111cbatril an11 Princelings( in tgarIiantent.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE: MR. O'CONNELL.

The House of Commons was crowded at an early hour on Monday. It leas evident that party.spirit was strongly excited ; and the very full attendance of Members on the Tory benches proved that a for- midable demonstration of thi Opposition was intended. After the despatch of some unimportant business, Lord MAIDSTONE rose to call the attention of the Howse to the charge of perjury brought by Mr. O'Connell against the Tory Members of Election Committees. It was, he said, with the greatest diffidence that he undertook a duty which other gentlemen would have per. formed if he had not anticipated them. He had himself been a member of the Salford Election Committee, and felt conscious that he did not deserve the imputation which had been cast upon him and others, lie would ask, in what situation the House of Commons would be, if such imputations were allowed to go to the country without contradic- tion? For his own part, be felt that if he overlooked this aspersion, when he went back to his constituents they would every one of them consecutively spit in his face. (Loud laughter.) It was more in sorrow than in anger that he would refer to the passages in Mr.O'Con- nell's speech in which the charge of perjury was contained. Lord Maidstone then handed a copy of the speech to the clerk at the table; observing, that he had marked the passages which he wished to have read.

Mr. O'CONNELL submitted that the entire speech should be read. Nobody ever heard of the meaning of a document being gathered from parts ; it was always read in full.

The clerk read the entire speech from the Morning Chronicle; but it is only necessary to quote the following passage, on which Lord Maidstone's motion was founded- ., The English Reform Bill was infinitely more extensive, however, than

that granted to Ireland ; and what the Irish wanted was a measure which would prevent their being exposed to the machinations of the Spottiswoude gang. Corruption of the worst description existed ; and, above all, there was the per-

jury of the Tory politicians. (Cheers from the Opposition benches ) Ireland was not safe from the English and Scotch gentry. It was hortible to think that a body of gentlemen—men who ranked high in society, who were them- selves the administrators of the law, and who ought therefore to he shove all suspicion, and who ought to set an example to others—was it not horrible that they should be perjuring themselves in the Committees of the House of Coin. moos? The time was come when this should be proclaimed boldly. He was ready to be a martyr to justice and truth, hut not to false swearing ; and there- fore he repeated, that there was foul perjury in the Tory Committees of the House of Commons."

An extract from the report in the Morning Post, being another ver- sion of the same passage, was also read.

There were cries of "Move, move !" from various parts of the House, when

The SPEAKER rose, and pointed out the proper course of proceeding. He said that it bad been decided, by his predecessor, Lord Colchester, in the case of Sir Francis Burdett, that the Member against whom a clear and definite charge was brought, should be heard in defence be- fore the Member making the complaint submitted his motion to the House. Mr. O'CONNELL immediately rose. He bowed to the decison of the Chair ; though it was peculiarly inconvenient to him, as he In- tended to have moved for an inquiry Into the subject, as an amendment to Lord Maidstone's motion. He really did not know exactly what the noble lord complained of. (Laughter from the Opposition.) Oh, be liked that shout—be liked hilarity ; but he should wish 10 know precisely s!'llat it was that Lord Maidstone complained or. He was ,haesssa with attacking the whole House ; and then his si eech was re- ad, which attacked only one side. But he was really thankful that the su

hject had been brought before the House. Nothing was more abo- minsble than the perversion of justice. He had beard much of piety, °d the desecration of the Sabbath ; but no impiety, no desecration isms so horrible as the invocation of the name of God to bear witness that you will do justice when there is a predetermination to favour a

v Now, it would not be maintained that the Election Corn. mPlirtittees were impartial tribunals- Heaven help the man who out of that House, even in the presence of its Members, should assert that :hey were! he would be treated with ridicule and scorn. The public mind was made up upon this point—that the Election Committees were the worst tribunals in the world. Was Lord Maidstone in the House when the Youghall Committee was chosen ? Did he hear the cheers and the clapping of hands when the name of the last member was announced? Was Lord Maidstone ignorant of the canvass which took place for an election-ballot ?--of the notes sent from the Carlton Club ?—of the summonses in the newspapers to Members to be pre- sent, on their allegiance ?— "What is said when the Committee are chssen? Are there not calculations immediately made, either that the sitting Member will be seated or retain his sat, according to the number of Liberals or Conservatives there are on the Committee? Do not the counsel say, 'Oh, we have a majority of 6 to 5; and the chairman has a double vote; no our majority is increased to 7 to 5.' Have you not read Sir Samuel Whalley's statement in the newspapers ? He has published as advertisement, and why is he not called before the House? He says 'Party feeling runs high in the present House of Commons. No Election Committee consisting of a majority of Conservatives has seated a Liberal, neither has any Committee consisting of a majority of Liberals seated a Con. waive. Not expecting a political miracle to he wrought in nay favour, as WM as the Committee was formed I determined to retire." (" Olt, oh l")

It appeared to be Lord Maidstone's opinion, that charges against Election Committees had never been brought forward till be had ad- vanced them at the Crown and Anchor; but what had Mr. Charles Buller said at the commencement of the session ?—

“At present," said Mr. Buller " the individual opinion out of the House, Among Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, is, that an Election Committee of the House of Commons is an osseaffilage of men whom neither honour, virtue, nor their oaths can hind when their political bias is iovolved." (Loud cheers fi one the Ministerial side of the House.)

Now this was said in the House, with reference to the political bias of Committees ; it was communicated to the public ; and no human being, Whig, Tory, or Radical, had contradicted Mr. Buller, or ex- pressed any other opinion. Mr. O'Connell then quoted passages from the MorningCh

imputed and the Times, in which the most partial mo-

tives were to members of Election Committees, and their conduct declared to be lamentable, disgraceful, and iniquitous in the extreme. Thus the people and the public press had declared that some change must take place. The system was fetid and sore all over, and great care and a wise physician were.tequired to cure the disease. The wittiest of French writers had described Garagantua, on the seat of justice, with dice in his bands—three dice for the plaintiff, two for the defendant ; for that brought grist to the mill. Now he would go to the table of the House, and take the dice in his hands ; seven is the main, eleven the nick. If they would only repeal the horrible system, they should have any apology from him they wanted' but until they did that, not one word of apology should they have from him, because he would assert that be had spoken truth. He would now retire, since that was the usual course ; thanking Lord Maidstone for the courtesy with which he had brought forward the motion, and repeating his thorough conviction of the truth of what he had said at the Crown and Anchor. [Mr. O'Connell sat down, and soon afterwards left Me Howe.] Lord MAIDSTONE could not see any thing inMr. O'Connell's speech that should deter him from proceeding. Lord John Russell had threatened another motion respecting a breach of privilege, in case he persevered. Now Lord John was at perfect liberty to do so, and if he had a good case Lord Maidstone would give him his vote. He would now move,

"That the expressions in the said speech, containing a charge of foul peijury against Members of this House in the discharge of their judicial duties, are a film and scandalous imputation on the honour and conduct of time Members of

this House : •

" That Mr. O'Connell, having avowed that he had used the said expressions, hu been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House."

Mr. Matrasest seconded the motion.

Lord Howlett would not justify Mr. O'Connell's language ; it was perhaps stronger than the occasion required; but he could not help thinkieg that the course proposed by Lord Maidstone would be at- tended with the most serious inconvenience. He would not accuse Members of perjury; but he would ask whether it were not perfectly notorious, after a Committee had been struck, that the opinion of the decision varied according to the politics of the gentlemen on the Com- mittee? He thought that the wisest thing for the House to do, would be to amend a system condemned by public opinion ; and he :mild observe, that early in the session an attempt to improve it was Mde, but resisted by the gentlemen opposite. Feeling strongly the mischief and the inconvenience that would arise from adopting Lord Maidstone's motion,--which would lead them into a controversy with the Tines and the Morning Chronicle as well as Mr. O' onn it

he proposed that the should proceed at once to the re C e

y regular business

of the evening; and moved, as an amendment that the House should go into Committee on the Irish Poor Bill.

