour of any such measure. What Englishman would think of raising up a hostile neighbour instead of a nation of friendly fellow-subjects ? And if the English nation were indisposed to any separation, how much more ought the weaker part of the empire to view with horror the possible consequences of so disastrous an event. For the last two centuries the English Government in Ireland had been the scandal of Europe. It was in vain to think by denying the offence they could remove the disgrace. He would appeal to the world in support of the assertion which he had made. In no place on the whole face of the earth was there a people so wretched in their physical condition as were the Irish, or one which suffered more deep and extensive deterioration than the condition of that unhappy people suffered during the present century. While the food of other peoples has improved, even the potato diet of the Irish has grown scantier in quantity and worse in quality. The conduct of the country gentlemen of Ireland formed the most striking contrast possible to the con- duct of the English country gentlemen. The Government of Ireland was not only destitute of the support of a resident gentry, hut without the support of any priesthood whatever. In Ireland there was an Established Church which was an insult to the people—a church which, endowed by our pious ancestors with large funds for the education of the people, spent those funds in purposes for which they never were designed, or in disgraceful absenteeism, or in still more deplorable residence. Government itself rejected the support of popular leaders, and chose for their appointments able Parliamentary supporters, but men who had no sympathy with the people. Mr. Buller exhorted Ministers to contrast their Canadian with their Irish policy.

Mr. Swaw would support the measure ; reserving his opinion as to details for consideration in Committee— He differed from Mr. Buller as to the causes of Irish discontent ; which he attributed mainly to distress, caused by the new Corn-law and Tariff, and stimulated by the Canada Corn Bill; next, to the organization of the Tem- perance movement, which simply in the hands of the Reverend Mr. Mathew was a blessing, hut which had been perverted from its purpose ; to the removal from office of the Whigs, who had acted as a drag upon the Repeal movement, by making it a ban to exclude the expectants of their party from office; and to the apathy of the Conservative party. Ile retorted upon the late Govern- ment the charge of partisan appointments; and descriued the Conservative surety in Ireland as amazed at the distrust shown to them by the present Go- vernment, and that Government's blindness to the agitation and its want of vigour. He had no fear of an outbreak, so long as the Repeal leaders could prevent it : but how long could they prevent it, with large multitudes orga- nized, armed, drilled, and animated by hatred of "the Saxon and the Dane "? In illustration of this, Mr. Shaw read some martial ballads from the Nation, a Repeal newspaper. As to the charge against Lord Hawarden, he read an answer on that noble- man's authority : " Of the whole 143 families mentioned by Mr. Davern, nine only have been ejected during the last eighteen years; and it was necessary to resort to the Sherifr is flaw cases only out of those nine, in one of which the tenant had no family residing on the land; 36 families included in his list have not been tenants of Lord Hawarden during the last twenty-one years; three families are twice mentioned; 29 left of their own accord, and received com- pensation on quitting; 22 exchanged for other holdings on the estate ; and 21 families held as under-tenantrto lessees, to whom they surrendered their lands, and not to Lord Hawarden ; which accounts in a summary manner for the whole of the 193 families mentioned by Mr. Davern, the details of each indi- vidual case being stated in the foregoing remarks opposite to their names." Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL characterized the bill as not an anodyne but a blister.

The adjournment of the debate was moved ; and, after a short di:- minion, agreed to. The bill—

