Commons Sitting of 22 March 1833

Preamble
MINUTES. Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. Alder-man WOOD, an Account of the Quantity of Spirits imported, from Scotland and Ireland from October 1832, with the Amount of Duty paid thereon: also of the Quantity of Spirits on hand at different periods during the years 1832, and 1833: also an Account of the Duty paid in the United Kingdom on all sorts of Tobacco.
Bills. Read a first time:—Police Offices, London; and Payment of Debts.—Read a second time:—Public Revenue (Scotland); Small Debt Court (Scotland).—Read a third time:—Sugar Duties.
Petitions presented. By Mr. R. PALMER, from Wantage; by Mr. HARCOURT, from Chipping Norton, and Dukin-field; by Mr. J. E. STANLEY, Sir JOHN MAXWELL, Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE, Mr. PEASE, and Lord WATERPARK, from several Places,—for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. ROBERT PALMER, from Berkshire, Wantage, and other Places; by Mr. WILSON PATTEN, from Bury, and several other Places; by Lord WILLIAM LENNOX, from a Congregation at Kensington; by Lord VILLIERS, from Honiton; by Lord WATERPARK, from Norbury, and other Places; by Lord MOLYNEUX, from Southport; by Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Pontypool, and other Places; by Mr. PRYME, from Cambridge Town; by Mr. WILLIAM PETER, from Wolvey and Bodmin; and by Mr. HALLYBURTON, from Kirriemuir,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath—By Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, from Kildaly, and other Places in Ireland, for the Abolition of Tithes, the Amendment of the Grand Jury Laws, and the Repeal of the Union.—By Lord EASTNOR, from Reigate, for a Repeal of the Duty on Malt and Hops.—By Lord STORMONT, from Earshain, Norfolk, for a Repeal of the Duty on Taxed Carts.—By Mr. PEASE, from South Shields, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. PRYME, from Belfast and Newry, for the Substitution of a Solemn Affirmation in all Cases where an Oath is now required by Law.—By Sir ROBERT Bateson, from the Presbyterian Church at Ballymeny, against the New System of Education in Ireland—By Mr. HALL, from Monmouth, and other Places; by Lord WILLIAM LENNOX, from King's Lynn; by Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, and by Mr. FITZGERALD, from many Places in Ireland,—against the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill—By Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE, from Kirton, against the Labourers' Employment Act.—By Mr. Serjeant SPANKIR, from St. Luke's, Middlesex;
968
and by Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE, from a District of Lincoln' shire, against the Assessed Taxes.—By Sir JOHN MAXWELL, from Paisley, for a Reduction of the Stamp Duty on Indentures of Apprenticeship; and from the Handloom Weavers of Stonehouse, for a Board of Trade.—By Mr. J. E. STANLEY, from certain Soap Manufacturers, for a Repeal or Reduction of the Duty on Soap.—By Sir JOHN MAXWELL, from three Places in Scotland, and from Mr. ROBERT FERGUSON, from Dysart—against the present System of Church Patronage (Scotland).—By Mr. WILSON PATTEN, Mr. WILLIAM PETER, Mr. PEASE, and by Mr. ROBERT PALMER, from several Places, against the Beer Act.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH—PETITIONS.
Mr. Harcourtpresented petitions for the better observance of the Sabbath from Henley-upon-Thames, and sixteen parishes in the southern districts of the county of Oxford. These petitions were signed by all the incumbents of the various parishes from which they had emanated, and afforded a contradiction to the somewhat uncharitable allegations of the hon. member for Oldham, that petitions on this subject originated from worldly, rather than religious, feelings. He entirely concurred in the desire of the petitioners, that the due observance of the Sabbath ought to be secured, and he did so, not only in a religious point of view, but to increase the moral and physical energies of the labouring classes of the community, who had a fair right to claim the protection of the Legislature from Sunday labour.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, be had that morning read a pamphlet published by those who wished for an alteration in the laws respecting the Sabbath; it was a sort of circular, which they sent about, having a draft of a petition attached to it, for the adoption of others. In this pamphlet they set forth that the non-observance of the Sabbath was injurious to their trade; and he wished the House to bear this in mind, for it would be found on examination of all the petitions, that at the bottom, the object was to keep the trade in their own hands, in order that they might get the most of it, and prevent others from selling, while they would rather stay at home, or enjoy themselves in any way they pleased. It was clear then that it was a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, and not of the Gospel.