Hoeing SKELL said that Ministers appeared to be in some difficulty. lost ground with their supporters by opposing the Ballot, they did not dare to meet the question fairly ; but proposed to rake up 'forgotten charge against the Bishop of Exeter. It should be borne in mind by those who were disposed not to attach much importance to Mr. O'Connell's . language, that Mr. O'Connell maintained the Go- vernment in office. A newspaper attack he might disregard, but a meboTa st not .a public meeting and repeated in the House of Com. be passed without notice. __Mr: LANGDALE said, that when he was a greater novice in the pro- teel igs of Election Committees than he was at present, he had been asked to attend a b !lot for a (7,1111111HYV :tic t■i! ii 1` t" '•'•

felt the oath he must take as a serious obligatiou : his frield said that there would be no difficulty, as his cause was just, but nevertheles. ad- vised him not to attend the ballot.

Mr. COLQIIHOUN supported the motion : be disapproved of Lord John Russell's attempt to prevent the discussion by threatening a motion against the Bishop of Exeter, and of Lord Howick's amend- ment, which was intended to draw the attention of the House from the matter before it to something utterly irrelevant.

Mr. WYNN contended, that the original charge was greatly aggra- vated by the manner in which it had been repeated that night. It would be impossible to preserve decency and regularity in their pro- ceedings, unless Mr. O'Connell's conduct was noticed. For other Members would take advantage of the impunity extended to Mr. O'Connell, and set the rules of the House and the authority of the Speaker at defiance.

Lord EARTNOR defended the conduct of the Marylebone Committee; and said, that Sir Samuel Whalley was not justified in using the lan- guage put into his advertisement.

Mr. BROTIIERTON said, he was glad that the gentlemen opposite de- fended the conduct of Election Committees, especially the Committee on the Salford petition : the question before that Committee was not understood, but would stand the test of investigation. He would take the opportunity of thanking Mr. Gaskell for informing him of what would be the decision of the Committee even before the Committee sat.

Mr. HORSMAN highly approved of the course adopted by Lord Howick. He trusted that the noble lord would bring forward many other motions with as happy a result as he was sure this would have, and that his political career would be as splendid as he trusted it would be long. ("Oh,oh

Mr. PLUMP ittE defended the persons who petitioned against allowing Roman Catholic Members to have seats in the House. Ile considered that the patties who advanced a distinct charge were in a different posi- tion from Mr. O'Connell.

Mr. Ilemo referred to the fourteen petitions got up by Mr. Coppock ; and mentioned that a petition from Beverley against his return was avowedly presented to prevent his being, put on an Election Committee. His opponent had indignantly repudiated all connexion with the peti- tion, as a most migentlemanly proceeding.

Sir EDWARD SUDDEN had expected that Alinistere would not have been content with the very short speech with whieli Lord Howick had favoured the house, when the question involved the rights and privi- leges of Parliament, on which were based the liberties of the people. For his part, be could not believes that a great portion of the Members of that House were guilty of perjury. He had never acted on an Election Committee himself; but be knew that many questions came before Comniittees that might be decided either way, without involving

a violation of moral principle, lie would take, for instance, the ques- tion of opening the registers ; and lie could understand that parties having to decide that question, mid meaning to act on their oath, might be led by their bias to one party to adopt the views which favoured their own friends. Lord JOHN Ressw. was willing to speak to tile question before the House; though he felt that a hard task was imposed upon him, since, if be remained silent, he was told that Ministers ought to give their opinion—if he stated that opinion, be was reproached with acting in connivance with Mr. O'Connell, and with a desire to shield that gentleman. His experience had taught him, that DO advantage to the House ever arose from contentions with individuals. What did they intend to do? The charge Me declared to be a gross breach of pri- vilege: would the House stop there, thus placing itself in a most ridi- culous position ? He would not justify or palliate the words used by Mr. O'Connell in the heat of party contention, but be did not think they ought to be made the grounds of proceedings in the House of Commons ; and when he gave the notice respecting the Bishop of Exeter, he did so for the purpose of warning Lord Alaidetone, and warning the House, against entering on proceedings of this kind. The Bishop of Exeter had charged the Rotuma Catholic Members with treachery, aggravated by perjury : Lord John alluded to that cir- cumstance last year, and then said lie hoped no notice would be taken of the Bishop's language in ['ornament : but surely, if such language used by is Bishop addressing his elergy, were to be passed by, some allowance ought to be made for Mr. O'Connell, who, if be had not spared others in the heat of political contest, had never been spared himself by the parties opposed to him. If he sought to elevate Mr. O'Connell in the eyes of the people of Ireland and of this country, he should say, pass your resolutions, stigmatize your Member, send him to Newgate, avow to the world that you have no other means of vindica:ing the decisions of your Election Committees.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that Lord Howick did not perfectly remem- ber what had passed with respect to the Controverted Elections Bill, when he accused the Conservatives of delaying its progress. Lord John Russell had been successful in carrying the second reading of that bill, by a majority of 53; a much larger majority than that which usually supported him. Why did he not proceed with the measure ? The bill wens betore them as originally brought in, and its last clause stated that the act should not take effect till after the last day of the present session. This was the Government measure ; no exertion had been made to pass it through the House; and yet Ministers now com- plained that their intention of creutiog an improved tribunal for the decision of controverted elections had been thwarted by the Opposi- tion ! Now, with respect to the question before the House, what a miserable position was occupied by the Government ! Loid John Russell had pot a Donee on the Vote- paper, that, provided the House entertoim-d Lord Maidstone's motion, be would submit to its consi- derations a breach of privilege committed two years ago. A foul charge of perjury was mettle against the Aleinbers of the House, and they asked for protection : and what was the leply to their demand ? Why, said Lord John Russell, I will then bring forward the charge made by the Bishop of Exeter against somebody else. It was admitted that this f ,u1 change of perjury had no foundation ; and yet Ministers refused to support the resolution which declared its falsehood. What would be the consequence of this refusal? Why, that Members of Parlia

/vent avould not serve upon Election Committees ; and they would be ' forced to send innocent men to Newgate for objecting to act in a capa- city which rendered them liable to the foulest calumny, from which the House refused to protect them. In the case of the charge pre. fered by Mr. Hill in 1834 agaiust sonic Irish Members, Mr. O'Connell bimself had demanded and obtained an inquiry. Then, as now, the Previous question was moved ; but Sir Robert had voted for inquiry; sind he trusted that on this occasion no mistaken forbearance or dread of unduly elevating an individual would induce the House to coun- tenunce the notion that Members were not to be protected from such charges a Mr. O'Connell had brought against them. Mr. SPRING RICE thought that Sir Robert Peel had made out a very poor case in defence of the resolutions. There could be no doubt that Mr. O'Connell had committed a breach of privilege ; but then came the (mestion as to the expediency of taking th it step which Lord Meids:one proposed. If they were to go upon the plan of noticing even t.criOlIS breaches of privilege, there would be no end to their diffi- culties. Nobody would pretend that the decision; of that House were imie'rtial. Sir Edward Sugden had spoken of the bias of Members and their party feelings ; mid it must be admitted, that though not per- : lured, Members were liable to the charge of partiality. He considered the motion very unwise, and would vote for the previous question.