first speaker on Wednesday was Mr. WYSE ; who opposed the Be regarded it not as a mere measure of police, but as a political measure. It might have been justified by some sudden emergency, some revolutionary outbreak ; but no case of temporary necessity was made out, the disease to be combated was chronic. He admitted the fact of the outrages enumerated by Lord Eliot ; but it was to be observed that they originated in a sense of local injury or general oppression. Nor was England ignorant of similar states of its people; as in 1839, when large assemblies of armed men met in Cheshire, Shrop- shire, Cornwall, Kent, and other counties. The Arms Bill would only ope- rate to disarm the peaceable ; and before resorting to such a measure, others should be tried, applicable to the causes of the present discontent. Foremost of those causes are, high rents, dispossession of tenants after long occupancy, and especially the mode of the dispossession by wholesale " clearances " of es- tates. Mr. Wyse described the method pursued by a landlord whom he knew, who made his tenants choose among themselves who should go and who should stay, and personally assisted those who went to emigrate to America. Arms Bills would not effect improvements in that way. He did not altogether blame the present Government for the state of Ire- land; they were the inheritors of a long system of misrule : but the people of Ireland are arrayed as two hostile armies, the rich and the poor against each other ; seven or eight millions cannot be ejected from their native land ; and it becomes necessary to govern the people of Ireland somewhat more in their own sense of the term. The Protestant Church must be put on a footing more suited to the wants and numbers of the Protestant population. The People of Ireland had not been placed upon an equality with their fellow sub- jects in England, either in their Reform Bill, in their Corporation Reform, or in their Church ; and, like the Lords of the Pale of Kilkenny, the people now said, " We will maintain inviolate the prerogatives of the Crown of England ; but as we also are subjects of that same Crown, we will not rest contented until we are free as Englishmen." The appointments of the Government had fur- ther insulted the people ; who, remembering also how those in power had op- posed recent acts of Parliament, feared their interpretation of the law. The only measures they bad introduced for Ireland were a bill to amend the Poor- law, further restricting the power of the people, and this Arms Bill.

The bill was advocated by Lord JOCELYN ; who ascribed the state of Ireland to those who fan the flame of discord ; and reviewed the history of the late Whig Administration, to show that their " conciliation " was only effectual while they did not thwart Mr. O'Connell's Views. Colonel VERNER defended the Yeomanry ; and contrasted the loyalty of the Orangemen, who relinquished their meetings on the expression of a wish from the Throne, confirmed by Parliament, with that of the Repealers. The bill was also supported by Mr. A. HOPE, Mr. BORTH- WICK, and Sir A. BROOKE; opposed by Mr. J. O'ButEN, Captain BERNAL, and the O'CoNon DoN. Lord SEYMOUR would not withhold his vote from the second reading. Mr. HAWES, though believing Sir Robert Peel the very last man to resort to harsh or violent measures, yet saw him bound to a party in Ireland ; and be took this bill, coupled with the appointments, as an indication that the Minister was reverting to the old system of governing Ireland by force. The bill must either be meant for that, or to repress crime ; but crime is actually on the decrease. Government must shortly deal with the master grievance of Ireland—a Church establishment adapted to a nation of Protestants in

a nation of Catholics. _

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that Mr. Hawes did Sir Robert Peel and the Government but justice in supposing them averse from harsh melt- sures : nothing but necessity made them propose a measure of the kind; and that necessity Sir James proceeded to vindicate — He admitted the right of British subjects to bear arms; but he cited Lord Eliot's statistics to show the great prevalence in Ireland of the homicidal class of crimes!: he quoted Mr. Shell's admissions that a higher class of persons than in England should be compelled to sit on Petit Juries, and that witnesses and even prosecutors must be carried out of the country, as proving the alarming state of society ; confirmed by Mr. Wyse, in describing it as like two hostile armies arrayed against each other. He reminded Members, that by voting for the present motion, they would not pledge themselves to the details, or to the newer,clauses, but they would only affirm the principle that it is necessary un- der the circumstances of Ireland that restraint should be put on the possession of arms. The bill was incorrectly described as disarming the people : it as- sumed that they should possess arms, but required that the possession of them should be so regulated that crime should be traced home to the perpetrators. He passed to a defence of the Administration in Ireland; beginning with the appointments. He admitted that Ministers were, generally speaking, bound to support their friends ; and with that limitation, be defied criticism of the persons appointed on professional grounds. The only Assistant-Barrister whom Mi- nisters have appointed is a Roman Catholic; the Keepership of the Custodies had been given to a Roman Catholic. Ministers have frankly carried out the system of National Education in Ireland ; and so little have they governed for the benefit of a party, that their political supporters accused them of" want of vigour "and "coldness." To show the inefficacy of the " conciliatorypolicy " urged as a panacea, Sir James called to mind that Catholic Emancipation in 1829, the recall of the Whigs to power in 1830, and the Reform Act in 1831, were fol- lowed by the Coercion Bill,—introduced, not by Lord Stanley, but by Lord Grey in the House of Lords, and afterwards by Lord Althorp in the House of Commons; the further concession of the Church Temporalities Bill, which re- duced the number of Bishops and diminished the number of pluralities, Na- tional Education, and the Municipal Reform Act, were followed by Lord Morpeth's Arms Bill in 1835,—unobjectionablein the eyes of Mr. C. Buller ; the appointments, of Mr. O'Loghlen to be Mader of the Rolls, of Mr. Shell, a teller on the motion for Repeal of the Union, to a seat in the Privy Council, and the offer of a seat on the bench to Mr. O'Connell himself, were succeeded by the Arms Bill in 1838; and the very last act of the Whig Government in 1841 was to continue that Arms Bill. Lord Fortescue was so impressed with the danger of the Repeal movement, that he felt compelled to denounce it. It was said that Government should consult the expressed popular will : what was it ? was it expressed at meetings like a recent one, in which the Duke of Wellington, whose fame Mr. Sheil described as "filling the whole world," was called by Mr. Thomas Steele] "a blood-stained Indian Sepoy " ? Was that a well-expressed popular opinion in Ireland? To refuse the bill at that critical moment, would be madness—worse, it would be cowardice and treachery.