Mr. Harcourt, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for Oldham, said, that the individuals who had been charged by the hon. Member with getting up these petitions from worldly motives, were, for the most part, religious persons,

969
who acted from the purest motives. Besides, the number of the petitions was a proof that there was generally a feeling in the public mind that the laws on this subject should be rendered more efficient: the petitions being more in number than on any other subject, except the abolition of slavery. It was his wish that the Sabbath could be established upon the ancient customs and usages of the country, for then the industrious classes would become morally and physically benefited by the change. Those classes had a fair claim to be protected in the right of enjoying the Sabbath by the legislature, without reference to the question as a matter of conscience. As to cessation from labour, a distinction should, of course, be made as to what were or were not works of necessity, but this he confessed was attended with considerable difficulty. He thought much more would be accomplished by the example of the upper classes, by refraining from putting into movement labour on the Sabbath-day, than by laws. And that if operatives were paid on some other day of the week than Saturday it would prevent much unnecessary shopping on the Sabbath.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, the hon. Member had remarked that something should be done to make the existing laws conformable to the ancient practice of observing the Sabbath in this country. Now, the fact was, that according to the ancient practice fairs and markets were held on the Sabbath day; the first law for religiously observing the Sabbath having been passed in the reign of Charles 2nd. So much for the ancient practice of the country, at which time, however, the people were quite as religious as at present. But the hon. Member seemed to impute to him a desire to detract from the motives of the petitioners in stirring on this subject, as though he had originated the idea that they were animated by worldly motives. Now, the fact was, that they had originated that idea themselves. They had, as he had already stated, published a pamphlet, which they circulated with a form of petition, in the very outset of which they declared that they sustained great injury in consequence of others not observing the Sabbath with so much rigidity as their consciences dictated to them to be necessary for their own observance of it. He did not mean to say, that a great many of the persons who had signed these several
970
petitions were not sincere, that they were not religious; especially the petitioners who resided in Scotland, and of whom he had seen much. But what could the House do? That, after all, was the thing. Why they could do nothing that would be effectual. They could do nothing to compel people not to employ their servants on the Sabbath, to restrain farmers from employing their servants, or masters their apprentices; and as to talking about the example of the rich, of saying that ladies should not employ their footmen, their coachmen, or their grooms—it was all nonsense. The law, as it now stood, was quite good enough, and he was sure it could not be altered without doing mischief.
Mr. Harcourthad by no means expressed an opinion as to what was necessary to be done in the details of the Bill introduced into this House, but merely said, that if the penal system were to be kept up, it would be desirable to accommodate the penalties to the change in the value of money. He was far from having any puritanical wishes to curtail the re creation of the poor, who certainly, in former times, especially in the country, enjoyed much more recreation on the Sunday than they now did. He thought that much more might be done by example than by legislation.
Petition to lie on the Table.

FACTORIES COMMISSION.
Mr. John Stanleypresented a Petition from the Master Manufacturers of Stockport, praying that further evidence might be taken before the Factories' Bill was passed, in order that they might have an opportunity of clearing their character of the imputations cast upon them in the ex-parte evidence brought forward by Mr. Sadler, and admitted by him to be intended only to establish his views. He concurred in the prayer of the petition, but could not concur in some of its statements. The Bill brought in some years ago by Sir John Hobhouse had not had a fair trial, for it was confined in its operation to a very small portion of the factories of this country. It had not been tried at all in the woollen, the silk, or the hemp factories, so that how far it would protect the children employed was not known. He considered that the petitioners had made out such a case as entitled them to have an inquiry either by a Committee or a

971
Commission. If he thought that the object of the petitioners was to stave off the introduction of a measure that was so necessary as the Bill for regulating factories, he would not lend himself to it; but in his opinion it would have quite the contrary effect.
Lord Molyneuxhad been requested to support the petition, which he did with much pleasure. He had the honour of representing one of the largest manufacturing districts; and from his own knowledge he could state, that the electors had been much wronged in the statements that had gone forth to the world on a previous occasion.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that his opinion upon this subject was not founded upon any notion of the tyranny of the manufacturers, but on the facts stated by the manufacturers themselves; one of which was, that the children were worked twelve and more hours a-day. He would take the evidence of the medical men, who were of opinion that not even adults could with safety to their health be worked for that period. Unless the manufacturers could alter that fact, he should feel justified in voting for the Bill.