Sir Witaeast Fote.err admitted, that it would be very unwise and impolitic in the House to take notice of many charges put forward by the public press ; but he was inclined to notice Mr. O'Connell's charee, on account of the very peculiar position which Mr. O'Connell occupied. That gentleman had been unseated by one Election Com- mittee in the last Parliament ; there was at present a petition against bim • and it was impossible not to believe that his object in bringing the Charge of perjury was to deter Members from serving on the Com- mittee which was to try the petition against him. Were there no other reason for supporting Lord Maidstone's motion, he should consider this sufficient. If the House did not interfere, Members would seek per- sonal redress— No honourable geutlemen serving on a Committee, and taunted in that House with being guilty of perjury, could pass over such a charge. If the House did nut interfere to protect its Members, the consequence must be, that charges of this kind would lead to all sorts of personal conflicts and demands of personal :atisfaction. They had been told that in the present case there was no fear of Poch consequences but that was an additional reason why the House should interli.re. (('heers.) Any person in the position of Lord Maidstone, or any honourable gentleman serving on a Committee, should find from the resolutions of that House protection.

Mr. Crusttereat, Alderman COPELAND, and another Member, de- clared that their conduct on Committees had beets perfectly impartial.

Lord MAIDSTONE stated, that in case his resolutions were adopted, he should move that Mr. O'Connell be reprimanded, in his place. This would not be making a political martyr of Mr. O'Connell, but merely punishing him in a Parliamentary way.

The SPEAKER put the question on Lord Howick's amendment—

For the amendment 254 Against it 263 Tory majority 9 The main question was then put on Lord Maidstone's first resolu- tion.

Mr. HUME expressed his regret that he had not in the first instance opposed the proceeding; as he should have done had he not been pre- vented by Mr. O'Connell. Of course, Mr. O'Connell could not dis- avow his own words; and hence the unpleasant position in which they found themselves. There would be no end to inquiries of this nature if speeches at taverns were to be made thee subject of motions in Par- liament.

The resolution was carried ; and the speaker put the second resolution.

An extraordinary scene of confusion occurred. Mr. CALLAGHAN, Mr. EDWARD ROCHE, Mr. GiLLON, and Mr. SOMERS avowed their entire participation in all that Mr. O'Connell had said, amidst vehement cheers, loud laughter, and uproar, from both sides of the House ; which the Speaker in vain attempted to quell. In the midst of the confusion, Mr. BROTIIERTON moved an adjourn- ment.

Lord JOHN Bussr.m. took the opportunity of stating, that the House having passed the first resolution, he should vote for the second, as he could not deny that Mr. O'Connell's speech amounted to a breach of privilege. Ile would, however, remind the House, that the object of those who moved the resolutions, so fur as regarded the prevention of similar attacks upon Members, had been entirely defeated; since several gentlemen, undeterred by the vote they had just come to, had adopted Mr. O'Connell's charges in their full extent.

Mr. Ilexav GRATTAN, with extreme vehemence, attacked the con-

duct of Tory Members on Committees. He would not say they were perjurers, but he would tell them to their faces they were not honest men. They had been guilty of most contemptible and wretched pro- ceediegs, in order to gratify their malice against Irish Members in general' and especially Mr. O'Connell. Lord Maidstone would not dare to follow up his motion ; be would not dare to send Mr. O'Con- nell to Newgate- The SPEAKER interposed ; observing that Mr. Grattan used language tint had better be aveided.

Mr, GRATTAN said, be did not mean to charge gentlemen opposite is ili a want of personal courage' but they had not political courage to pit tie to the end the cou:se they had commenced.

Mr. 13ROTHERTON withdrew his motion of adjournment.

The question was put on the second resolution—

For the resolution 293 Against it 85 Majmity 208 Lord MainsroNE then moved, that " Mr. O'Connell be repri- rounded in his place by the Speaker."

Lord Jona: Russw. said, the conduct of the Opposition was most contemptible- " For my own part, I conceive that, Laving said of the honourable Laid learned Member for Dublin that he made a false, acandalous, and calumnious elierge'—that with the open avowal of the honourable a".ad learned Member of having used the language imputed to him, and of the course which he is likely to pursue with regard to what we have heard to night—merely voting to reprimand him in his place is the most shabbv,ii; most faint-hearted, and pusillanimous course that could ever be adopted. continued .,11inisterid cheering.) Why, if this were the case of a inietabi, and unfortunate printer earning his guinea a week, we should send hint prs bably for some months to prisun, exercise towards him acts of great severity anil plume ourselves very much on our justice in an doing. But the hoon,e; able and learned Member for Dublin is too formidable a person to be 80 dealt with. You have screwed up your courage to pass this resolution; but aim will be its effect? Why, it will operate as so much waste paper : and to.mor, row you will have some hundred Members of the House--ay, some of then with a copy of this your resolution in their hands—coming down here and reitetating in their places the very expressions you now state to be false ald scandalous. I think, really, that when the noble lord made up Lis rniud ts touch this matter at all, he ought to have maturely considered to what length be might be led in the event of success. (Ministerial cheers.) For my put 1 must say I do not know where all this is to end. ( Cheers.) The noh!e' lord says he cannot tell where I propose leading my followers; but I must sw, I think he has led his followers into the most ridiculous position—the mOit pitiable situation that ever men awoke and found themselves in; a position is which their only excuse foe not going further is to be found in the extreme folly—a folly incapable of being repaired—having once begun." (Laid cheers, and reiterated cries of " Chair, chair! " ".Divide, divide!"

journ, adjourn !") Mr. Wyear quoted the precedents of Major Scott and Sir French Burdett, in favour of Lord Maidstone's motion for simply reprimand. big Mr. O'Connell.

Mr. Alonoae JOHN O'CONNELL said, that the Members opposite evidently shrank from following up their motion by committing 11r. O'Connell to the Tower—a course which would at any rate have had the merit of openness and manliness. Now, the whole proceeding would appear ludicrous and contemptible ; and nothing could be inure ridiculous than concluding an attack commenced with such pomp with a simple motion for a reprimand.

Mr. JENKINS defended the conduct of the Ipswich Committee. Mr. BARRON, amidst much interruption, impugned the conductof that Committee-

" I have to state, that on the former inquiry on the Ipswich case, a Tory Committee decided that parish constables had a right to vote ; and this diy:1 am infortued, that a Tory Committee on the same question, in the same place and on the same subject, decided exactly the contrary. (Great cheering arid confusion.) And what, let me ask, was the result of these contradictory decision? In the former case, by deciding that parish constables had a right to vote, they contrived to seat their friend ; to.day, by deciding that they had no such right, they again contrived to seat their friend."

Mr. HOME said, that it would be quite absurd to put Mr. O'Connell wily in the motion for the reprimand, as other Members had distinctly avowed their participation in his offence. He would therefore muse that Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Roche, Mr. Somers, and Mr. Dillon, were guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House.

A scene followed which baffles description. On the Opposition side of the House, about two hundred Members rose, and vehemently called upon the chair for its opinion on Mr. Home's motion ; wlide the Members on the Ministerial side clapped their hands and gave regular rounds of applause as in a theatre ! The SPEAKER rose, but resumed his seat in despair of being able to control the excited Men. hers. At length Mr. WYNN was heard. He remarked, that tie ex. ception could be taken to expressions used by any Member unless they were taken down at the time.

Alf. CALLAGHAN immediately rose, and declared that lie adopted, to theword and to the letter, every expression Mr. O'Connell hod used. On the motion of Mr. HOME, Mr. Callaghan's words were taken down by the clerk. Some further conversation occurred. The SPEAKER endeavoured to put Mr. Hume and Mr. Henry Grattan (who moved an amendment to Mr. Hume's motion) right upon a pound order ; but did not succeed.

Mr. BROTHERTON moved an adjournment question the House divided—

For the adjournment Against it... .

Majority 87

Mr. CHARLES Buerret contended, that Sir Edward Sugden, who had declared deliberately that members of Election Committees were influenced by a party bias, should be added to the gentlemen in he Humes list ; in the mean while, he would move that the debate be ad. journed to the next day. The gallery was cleared for a division ; but Sir ROBERT Pert. said, he knew from the spirit manifested on the other side, it would useless to oppose the motion for adjournment ; and the House twee half.past twelve.