The Earl of LISTOWEL having spoken in opposition to the measure, Mr. ROEBUCK rose— The Arms Bill, he said, could not be considered except in reference to the general policy of the Government towards Ireland, to the late Administration, and to the past history of the country. The present Ministry have hut trodden in the footprints of their predecessors, carrying out the principle upon which Ireland has been governed for centuries past; for Sir Robert Peel had missed the opportunity of stepping beyo al his predecessors in the race of liberality. (Mr. Roebuck here remarked twit not a single member of the late Adminis- tration was in the House, except Mr. Sheil ; "and he," added another Mem- ber, "was not in the Cabinet."J In that House, he was sorry to say, there were parties who took advantage of this measure for their own peculiar par-

. .

poses in different ways. Of those who might be considered as peculiarly the representatives of the Irish people, there were two very great sections. Mr. o'Connell, at the head of one of them, threw himself upon the masses of the Irish population, and identified himself with their feelings and prejudices—and passions, if they would have it so. And there was another section in that House, with whom he had no sympathy, who spoke like Irishmen, who com- plained, not because the Government of Ireland was bad, but because it was not an Irish Government, and the patronage of the Government was not given to Ireland. (An ironical cheer from Sir H. W. Barron.) Rem acti tetigisti. (Cheers.) But there was a third and distinct party in that House, the Reform party, who were desirous of seeing Ireland governed upon the great principles which ought to influence and actuate every Administration. Mr. Roebuck traced back the Arms Bill through various continuations to one proposed by the Irish Parliament itself in the 36th year of George the Third ; from which the present measure differs in no material point. It was not therefore a " Saxon " insult : the poison, though reptiles, it is said, do not flourish in that country, was produced in Ireland. He wondered that the Government should have brought on such a measure and have created such a turmoil for such a purpose, when in two lines to have reenacted the 50th of George the Third would have placed them in the position of continuer& of the law, and would have enabled them to derive all the benefit which could be derived from such a measure without incurring the imputation of having heaped a new insult on Ireland. That bill was reenacted during the Reformed Parliament, and during the administration of the Whig Government. It had the assent of Mr. O'Con- nell and Mr. Shell, and of all the Irish Members except Mr. Sharman Craw- ford ; because their leaders put their watchfulness to sleep, and taught them that the great thing to struggle for was the existence of the Whig Govern- ment. The Coercion Bill might have taught them better. If, however, when there was a Government which conciliated the people of Ireland, they admitted the principle that an Arms Bill was necessary, a fortiori, when there was a Government which did not conciliate the people of Ireland an Arms Bill was necessary. The social condition remained the same, but the Government was changed; and was the measure rendered unnecessary now because the Government did not conciliate the people ? To that question he wanted an answer.