Mr. Phillip Howardsaid, that the manufacturers in that part of the country with which he was connected (Carlisle) wished for the most rigid inquiry into the subject, feeling that a stigma had been cast upon them which had been highly injurious. They had been held up to the reproach of the whole nation, and they naturally felt a desire to clear that reproach away. The cotton manufacturers alone had been hitherto protected by the Legislature; but the same protection should extend to the persons engaged in other branches of manufacture. He was by no means opposed to the principle of the Bill; for he thought, without pre-supposing cruelty on the part of the manufacturers, that twelve or fourteen hours a day for children's labour were by far too much.
Mr. Wilson Pattenput it to the House whether it would not have been far better that this discussion should have been postponed until the Motion came regularly before them. Many Members in the late Parliament had opposed even the appointment of a Committee, and no doubt the same reasons which then actuated them would induce them to oppose a Commission; but he thought that very few would be found to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Wilbrahambegged to state, that there was not in the House a more ardent friend to any Bill which went to throw the protecting arm of the law round those children than himself, but he entreated the House to look at the palpable injustice which would be done to the masters if the Bill were passed without inquiry, and without listening to the complaints of those who were to be affected by it. He would not go into the evidence given before the Committee, but he would just remind the House, that out of the number of witnesses examined, there were ten from Scotland, two only from the whole county of Chester, and from Leeds and its neighbourhood forty-nine.
Sir George Phillipsstated, that since this subject had been under discussion, he had obtained all the information upon it that he could. He must say, that he knew of factories which had existed under the present law for thirty or forty years; and from his own observation of those factories, he could state that there were no manufacturing or agricultural labourers in Lancashire, that were in a better situation than the people (male and female) who were employed in them.
Mr. Wilksrose to order. No less than nine Gentlemen had addressed the House upon the presentation of this petition; and he felt quite certain, that if such a course were to be adopted, a stop would be put altogether to the presentation of petitions.
Sir George Phillipshad considered himself bound to say a few words, only one side of the question having been stated to the House. If the House did not wish that he should enter further into the subject, he would give way. An hon. Member had stated, that no evidence could be given that the manner in which children worked in factories was consistent with their health. Now, he would only refer that hon. Member to the factory of Mr. Feilden, where he would find evidence that the children engaged in that employment were in a high state of health and happiness.
Mr. Cobbettregretted the absence of his hon. colleague. He had himself no experience in the matter, no knowledge of it, and no reasons to offer to the House; all that he acted upon was authority. His hon. colleague, he believed, worked up no less than a hundredth part of the cotton that was imported into England.

973
He employed nearly 2,000 persons, was a firm supporter of the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), and a most stern opponent of every species of oppression. He would add, that his hon. colleague was averse from issuing the Commission proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire.
Petition laid on the Table.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.
Mr. John Stanleypresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Staley Bridge, Lancaster, praying for a removal of the disabilities under which the Jews laboured. The petition was numerously signed, and he trusted that there would be no opposition to the measure about to be introduced on the subject. Indeed he was sure there would not, except from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cobbett). He did not see why the Jews should not be allowed the privileges which Christians possessed, as he could confidently say his Majesty had not in his dominions more loyal or industrious subjects.
Mr. Cobbettwished to ask the hon. Member who said of the Jews that they were one of the most industrious classes of his Majesty's subjects, whether he could produce a Jew who ever dug, who went to plough, or who ever made his own coat or his own shoes, or who did anything at all, except get all the money he could from the pockets of the people?
Mr. John Stanleysaid, that as the chief objection of the hon. member for Oldham to the Jews was, that they were blasphemers, and as the hon. Member in a former part of his life condemned Tom Paine as a blasphemer, and yet afterwards assisted at his apotheosis, by bringing over his bones to this country, he trusted yet to see him change his opinion with regard to the Jews.
Mr. Cobbett: After the personal attack which was just now made upon me by an hon. Gentleman opposite, who has accused me of having formerly represented Mr. Paine as a blasphemer, and of having latterly done something which would imply that I entertained a far different belief. Now, I never in the whole course of my life—
Mr. Wilson Patten: I rise to order, Sir, for I do not see how this applies to the present petition.
The Speaker: What the hon. member for Oldham is saying certainly does not
974
apply to the present petition; but it has been the usual practice to afford any Member who has had a charge brought against him personally an opportunity of refuting it, to allow him to embrace the earliest one which offered.