On Tuesday, the debate was resumed. Mr. PENDARVES felt so strongly the inexpediency of the cove into which the House had been led, that he had ventured to propose an amendment, which should prevent the necessity of pursuing it further. He moved, " That this House, taking into consideration that several Metn`iers 01 thii House have avowed their belief that the decisions of Election Ceinal0ne6 sworn well and truly to try the matter before them, are biassed by paityinte- rests and attachinents,—and considering that the late decisions of such Col. nertees have been impugned in the strongest terms by the publications in rig daily newspapers,—consideriug,, moreover, that this House has ordered el be read a second time a bill to regulate the trial of elections and returns of hers to serve iii Parliament,—is content to proceed no further in the matter el the said complaint." Mr. Citesswele. argued, that the dignity of the House required that

sonic further step should be taken. He altogether differed from tilos! Members who appeared to think a reprimand from the Speaker a to; vial punishment such a rebuke would be to himself a source 01 lusting shame and sorrow persons to be shocked by the mere circumstance of a verdict of " ' individual upon whom the punishment was inflicted. He had known r..! All punishments must be considered in relation to the tone of feeling a the

of the debate. 01 the 159 246

corded against them, although the punishment was comparatively small in amount ; while on the other hand, he had seen individuals meeting their verdict with callous indifference, although the highest penalty of the law was about to be inflicted open them. One man xr.14 ortapoweret1 by the idea of being im- prisoned fir a month, while another looked upon six months' condemnation to the punishment of the tread-mill al a matter of the slightest moment.

Mr. WYNN contended, that the most proper and usual as well as convenient course which the House could now take, would be to agree to Lord Maidstone's motion. Mr. Goruso believed, on the other hand, that the dignity of the House was lowered by its proceedings in this affair.

Lord CASTLEREAGH admitted that the House was in a dilemma ; but thought that a rebuke from the chair must now be given. He dis- claimed all intention of imputing perjury to the Irish Members, of whose honour he had no doubt. Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK said, that the House must not lose sight altogether of the ordinary rules of decency. Members would best consult their own dignity byr if the mildest possible course to- wards Mr. O'Connell ; but f his conduct were entitely passed over, the House would not be fit for a gentleman to sit in.

Mr. fIaavEv observed, that to support dignity was one thing, to indulge vengeance was another; and he warned Members opposite not to descend from the vindication of their own honour, to avenge them- selves on an individual whose power they both felt and feared.

Colonel CONOLLY declared, that he for one would not stoltify the vote he had given the night before, neither would he imitate Lord John Russell's pendulum motions.

Lord MAIDSTONE considered, that after the vote of last night, punishment followed of course.

The House divided upon the amendment—

For it .

Against it 2-110

Majority against Minister, 2.1 Mr. HeNttv GRATTAN then moved, as an amendment, the following addition to Lord Maidstone's motion. Notwithstanding that the Members for the county and city of Calk, for Sligo, for Liskeavd, and for Falkirk, have avowed in their p1 i, it this House sentiments similar to those expressed by the Nlember for Duldim and though this House has permitted to pass uncenaured and even unneri,,iil a published aurae of the Many of Exeter accusing the Homan Cali:die Members of this House of a disregard of their oaths, and of manifesting, in the exercise of their rights as Members of Parliament, treachery, aggravated by isajory."

Mr. EDWARD Rome: declared, that hc fully adopted Mr. O'Con- nell's language. It was said that Mr. O'Connell was pet•uliarly situated, nail ought to be particularly careful of giving personal offeace; but for his own part, he was perfectly ready to give anybody any satis- faction they might require.

The SPEAKER pointed out the novelty and irregularity of such con- duct as Mr. Roche and other Members. who had wloptad Mr.

O'Connell's expressions, had exhibited. it was most tomotal for a Member who dill not disapprove of what was uttered to move that the words should be taken down. He (amid mat prevent ganth•nien ft on givirg utterance to language incomistent with the good order :red de- corum of their proceeding; lint lie would perfoi in his duty in calling the attention of the House to such conduct.

Mr. Room said, that no Member could possibly feel greater re- spect for the decisions of the Speaker than be did; but, nevertheless, he felt bound to repeat his concurrence in Mr. O'Connell's ex- pressions, and hoped that he should not infriege the ruIos of the House by reading them.

Lord JOHN Rosiest. very much regretted the com•se ta%en by Mr. Roche; and was of opinion that no further discussi4m should take place on the subject ; the House having, by a decided majority, sane- noncd Lord Maidstone's proposition.

Mr. Rocmie. reiterated his concurrence in Mr. O'Connell's sen- timents.

Mr. Heme. moved that Mr. Roche's words be taken down ; which being done, Mr. Roclis: said...." Those are the expressions ; I fully adopt them.'

Mr. Nemo (addressing the clerk)—" Add also, which words were used by Mr. O'Connell at the Crown and Anchor, and admitted by him in the House."

Mr. CHARLES Bustnn—" I hope the House will observe the malice of the honourable Member for Kilkenny."

Mr. Hem: said, that when reason failed, recourse must be had to ridicule. It was his intention to make the proceedings of the House in this matter appear ridiculous. Fifty Members unitit follow the ex- ample of Mr. Roche, and he was ready to do the same. • Mr. CHARLES BULLER was perfectly willing that Mr. Hume should exercise all his power of ridicule but he thought the joke now laud gone far enough. He objected to 'having his own name mixed up in the matter ; as he did not wish to use words insulting to the House; and it was, moreover, very annoying to his feelings to have his name connected in any way with that of the Bishop of Exeter.

Mr. GILLON Said, that in the opinion of his constituents, Commit- tees of the House of Commons were most corrupt tribunals. He was determined to repeat, before the debate closed, his declaration that whatever stigma the House imposed upon Mr. O'Connell, he should be proud and happy to share with him. Mr. Grattan's amendment was negatived without a division; and Lord Maidstone's resolution was again put from the chair—

Lord JOHN RUSSELL expressed his strong disapprobation of the ourse pursued on this occasion ; but trusted that all who sompathizt d with Mr. O'Connell, would restrain their feelings, and allow the con- test to end after this vote.

Another division took place— For Lord Maidstone's motion Against it 2g6 7

Majority 29

-- Lord MAiosToNn then inovel, !hat Mr. O'Coonell be ordo•,.,; io attend in his place the next day. This motion %rots e.trried, without a division.

Mr. Gtro.ox rose and said—" Mr. Speaker, I adopt the sentiments and expressions of Mr. O'Connt IL"

Air. Heats: moved that Air. Gillon's words be taken dowa ; reti added—" I um not disposed to leave the matter as it stands : gentlemen opposite have been left in the lurch, and let them get out of it as wt as they call."

The words having been read by the clerk at the table,

Mr. Hearn said—. I move that the words be taken care (f."

The squabble here suddenly terminated.

On Wednesday, the order of the day for the attendance of Mr. O'Connell having been read, The SPEAKER said—" Is the honourable Member in his place ?" /Ur. O'CoNe:Esr. rose and said—" I am here, Sir ;" and then at down.