He quarrelled with the measure because it was directed against the principles of good government. The Reformation, which worked for the good and honour of England, in Ireland, where the majority of the people remained Roman Catholics, turned to poison ; the greatest friends of liberty in England were converted by relieous animosity into the most imperious tyrants that Ireland ever knew; and sides treating the Irish as a conquered people, England treated them as an heretical people. Hence the necessity, admitted by the Irish Members connected with property, for such a measure. But the ven- geance of the assassin in Ireland is oftener directed against the poor occupant than the rich landlord, and that poor occupant the bill would disarm. 1Vould it then suppress crime in Ireland ? Never. But, by pursuing these means, Government were creating hostility towards themselves ; and as the people from day to day increased in knowledge and improved in manners, it would become snore and more difficult, and at last impossible, for them to govern Ireland after such a fashion. Lord John Russell, however, the representative of the late Government, meant to vote for the bill : there was so little real difference be- tween the two Governments in the measures proposed for Ireland. The chief evil in that country is the rampant Church of Ireland—a Church of the minority paid by the State. He believed that the sole object of the Repeal was to put down the dominant Irish Church; that Protestant ascendancy which was the sign and symbol of the people's subjsction to their victorious invaders. The well-thinking people of Ireland and England do not wish for separation; but it was a fair conclusion, that if they maintained the olden spirit of domi- nation in Ireland, the people would fly to the means by which they would be enabled to rid themselves of that intolerable burden. And how was that Fry to be put down ?—by suppressing discussion of a particular law' and giving parties implicated in the question a pretext of martyrdom? Sir Robert Peel had predicted that his chief difficulty would be with Ireland : he had now been betrayed into it by an indiscreet letter from the Lord Chancellor, and by the advice of such friends as Mr. Shaw; and if he did not escape from that support, the government would escape from him. If he carried out the prin- ciple of coercion in Ireland, let him beware of what would happen in Eng- land. Rather let him, following the dictates of his own enlightened mind, do that justice to Ireland, which if he conceded, he would have nothing to fear for himself.

Sir HENRY WINSTON BARRON attacked the Government appoint- ments—

Mr. Justice Jackson, Mr. Blackburn, and Baron Lefroy, were opposed to the rights and liberties of the people in every possible form ; and the two or three Bishops appointed by the Government were opposed to the Government sys- tem of education in Ireland. The result of the bill would he to disarm the Catholics and to arm the Orangemen of the North ; thus placing the Catholics at the mercy of their foes. It was said that the first Arms Act was passed by an Irish Parliament : it was thrust upon that Parliament by an English Go- vernment, an English Lord-Lieutenant, and an English Secretary. Sir Henry demanded for Ireland an extended franchise, corporate reform, and a larger share in the Imperial Legislature. He read a number of extracts from news- papers of various parties, Metropolitan and Irish, assailing:the Irish policy of Adinisters. He complained that the newly. appointed Magistrates in Ireland were strong political partisans ; asserted that Lord Eliot 's information was derived from polluted sources ; and he concluded in the words of Burke-- "Force is a futile instrument of preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited as this, in profitable and substantial connexion with us. A nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered."

Sir DAVID ROCHE denied the charges against two of the new Judges : his friend Mr. Justice Jackson had given universal satisfaction by his conduct on the bench ; and no one complained of Baron Lefroy.

Sir ROBERT PEEL insisted that Government had redeemed every pledge to govern Ireland with fairness and moderation— He appealed to Sir David Rothe's testimony, to show the fallacy of some reports, which should teach caution in respect of others; and he remarked that, in speaking of the conduct of the Judges, people did not refer to their acts, but only to some former speeches; which he might have done on the ap- pointment of Sir Michael O'Loghlen. He asked the Irish Members why, if they now found it necessary to oppose the hill, they abandoned their Parlia- mentary duty in 1841, and gave their sanction to precisely the same measure ? It appeared, indeed, from what Mr. Smith O'Brien had said, that he agreed to the passing of an act of three lines only, that was to continue another act with which he now admitted he was wholly unacquainted ; and, as a magistrate he had been executing the law without knowing the provisions of it. (Cheers and laughter.) " That is the way the honourable gentleman acted with regard to the bill. But the Government have acted differently. We did not think it right to propose a mere continuing bill of a few lines. We thought it right that the House should have the bill before it; and therefore we printed the ori- ginal bill with the additional clauses. The honourable gentleman, however— this worthy legislator and magistrate, helped to pass a law, and helped to exe- cute a law, of which he knew nothing till we explained it to him in this House. (Cheers.) And that is your zeal for the liberties of Ireland." Sir

Robert believed, however, that in 1841 they thought the peculiar cir- cumstances of Ireland justified such a measure. It was all very well to talk of general principles and rights, as opposed to the bill; but let them bear in mind the position of a man with a family exposed to assassination. One of the last persons who was shot, Mr. Gatchell, said as he died, that he bad taken the best security he could against assassina- tion, but " it was impossible to watch every bush that was on the road-side." The immediate question was, whether there was not greater facility and impunity in committing murders with fire-arms than with other weapons. Instead, how- ever, of showing peculiar favour to one class, the bill altered the existing law, which did not require the arms of the Yeomen to be registered, and placed the Yeomen on the same footing as their fellow subjects. Mr. Shell's speech was a complete vindication of the bill: be advised a much more extraordinary mea-

sure, to meet the state of society—the compelling persons of wealth to sit on

Petit Juries —the principle of the law being " judiciwn parium et lex terra "- compelling landowners to sit in judgment in the agrarian disputes between

themselves and their tenants! And he described the state of the country as such, that while the assassin laughs at the law and returns from the criminal dock to his family, the honest witness must be expatriated. Sir Robert Peel

thought it a better way to protect that witness by preventing the improper use of fire-arms. So far from regarding the bill itself as a matter of indifference, like Mr. Charles Buller, Sir Robert regarded it as of first-rate importance, and justified only by necessity; and the house would decide whether, after the admission of the Irish Members so recently as 1841, that such a bill was necessary for Ireland, the whole difference being a change in the Government, the House would take upon itself the responsibility of putting a stop to any measure for the registration of fire-arms in Ireland ? The measure was announced at too early a period of the session to have been framed in special reference to the present state of Ireland. (Lord Eliot whispered something.)

His noble friend told him that it was framed last year. He would only repeat, that Government were determined to exercise every legitimate power which

they possessed for the prevention of that which every Member for the English and Scotch constituencies, and a great proportion of the Irish Members, con- sidered as equivalent to a separation of Ireland from England and a dismem- berment of the empire ; postponing, however, the discussion of that question until a fitter occasion.

The House divided ; and the second reading was carried, by 270 to 105. On the motion of the order for committing the bill, Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN moved as an amendment,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the condition of Ireland was such as to require statutory enactments different from those of Great Britain ; and if so, to ascertain to what cause the difference of legisla- tion was to be attributed."

The amendment was negatived without a division, and the bill was ordered to be committed.

The dismissal of the Repeal Magistrates was alluded to in the House of Lords, on Tuesday. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE drew attention to the letter of Sir Edward Sugden's secretary to Lord Ffrench ; which he read—

He observed, that, according to that letter, Lord Ffrench was dismissed from the Magistracy because he had not read and digested the declaration which the Lord Chancellor said some Ministers bad made in Parliament respecting

Repeal. Lord Ffrench had simultaneously been dismissed by the Lord Lieu- tenant from the Deputy-Lieutenancy of the county in which Lord Clanri-

earde was Lord-Lieutenant. He wanted to know on what right a single

declaration in Parliament was taken as sufficient ground for such a proceed- ing; and whether any communication of any message from the Throne, of any speech from the Throne, or of any speech in Parliament, had been made to the Irish Government, OF published in the Gazettes either of London or Dublin, or in any other official form ?

The Duke of WELLINGTON replied, that the Lord-Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor had both received instructions, on their appointment, to discountenance Repeal ; but no instructions on the subject had re- cently been issued to her Majesty's servants in Ireland.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE (after some interruption from the Marquis of LONDONDERRY on a point of order) proceeded to move an address to the Crown for a copy of the letter to Lord Ffrench-

He admitted that the assembling of great bodies of men throughout the country, creating disturbances, and alarming the minds of peaceable subjects of the Crown, was in itself, on a broad principle, an illegal act ; but the course te pursue would have been, to issue a proclamation stating the simple truth, that those meetings were calculated to disturb, and did disturb and alarm the minds

of the quiet and peaceable subjects of the realm ; advising such persons to dis- countenance these meetings; and then they might fairly enough, if they had so chosen, have desired and enjoined all Magistrates not only to discountenance, but to keep away from such meetings. Without any such authentic warning,

but merely from a declaration in Parliament, Government proceeded to break every Magistrate that attended a Repeal meeting. How could Lord Ffrench have known what was declared, but that a Parliamentary law is daily broken? and it is a positive fact, that many Magistrates in Ireland do not even see the English newspapers, but only Irish papers, which give abridged reports of Par- liamentary proceedings.