The SPEAKER—" The honourable 3Iember will please to stand Imo." Mr. O'Connell accordingly rose; and the SPEAKER (his customary wig being surmounted by the little triangulor hat appropriated to graver solemnities) addressed the offender as follows- " 11r. O'Connell. you have permitted yeursell to be betrayed into the ilsi. or expressions at a public meeting, oith respect to %%illicit this House has em. A, the fallowing resolutions= That tlecNreiSi■ill■ i a Cir.! siVech, cool. a ebarge it foul perjury agaitot Nlembets of this Ifeloe in the dio•Lao•e their judicial duties, are a false and sea:A.11,mi imput ttIon on the honour :ii,,/ conduct of :Members of this 11011s0 l that Mr. ()Vented; having ;wowed that he Lad used the said expression., has beca guilty af a It itch of the p.C.il'a.ges of this House: and, finally, that he be rept in, tunkd in his " The charge of foul perjury is one of the heaviest th it eta Ile precerrm.l. You cannot he surpristd that, having cast so grave :111 impatatimi on lb timhers of this House, it has roused the inmVgaiat ion m.1 those against tt Loin it was di- rected, and has exposed yourself to the sevetm,t 4.01,1111. itt 1 displeasure of this !louse. YOU have endeavoured to viraliriate your conduct by ;aging th .t you were impelled hy a strong sense of the .lefective can .. luaul of the prcseot Initial for the falai til controverted elections, and th, you sought to Sect 3. remedy for that evil hy stimulating public opinion. It is unneces-ary to remind yon, that at the time you used the expre=sions which IIAVe beet' con- demned, this Manse bad recognized, with scarcely any dam retire of mpini art, Cite expediency; of intim ining to iipply a real reinoly to tlw evil, of which rot complain ; and that y1.11 COUld tnt IcIV.2. 1 arid a tow!'ol

employment of your energies and takhts tb lii a a .

measure before this flew.. OIL icat fur its ! • and it is true, that oda rm have lewd employed with respect to this House and it, , , ,1 has been of opinion that it consit..te,1 its real digoity. inul I the • -•

true wisdom, in relying for motertion awl delmwt. n_taited. 11:isrept H, and calumny, on the conseionsmiss of the thichty with is laa'. .1 dis- charges it. duty to the people wilt on it repre..euts. The hooves-, •

difierent when one is it mu s to dispartge mid to ml,

House in public estiowti, a, by charging a large pm t of the M-1., -

foal perjm y. No one Lilows brut a th ymi do ill It the V.V.4 tith co of this realm have invm slial this Hni•i.: w:t'i pwer vi luth,,t...ty so !

its acts must always 'Live iii itu.,i t.;i.t it fl,u,liem• oit wet t:Io and that no amino ity IF power can he Inalatici lodes.; it ho d

tiiivisteted liv thme.e who are r. sisal...". I.% the ;44 .I.ity . I • de

Alembers of this lipase to cowl ihote, hyi ail propar :arms. to ''t tin cha- racter, which is as es,. utial for the ma.cm.:t of the it-elf a • the int: t

of the country. If, unhappily, the d vor ari ive when, from .my eaww, this I Imise should lie snipped .,f the mural halutilia• I t eltal ter ,ino of the respect off the petitile, its Illt.:111s of icsi,t,111(.0 t 1 inex.1:eat or 'mi., mands would is so weakened tl,at this greit nos ilop,Ilatly ••I might be to,sol and di iven loy eve: y curl( It, lilt ti, Ifoly ot I ,t!. state might be end:up:led. 1 sl.,,itlil h. unworthy 1,1 ii,t In loll is itt, I tie A if I aid not feel the ileaperw intet est ia ,alta•ever 4.,1:1 touch ,a t I, , eter of this noose; and it is therefore with gre,:t pain that 1 have Loco cocip..11,1 thus to animadvert upon the conduct of a 31co,her, tilt,, his disp.mra•;,,l thie House by impeaching the conduct .until howntr et .1 lag.: poi ;h. 1 of its Mem- bers. It only remaius that, in obsdirawe ta the cowl:val. of the

should reprimand you ; as I aceratlingly do."

At the conclusion of the repriinana, treossut.t., without

sitting down;addressed the House. Ile said that it was not bream in they had passed a longwinded resolution, it!,SCrting their purity to. ! majority of nine, or nitimand-twetity, or even two hundred, that too country would judge them to be pere. In the opinion of the con,: y, the I louse had no more vindieated itself by that vote, than Judges who authorized the takieg of ship.rnoney would have been jteoitied i;1 public opinion by a declaration cf their own polity and patriotism. It was admitted on all hoods, that the decisions of Election Committees biassed by party interests awl :tttatamients; and what, he wished to know, was that, lint an admission of p(ijiny ? The Home hail done absolutely nothing to vindicate itself from the charge he 1141 brought against it. Give him a ('ommittee, and he would prove !lrut. charge ; he would meet their resolutioes by evidence. If the C. en. mittee should be appointed, und after inquiring, decide that his chartia was false, there was no apology which he would not be ready to make. Ile had heard a great deal about the affectation of religion in th.,t I louse- " What scuffles and scrambles have there beca fir the purpose of thtsitme out observations against religion in one pat t of the Ilouse and in another ; rul what a sanctimonious affectation hasbeen exhibited ! i, Cheers.) Well, I taunt the sanctimony of the House. This is a question of trying a matter hotly, after being sworn on the Word of God. ‘Vhere is their sanctity tiny? (Cheers.) Where are the men of superior samitity now? (C1/4lars.j Why do not they not come forward, one and all, awl Idiom n their Sabbath Bills, we are to hear any thing more of them—adjuuro them f .1; a %rod:, ioal cumin

11,e

-0,1 I! Ivo,

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.

The Bishop of EXETER, on Thursday, presented a petition to time Lords from Coils, praying for measures to render effectual the sworn engagements of the Catholic Members not to weaken the Established Church. In supporting the prayer of this petition, the Bishop deli. yered a very long speech ; chiefly consisting of arennim nts to prove the oath imposed on Catholic Members by the Relief Act wire intended to prevent the Catholics hum legislating on matters affecting the Established Church, was accepted by them as surds, mid now regarded by the more upright and conscientious Catholics as in that light. He quoted with appiobation the conduct of Lord Fingal' and Mr. O'Reilly, who considered themselves bound by their oaths not to vote on the Irish Church Bills, hut charged Mr. Shell with having "grossly departed from the obligations which the oath imposed upon him." The drift of the Bishop's speech was to prove, that the Catholics were not to be restrained by time most solemn ubligutions from injuring the Protestant Establishment ; and that there existed an " alliance " be- tween the Catholic Members and the Ministers, so " compact " that the Church was in danger from the Government which ought to pro- tect it. The Bishop referred with considerable Unto neSS to the attacks made upon him at different times by Lord Johmt Russell, Sir John Campbell, maid Lord Plunket. He challenged Lord John to execute the threat of brieging his visitation-charge hefore the House of Commons " if he had a particle of manliness in him ; " arid called upon some of Lord John's colleagues ia the House of Peers to make an attack where it could be met. When he had !oohing else to do, Lord Johil Russell always began to talk about the Bishop of Exeter, but :always shrunk from putting forward his charges in a tangibie form. He now expected that Lord John would come forward and meet him face to face, or be silent On the subject for ever.

Lord MELnounNE was sorry that time discussion of time sulmject had been renewed ; as the less that was said Auto it, and the sooner it was forgotten, the better. He was sure that Lord John Russell only ;Wended his notice as a wareing of the inconvenience that would arise from the introduction of topics into the Legislature that could only produce accusation rind recrimination. The passage in the Bishop of Exeter's charge was certainly very strong; but he thought that any fur- thee proceedings with respect to it would be iojudieitnis. 'rho point that the 'Bishop lad yet to prove against the Catholic Members, was that the measures they had supported tended to injimi the Church : this, of course, eould not udmit, for he would not eliminate him- self— lie ii oh never approved of the Roman Catholic oath, though time right reve- rend prelate did ; and it was found in the eri'l th it all the securities of oaths were unavailing, i-oliatrassing solve, alima,g others, evaded by those whose nice conscienem :ea them inapplicable, repugnant to most, anal mum irr.ult to all. If ouce the Protestant state were in great (larger, oaths would athdil no secu- rity; for at the Reformation all the dignitaries and oiliciala of Pat liament, civil and military, from the Lord Chancellor to the ronstable, were sworn, by command of Hemy the Eighth, to oppose the new doctrines. Even Lead Cromwell, and the great authorities of the Reformation, were sworn to oppose the very opinions nhich they were the great advocates of. How useless, then, was this oath ! But suppose It really violated: how did the Bishop of Exeter mean to act ? Was he about to take away their privileges, or did he propose to frame other oaths more so let? Ile must feel convinced that it was to the good feeling, houour, and patriotism of the Irish Roman Catholics, that he must trust alone, and uot to any oaths that lie could devise.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF knew that perjury was a serious charge; but he had never shrunk from avowing the same sentiment us the Bishop of Exeter respecting the conduct of certain Roman Catholics.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, that when political oaths were imposed, their observance must be left to the conscience of the persons who took them.