The Duke of WELLINGTON replied by describing the anxiety felt by thousands and thousands in Ireland—he believed a majority—on the subject of the Repeal agitation ; the relief which the declaration of Mi- nisters had given to that anxiety ; and the general notoriety of the decla- ration. He did not oppose the production of papers on the subject.

Lord CAMPBELL contended, that to make a meeting illegal, its object must be illegal ; and petitioning for the Repeal of the Union is not so ;

nor was it made so by certain declarations, which did not alter the law. He condemned the use of the Sovereign's name by Sir Robert Peel, as establishing a bad precedent.

The Duke of WELLINGTON remarked, that the Queen's name had only been used in connexion with her Majesty's reference to the de-

claration of her Royal predecessor. In dismissing the Magistrates, the Lord Chancellor referred not only to the declarations of Ministers, but to the tendency to outrage which must result from such immense assemblages.

In the course of some further remarks, the Earl of CHARLEVILLE contended for the illegal character of the meetings, as calculated to create terror and alarm ; and the Earl of WICKLOW compared them to the great Manchester meeting in 1819, which was declared by Mr. Justice Bayley and a Jury, and afterwards on appeal by the Court of King's Bench, to be illegal. The LORD CittricELLos contended, that the Magistrates were properly dismissed, independently of the declara- tion, because of their attendance at meetings calculated to endanger the

public peace, and therefore palpably illegal. The Marquis of Nor- manby himself had refused admission to the Commission of the Peace to a gentleman because he advocated Repeal. Lord CoTTENHAN

pointed to a nicer distinction : ostensibly the Repeal meetings were legal, though they might become illegal ; Lord Ffrench was dismissed, not because he had attended a Repeal meeting, but because he expressed an intention of doing so. He insisted that the use of the Queen's name was not constitutional, as the Sovereign was not at the time con- stitutionally in communication with Parliament, according to the usual modes. He also drew a distinction between refusal of admission to the Magistracy and dismissal. Lord LYNDHURST admitted the dis- tinction, but still thought that he had Lord Normanby's authority for considering an advocate for Repeal unfit for the Magistracy. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE having spoken in support of Lord Clann- earde, and Lord WHARNCLIFFE on the other side, the motion was affirmed.

The subject was again alluded to on Thursday ; when Lord LORTON, presenting a petition against Repeal, made a suggestion— The most sure and effectual way to restore tranquillity was, in his opinion, by calling out the Yeomanry of the North and the loyal Yeomanry of other parts of the country. Such a proceeding, in a moral point of view, would have an extraordinary effect. It would convince the truly loyal as to which part of her Majesty's subjects could be relied on.

CANADA CORN BILL.

In the Commons, on Monday, the report of the Committee of the whole House on Lord Stanley's resolutions respecting the importation of wheat and flour from Canada was brought up. On the motion that the resolutions be read a second time, Mr. MILNER GIBSON moved as an amendment,

"That, in reducing the duty on the importation of Canadian wheat and wheat-flour into the United Kingdom, it is not expedient that such reduction should be made contingent on the imposition or maintenance of a duty on the importation of foreign corn into Canada." If the quantity of corn imported into Canada was not great, it was a reason why we should not involve ourselves in so troublesome an undertaking as levy- ing a duty of 3s. on corn at the frontier. Lord Stanley laid it down as a prin- ciple that corn ground into flour was entitled to be considered as the produce of the colony in which it had been so manufactured : he wished to know whe- ther that principle was to be applied to all the British dependencies, including the Channel Islands? For example, would wheat ground into flour in Heli- goland be admissible into this country on the Colonial scale of prices ? That island was at the mouth of the Elite, and it would be a great boon to the work- ng classes if corn from the continent were so to be admitted.

The motion was seconded by Dr. Bowanvo, and supported by Mr. THORNELY and Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS.

In opposing it, Lord STANNEY declined reopening a discussion on a resolution so like Lord John Russell's. He stated, that by statute the British possessions in Europe were specially excepted from the rule al- laded to by Mr. Gibson ; even the Channel Islands were included in the exception by name, and in their case the exception extended to other articles.