The Earl of Sunewsuutty referred the House to a pamphlet written by a Member of the House of Commons, in which a complete answer would be found to the accusation of the Bishop of' Exeter. It proved that Catholic Members were as free to act in their legislative capacity as Protestant Members.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, that the Bishop of Exeter's argument was misstated by Lord Melbourne. It NM contended that certain Ca- tholic Members voted for the Irish Church Bill with the view and in- tention of injuring the Established Church. Over and over again such intention had been avowed, by inclividuulkMembers of Parliament, who bad sworn to maintain the Church.

The petition was laid on the table.

FRISON DISCIPLINE.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord LYNDHURST said he wished to call attention to the system of punishment adopted in the Minh:ink Penitentiary. Three children, one aged seven • and-a. half, another eight, and the third under ten years of age had been confined for some months in solitary cells, contrary to the law, which declared that no individual should be subjected to solitary confinement for more than one month at a time, or more than three months during the whole term of his imprisoetnent-

Now, in opposition to that enactment, it appealed that the youngest of these children had been subjected to solitary confinement for a period of nearly thir- teeu months, wader a sentence of imprisontueut for three years. The other too eliildmem who neve also sentenced to imprisonment for three years, had uot otiticied time punishment of solitary confinement to the same extent as that whicll he had sr entioned. In order to impreas on time minds of their Lord- stipe how highly inipieper it was to eeforce a system of this kind towards chil- sites. of these ttuder ytars, he should state, that vhen the youngest child was vote I am convinced of nothing. (Cheers.) Sir, I now move for the appoint- meta of this Committee."

The SrEmcee said, it was contrary to rule to make such a motion I without previous notice.

IIIr. O'CONNELL, in that case, would give notice that he should move for the Committee next day.

On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Speaker's reprimand was inserted in the Journals of the House.

On Thursday, Mr. O'CONNELL, at the request of Mr. WYNN, w! 0 wished to attend the festival of St. David, postponed his motion to Tuesday next. asked by the matron what she could do fur her, her answer was, that she moo be pleased if the matron would give her a doll ; and be was told that wit morning these children were found sleeping in their respective beds with ilk bad-clothes formed into something like dulls, and clasped to their bressta,,,i t:tey wished to form something like an ideal society in their sad and soli coufinenient.

These were not the only cases which required the attention of Os vernment. Two young men, one of the age of seventeen, the otho about twenty, had been sentenced to a year's imprisonment. Whit was now the condition of those men ? They both came out of goi idiots. Was it possible that such abuses could exist in an establisinneot under the immediate notice of her Majesty's Government? Be

moved for a return of the children under sixteen years of age, ems.

mined to the Penitentiary during the last seven years, distinguish'ag the sex and specifying the sentences.

Lord MELBOURNE complained that Lord Lyndhurst should hue made his calm and artful statement without giving him notice of the res tion he intelided to make. But Lord Lyndhurst, from the habits of lee profession, well knew the advantage of having the first word; and tie an explanation, however satisfactory. would not entirely remove tle effect of a statement so made. With respect to the circumstances e which Lord Lytidlitiret had referred, he was totally unacquainted wits them.

Lord LYNDHURST said, that the circumstances were known to everg individual in the metropolis, except Lord Melbourne, and had bele made the subject of' a correspondence with the Hume Secretary. For the noble lord to be ignorant of them, showed hum to be as neglectio of duty in that respect, as he had shown himself to be ignorant of tle foreign and colonial relations of the country.

Lord Bnoocitast said, that he had accidentally learned that Lord Lyndhurst intended to mention this subject ; otherwise he should certainly have called attention to it himself, and thus have drawn down upon his own head all the fierceness of Lord Melbourne's vitupers. tion, for disturbing that traoquillity which wits the chief desire of rum

in office. It uppeared timid Lord Alelbourne was ignorant of the fott stated by Lord Lyndhurst ; but several days had elapsed since they hri been publicly mentioned- " Last Thursday— the sun has risen and gone down four thnes since then, al, folding ample time to the Government, with its legion of secretaries, clerk, and inessengeis, to make full inquiry upon the subject—last Thursday, it au stated, not in the newspapers, whose assertions might not be credited, but ata public meeting, not of agitators—if it bad, perhaps, the statement would but been credited—but a public meeting of the'Alagistrates of the aletropolita county of .11iddlesex, by no less a person than the Chairman himself, that tke circumstances desce theft by my noble and learned friend were stated to have fit. tually occurred within the walls of the Penitentiary. All London knew of it; it had been a topic of universal reprobation, coextensive with the hourly io. creasing sphere in which it has been known. All Westminster has talked of it. All Midille•ex has pointed its eyes towards the quarter in which the abuse ot. currel. I will venture to say, that it has been inore talked of, more discussed more indignantly commented upon in every corner in this great town and al this populous country, than any one subject either in or out of Parliament, it in any one if the courts it justice, civil or criminal. how, then, it happert that the only re* howl %dm are unacquainted with this matter are those when duty it is to he mot watchful upon subjects of this description, is not fur on to tell."

Lord MELBOURNE said, that notwithstanding the speeches of die two learned lords, he still thought that notice ought to have been gives by Lord Lyndhurst of the statement he intended to make. He wished the Duke of Wellington had been present-

" The noble duke would rather have cut off his right hand than have taker such a course as that taken by the noble and learned lord. The noble duke a a man of honour aud a gentleman ; the noble duke is actuated and governed by the feelings of a gentleman and a man of honour, and I feel confident that he would not have acted in this manner."

It was perfectly possible for a subject to be the common topic of conversation in one quarter, and to be passed over silently in another; and he bad yet to learn that a Minister of State was to be blamed, be. cause he could not without notice reply to the artfully got up state- ment of two learned lawyers—at least of two persons who had filled the highest offices in the law.

Lord LYNDHURST wished for an explanation of one of Lord Mel. bourne's remarks-

" The noble viscount says, that he wishes the noble duke had been here, be. cause the noble duke is a man of honour and a gentleman. That observation, which is true of the noble duke, was employed by the noble viscount in Buhl manner as to bear adifferent construction as applied to others. I wish to hos in what sen,e the noble viscount applies those terms? I beg an explanation." Lord MELDOITRNE—" When I said the noble duke was a gentleman and a man of honour, I did not say that anybody else was not a gentle. man and a man of honour."

Lord LYNDHURST—" Not directly, but by construction. Jack an explanation."

Lord Betouclinat said, that he went entirely with Lord Lyndhurst: he was in the same boat with his noble and learned friend ; and entered it not the less willingly, that it called down a sharp tire from Lord Melbourne.

Lord LYNDHURST—" I must insist upon knowing from the noble viscount whether he intended to say that I was not a man of honour." Lord MELBOURNE-

" I beg leave to state, that when I referred to the noble duke, I meant to ear that, from the studied and scrupulous care which the noble duke takes ml advertising those opposite to him of any observations which he intends to asks in regnid ti them--1 meant to say, knowing the scrupulous care of the uobk duke 111 this particular, that he would not have acted as the noble and learned lord has done on this occasion. What followed—what the words were I used and what the manner was I used, I do not recollect. But I distinctly itste• that if I sail any thing in reference to the noble and learned lord—any thing ts the effect that he had acted unlike a man of honour, or unbecoming a gentle man, I most fully retract those words."

Lord LYNDHURST—"I am perfectly satisfied."

The motion was then agreed to.

On Tueoluy, Lord BROUGHAM said he wished to call the attention of time Ho ise to a statement made very distinctly at a public meeting of Magistcates, respecting a Miss Newman, who had been convicted of swindling, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation ; which sentence, for some reason unexplained, had been commuted to im- s ri nnient in the Penitentiary. From the Penitentiary, Miss Newman was removed to Betblem Hospital, on the supposition, or pretence, that she was insane ; but the matron of that establishment soon found out that she was not insane, by threatening to treat her as a real mad win - ° . Nevertheless, Miss Newman, instead of suffering imprison. meatthe Penitentiary, was allowed to remain, in a state of com- parative ease and comfort at the Lunatic Asylum. He had sent notice lo Lord Melbourne of his intention to make that statement, between seven and eight o'clock that morning ; and hoped therefore to receive some reply or explanation. Lord MELBOURNE thanked Lord Brougham for h's courtesy in sending him the notice, which he had received, and for the temperate wanner in which the statement had been made. Miss Newman's aenteace had been changed from transportation tc imprisonment at the suggestion of the Recorder, before whom she was tried. When at the Penitentiary, she behaved like an insane person. It was at first believed that her insanity was feigned, but afterwards that it was real ; and she was therefore transferred to the Lunatic Asylum. It was only the day before that Lord John Russell had received any report upon the case ; and therefore no blame could attach to Lord John for net removing her from time Asylum. Lord Melbourne would also take the opportunity of correcting a misstatement respecting the three children, who were said to have been subjected to solitary confinement. Those children, who were all of them ten years of age, (though it was smatter of little consequence whether they were seven, eight, or ten,) had very profligate parents ; and it was to take them from vicious example that they were confined in the Penitentiary, until the new prison in the Isle of Wight should be built— la the report which he had received with respect to these children, it was stated that they took exerthe regularly twice a day, half an hour each time, in company with the other prisoners of their ward ; that they attended school together twice a week ; that, in addition to that schooling, they received instructions in classes twice a week, once from the chaplain, and once from the schoolmaster; that they attended divine service in the chapel on Sunday ; and that they were regularly visited and instructed during the week by benevolent Christian ladies, who spent much time with them. This, he thought, could hardly be regarded as a condition of ye, y great hardship. The report besides contained a statement of the very great improvement which had taken place in the habits, morals, and learning of the children, since they had become inmates of the prison.

He had now a word to say about the two young menwho, it was said, had been subjected to solitary confinement. The 'fact was, that one had been confined in a separate cell altogether for twenty.two days, never for more than three days at a time; the other only on a few occa- sions, and for short periods. They were both exceedingly troublesome and vicious young men.

Lord LYNDHURST said, that his statement was founded on that of a most respectable Magistrate. He had not said that the children were subjected to solitary, but to separate confinement : there was, however, little difference between the two-- During the whole night, the child was entirely secluded ; during the day, it i vu kept n its cell, with some exercise; but not having communication with any one, except when it went to chinch on Sundays and two other days in the week, and when it went to school. which was during three hours in the week. Did not that nearly amount to ...ditary confinement? He had stated last night that the effect on Hie voices of I hi children was quite evident. He hail been so informed by a Magistrate ; awl, that he might.not be mistaken on the subject, he wrote a letter to the Magist■ote on Sunday last, to ask what he meant by the effect which had been produced on the children's voices. The answer was, that the voices were low, Mart ulate, and appeared as if inwardly speaking.

He felt perfectly justified in having called the attention of the House to this subject, as nothing could be more important than to watch the administration of justice.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that the distinction attempted to be drawn between separate and solitary confinement, was as flimsy a one as he had ever known. As to Miss Newman, it turned out that she had been of sane mind all the time; and it was useless to deny that she had been treated with favour.

Lord RADNOR hoped a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the subject. He believed it would appear that there was no foundation for Lord Lyndhurst's statements ; and he hoped that noble lord would take a lesson from that fact for the future.

Lord LYNDHURST, said that he had made inquiries from a Magis- trate of the county. Lord BROUGHAM was surprised to hear the Earl of Radnor pretend to lecture Lord Lyndhurst ex cathedra. That noble earl had changed his practice in these matters very much • for he was wont to exercise himself vigilantly in denouncing public delinquents. Let him wait for the result of the investigation ; it might appear that he required a lesson himself.

The Earl of DEVON and Lord WHARNCLIPPE defended the conduct of the Magistrates who had the superintendence of the Penitentiary. On the motion of Load COTTENHAM, a Select Committee was ap- pointed to inquire into the cases of the prisoners mentioned in the foregoing discussion.

On the same evening, in the House of Commons, Lord JOHN Rus- SELL made some remarks on the discourtesy of introducing this subject Without giving notice, alluding to the conduct of Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Peers. He encountered considerable opposition from the Tory benches, and was prevented from entering at large upon the

• ubject.

On Lord Jousm's motion a return was ordered of a letter written by the direct on of the Secretary of -state to the Commissioners of the Penitentiary.

COUNTY COURTS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Thursday, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the improvement of Counity Courts of civil and criminal juris- diction. He stated his reason 9r the necessity of such a measure, and then described its chief provisions. Recent changes in the criminal law had brought offences of a much more serious description within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates at Quarter-sessions, than formerly came before them ; and there was no certain rule distinguishing the criminals to he tried at Quarter-sessions from those to he tried at the Assizes. The number of offences brought before the Magistrates was, however, three times greater than those which the Judges dealt with. By a recent act, the prisoner was allowed the service of council, who raised questions which put persons not well acquainted with the law irt a painful and difficult situation. The necessity of more frequent gaol- deliveries was manifest, from the fact ;hat the average term of persons sentenced to imprisonmens was 130days, and the average term of their confinement before trial was 46 days ; the number of the first being only 60,000, of the second class 130,000. These facts were a few which might be adduced to prove the necessity of an alteration in the system ; and it was therefore proposed that the Sessions should be held every six weeks, instead of two months ; and that, on application from the Magistrates, the Secretary of State should appoint a barrister of not less than seven years standing to act as their chair- man. It was intended to connect with this measure another extending the jurisdiction of Sheriff Courts in civil suits from 10/. to 201. ; the Judges of these Courts to be named, not hy the High Sheriffs, but by the Crown, and to hold their office during life or good behaviour. It was further proposed, that these Judges should hold their courts once in six weeks, in different districts of the county. The expense would be defrayed partly from fees paid by suitors, partly out of the county-rates.

Mr. HAWES comdially approved of the measure; but thought the ap- pointment of the Barrister as Chairman ought not to depend upon the application of the Magistrates.

Captain PEcuELL expressed the same opinion

Mr. AGLIONBY suggested, that questions of damages and ejectment might be brought before the new courts.

Sir JOHN CAMPBET.L said, that the Courts would have jurisdiction over all questions now brought before Counzy Courts ; and he hoped that questions of damages not exceeding 10/. would be brought before them. If the experiment succeeded, the amount could be increased. He hoped that there would be no attempt to make the measure com- pulsory.

Major Hassolxv, Mr. WormEttorsE, Mr. HODGES, Mr. GAUT KNIGHT, and Mr. PAINES expressed general approval of the measure. In reply to a question from Colonel SIBTHORPE, Lord JOHN Hue- was sorry to state, that sheep-stealing had lately very much in- creased.