On a division, the amendment was rejected, by 195 to 83. The re- solutions were read a second time, and leave was given to bring in a bill founded on them : it was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday. Lord Josue Russeer. protested against the measure being considered in the light of a contract.

LIBEL LAW.

Li the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord CAMPBELL produced the report of the Committee on the Law of Libel and Defamation.

The Committee had examined a great number and variety of witnesses—a Vice-Chancellor, Judges in the Superior Courts ofWestminster Hall, barristers, solicitors, French lawyers and Scottish lawyers, Pace Magistrates, booksellers, authors, and proprietors, editors, and conductors of some of the most respectable newspapers published in London and the provinces. They had come to the fol- lowing conclusions. They considered that it was not now expedient to interfere with the law respecting public prosecutions, in consequence of the mildness of the practice of late They recommended that for spoken as well as for written libel redress should be given. That neither in criminal nor in civil anions truth should be an absolute bar; but that in both classes it should be allowed to go to the Jury, quantum valeat, with all the other circumstances of defence. That an apology should be admissible in evidence by way of mitigation of damages, and tender of amends received in proof. In the case of paragraphs inadvertently inserted in respectable journals, the Committee thought that tender of apology, and the payment of a reasonable sum into Court, should be allowed to be pleaded. They proposed that libels should be divided into three classes. First, those cases where it was attempted to extort money under a threat of making certain charges : the punishment to fi be line and imprisonment with hard labour for two years. In the second class, those who published the libel knowing it to be false, but without the attempt at extortion, should be subjected to the punishment of a fine and imprisonment for two years, without hard labour. The third class, which would comprise the publishers of libels not knowing them to be false, but pub- liahing them maliciously, to be punished by fine and imprisonment for one year. The Committee also recommended that the fair reports of Parliament and of the Law Courts should be protected, even in the case of proceedings during the progress of trials and ex parte statements; the publication of which is often beneficial—as in the instance of Courvoisier's trial, where it produced additional evidence. But for reports of proceedings in cases where Magistrates have no jurisdiction, like the "asking for advice," no protection should be given. To reach the disreputable papers which live by scandal, but whose real proprietors put forward men of straw without property, it was proposed to make the securities to the Stamp-office liable for damages awarded in actions for libel.

The report was ordered to be printed.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The House of Commons having gone into Committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, on Monday, Dr. Nrcnoi intro- duced various amendments to be considered by Members during the recess. The chief was, that the Provincial Courts are to be retained in the diocese of York.

CHURCH OP SCOTLAND. Lord ABERDEEN presented to the House of Lords, on Thursday, a bill to remove doubts with respect to the admission of ministers to benefices in Scotland. It was read a first time.

TITLES TO ESTATES. Lord BROUGHAM produced a bill to introduce into the Courts of Common Law and Equity in England a practice known in the law of Scotland, by which 'the claims of individuals to estates, and those claiming under them, might be conclusively and for ever established, by means of what was termed a declaratory action. The bill was read a first time. Tau ROYAL Asszter was given, by Commission on Wednesday, to theRegistration of Voters Bill, the Testimony in the Colonies Bill, the Queen's Bench Offices Bill, the Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill, and to several railway and other private bills, including eleven enclosure and estate bilk. THE RECESS. The House of Lords adjourned on Thursday, to Friday the 9th June.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

The Athlone Election Committee met on Wednesday. The agent for the petitioners against the return of Mr. Collett stated that he had only received instructions over night, and had not had time to prepare a brief for counsel : be therefore asked for an adjournment. The Committee decided that he must go on at once ; on which he abandoned the contest. The Committee then de- declared Mr. Collett to have been duly elected; and so they reported to the House at night. The Nottingham Election Committee entered upon their inquiry on Thurs- day. There were four petitions against the return of Mr. Thomas Gisborne ; two praying that the election might be declared null and void, two that Mr. John Walter junior might be declared duly elected. The allegations were bri- bery and treating by the sitting Member's agents ; the bribery being chiefly in the shape of colourable engagements of voters as colourmen, messengers, and the like. A scrutiny was also desired, but abandoned as too troublesome.