The bill was brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

THE ROYAL

Lord GEORGE LF.NNOX, Ott Tuesday, moved the following resole-

6°,7T—hat an humble white's be presented to her Majosty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to mike into her serious considel awn the ex- pedieney of adopting some plan to accelerate promotion generally in the corps of the Royal Marines, so that it may keep pace in a fair anti equitable degree with those branches of her Majesty's fences whose system of promotion is progressive, and also to take the case of the Captains of the Royal Marines into her Ma- jesty's consideration, with a view of placing them upon the same footing as those of her Majesty's regiments of the Line; and likewise to provide some measure for the benefit :HA rebel' of those First Lieutenants of the Royal Marines who served during the late war."

- lie complained of the conduct of Government towards the Marines; amid that the officers of that corps had not received the additional pay and promotion which Was promised them lust year.

Captain BOLDERO seconded the motion.

Mr. HUME, Sir CHARLES VERE, Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, Captain A'COURT, Sir ADOI.PHUS DALRYMPLE, amid Captain PECHELL, sup- ported the motion. Mr. CHARLES WOOD, Admiral TROUBRIDGE, Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN, Mr. SPRING RICE, and Admiral Anant, opposed it; principally on the ground that the motion was an interference with the prerogative of the Crown.

Mr. RICE also contended, that the officers of the Marines had re- ceived all the promotion which they were fairly entitled to; and moved as an amendment- " That there be laid on the table of the House a copy of the Order in Couricil of July 1887, respecting the promotion of officers in the Marine Service." Lord GEORGE LENNOX withdrew that part of his motion which might be construed into an interference with the Royal prerogative; and the resolution, as put from the chair, ended with the word "pro- gressive." The House divided on Mr. Spring Rice's amendment—

For it 67 Against it 100 Majority against Ministers 13 The original resolution was then put, and carried

MISCELLANEOUS.

CHURCH PROPERTY. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice, that he shold move, on Monday next, for the reappointment of the Committee of last session on Church leases.

GRAVESEND PIER BILL. The second reading VMS carried, by a majority of 195 to 44.

ADMITTANCE TO THE TOWER. On Tuesday, in reply to a question by Mr. HE:NIE, Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN stated, that a reduction of the prices of admission to the Tower would be made, as soon as some arrangements for the comfort of visiters and the security of the pro- perty were completed.

FIRST FRUITS AND TENTI1S BILL. On Wednesday, this bill was read a second time, on the motion of Mr. GALLY KNIGHT. It pro- vides for the abolition of the two Boards of First Fruits and Tenths, and the transfer of their duties to the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. Five offices, three of which are nearly sinecures, are to be abolished ; and the result of the alterations will be a saving of 1,5006 a year, which mill be applied to the augmentation of poor livings. After a brief discussion, the bill went through the Committee, and was ordered to be reported on Thursday.

HACKNEY CARRIAGE BILL. Sir MATTHEW WOOD moved that the House should go into Committee on this bill. Mr. WARBURTON pro. nounced it (sudsy in every clause ; and moved to put oil oil. I for six months. The gallery was cleared for a divisiou ; Lot tune were not forty Members present, and the House adjourned.

SLAVE-TRADE; BRITISH OFFICERS. On Thursday, Captain PE- luau., alluding to Lotd Brougham's speech on the slave-trade, repu- (listed indignantly the imputation that the British Naval officers suf. fered slave-vessels not laden to escape, and seized those with slaves on board for the sake of the head.money. Sir EDWARD OODRINGTON made some observations to the same effect. He was surprised that the noble and learned lord should dare to utter such falsehoods.

ELECTION PETITIONS.

On Monday, Mr. JENKINS reported from the Ipswich Election Committee, that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly were duly elected, and that Mr. Tuffuell, the Liberal Member, was not duly elected. On Tuesday, Mr. AGLIONBY presented a Fetition from Mr. Rigby Wagon, stating that some decisions bad been made by the Ipswich Committee which ought not to become precedents for future decisions, being contrary both to law and to common sense. Mr. Aglionby moved that the petition be printed ; and gave notice that he should afterwards call the attention of the House to the subject. This motion having been agreed to, Mr. JENKINS moved that the proceedings of the Corn- tnittee should be laid upon the table. The production of the minims, be said, would fully vindicate the conduct of the Committee. TLis motion was also agreed to.

The Committee to try the petition against the return of Mr. Bain- bridge, the Liberal Member for Taunton, was appointed on Tuesday.

Liberals-4; Tories-7 ;

Mr. Hurst, Mr. Peers Williams,

Dlr. George Cavendish, Mr. Robert Clive,

Sir Charles Blunt, Mr. Richard Pike, Mr. Wrightson. Mr. Robert Williams,

Mr. Robert Palmer, Mr. Litton,

Sir Charles Vere.

The London Election Committee was chosen on the same day.

Liberals-6; Torics-5;

Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Sanderson,

Mr. Fort, Mr. Fredetick Hodgson,

Mr. O'Callaghan, Sir Willi:km Young, Mr. Brocklehurst, Mr. Duffield,

Mr. Bowes, Mr. Cole.

Mr. William Carty.

On Wednesday, Mr. CURRY, Chairman of the Committee, appeared at the bar of the House, and stated, that Mr. Sanderson had commu- nicated to him the fact, that he had voted at the last London election ; which circumstance Mr. Sanderson said, he had only discovered that morning. (Load laughter.) The proceedings of the Committee had been adjourned in consequence.

Mr. SANDERSON said, that he felt some explanation NVOS due from him. It was now twilve years since he became a member of C.it louse, during all uhich time he had been also an elector of Londoo. It had so happened, that during the elections for London, he had almost invakiably been engaged with his own elections at Colchester ; and 1.e really thought that he had been absent at the lust clection ; but upon reference to the poll- books, entirely of his own accord—(Loud laugh- ter)—he had discovered his error, and now wished his name to be struck off the Committee.

Mr. IVYSZN very much regretted Mr. Sande.son's unfortunate error. The House would at once see the necessity of its interference ; and, in conformity with precedent and analogy, he thought that Mr. Sail- derson should be excused from attendance.

Lord JOIN RUSSELL concurred with Mr. Wynn.

Mr. SANDERSON advanced to the table, and was sworn to an affidavit, drawn up by the Clerk, that he had voted at the last election fur London.

It was then resolved that Mr. Sanderson be excused from furthcr attendance on the Committee.

The petitioners in this case are Tory electors of London against the return of the four Liberal City Members.

The Queen's County Committee, appointed on Tuesday, consists of the following Members.

Liberals-9; Tories—a; Mr. Loch, Mr. Pusey, Mr. Andrew White, Lord Barriegton.

Mr. John Charles Dundas, Mr. Hastie, Mr. Holland,

Lord Dalmeny,

Mr. Hollhouse, Lord Seymour,

Mr. Morris.

The petitioners are Tory electors of Queen's County against Mr. Fitzpatrick, the Liberal Member.

The Newcastle-under-Lyne Committee was appointed on Thursday.

Liberals-7; Tories—.3; Mr. Money, Mr. Blackburne, Lord William Bentinek, Lord Hillsborough, Mr. James Stewart, Lord Mare.

Mr. Mark Phillips, Mr. Bellew, Lord Ebrington, Doubtful-1;;

Sir Robert Price. Sir Charles Grey. The petitioner Is Mr. Badnall, unsuccessful candidate, against Mr Miller, Tory.

The Durham Committee was also chosen.

Liberals-6; Torics-4 ; Mr. Colrer, Sir George Bose,

Sir Harry Verney, Mr. Maunsell, Mr. Ball, Lord Ossulston, Lord James Stuart, Mr. Master. Mr. Hawkins, Doubtful-1; Mr. Chester. Mr. Towuley.

The petitioner is Mr. Grainger, Liberal, against Mr. Harland, Liberal.