Mr. Cobbett: Since the time I first spoke of Mr. Paine, I have written a hundred volumes, and have, perhaps, had occasion to mention his name three hundred times; but whenever I have mentioned his name, and spoken in commendation of his writings, I have never failed to make an exception with regard to his religious writings. As to the act I performed of bringing his remains to England, I can only say, that I held it to be my duty, and for the reason which I stated at the time. I did that because he had written books published by him both in France and England, clearly pointing out the pernicious consequences of paper money. Mr. Paine was my teacher with regard to paper money, and if his advice had been followed instead of being rejected, we should not have been in the state of difficulty in which we now find ourselves with respect to the currency.
Mr. John Stanleysaid, that after what had fallen from the hon. member for Oldham, he must be allowed to justify himself by reading the very words of the publication of the hon. Member himself. In one place in the hon. Member's writings he found the following words:—In no part of the Age of Reason does Paine speak in terms of impious irreverence of God. He praises God, and calls upon his name, and that, too, in a strain of eloquence the equal of which I never heard in any sermon."—vol. 35, p. 725. In other places, however, the hon. member for Oldham said: The "Age of Reason is as despicable as its author. The wretch has all his life been employed in leading fools astray from their duty. His religion is of a piece with his politics, the one inculcates the right of revolting against Government, the other against God."—vol. 3, p. 389—"Though Thomas Paine was no Christian, he was no blasphemer. He offers no indignity to God himself."—vol. 35, p. 735—"Paine was a cruel, treacherous, and blaspheming ruffian. He was a traitor, and a traitor is the foulest fiend on earth."—vol. 4. He trusted therefore—
The Speaker: As the hon. Member has now answered the hon. member for Old-

975
ham, it would be quite out of order for him to proceed.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUPPRESSIONOF DISTURBANCES (IRELARD) BILL.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve into a Committee upon the Irish Disturbances' Bill.
House in Committee.
On the 24th Clause, prohibiting any fire, bonfire, smoke, &c. as a signal,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he thought there could be no objection to leave out the smoke.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that that might be as easily made the means of conveying a signal as anything else, and that the whole question would be as to the intent of the parties.
Mr. O'Connellproposed an Amendment, the object of which was, to confine the operation of the clause to the proclaimed districts. The purpose of most of those signals was to give notice of the approach of the tithe-collector; and if this clause was to be permitted to extend to quiet districts, the Bill would become much more of a tithe-collecting Bill than it was already.
Lord Althorpobserved, that if it could be supposed that all the districts not actually proclaimed would be in a state of profound quiet, the Motion would be reasonable enough. But as that was not to be hoped for, and as it was good to be able to employ a preventive power, he thought the Motion ought not to be agreed to. The prohibition to make signals in quiet districts was no hardship, and it might have the effect of preventing them becoming so disturbed as to render it necessary for the Lord-lieutenant to proclaim them.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the clause was not capable of being applied to facilitate the collection of tithe, but it was capable of preventing the assembling of tumultuous bodies of men, whose object was to obstruct by force and violence the collection of tithe; and in his opinion the clause ought to be operative in that way.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if the operation of the clause was confined to tumultuous meetings, he would withdraw his objection.
Mr. Henry Grattanalso objected to the clause. He would leave out all the words after the word "making," in the second line, down to the word "signal,"
976
in the twelfth, and then the clause would be as follows:—"Be it enacted that from and after the passing of this Act no person shall make, aid, or assist in making, any signal, notice, or call, to or upon any person or persons whatever to assemble together;" and so on to the end of the clause. He thought it expedient to make this alteration in the clause, as it was notorious that on the 24th of June, and some other clays, the peasantry in Wick-low, and in some other parts of Ireland, were in the habit, and had been in the habit, from time immemorial, of lighting bonfires on the different hills; and under the clause as it stood at present they would be compelled to prove that this their compliance with ancient custom was not giving an illegal signal under this Act.
The Solicitor Generalthought that the words to which the hon. Gentleman objected ought to stand part of the Bill, as it was incumbent on the prosecutor to show that these signal-fires were lighted knowingly and illegally.
Mr. O'Connellwould not divide the House upon his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.
On the 26th clause being read.
Mr. Inghamproposed the insertion, after the third line of the clause, of the following words:—"Excepting so far as it may concern the arrest or imprisonment of any person in custody in such district, and not brought to trial within three calendar months." He thought that otherwise the indemnity afforded by the Bill would be too comprehensive.
The Solicitor Generalcontended, that unless the indemnity provided by this clause were given, it would be absurd to expect that either military or civil officers would act with the necessary vigour. This indemnity only applied to what was done in a proclaimed district in pursuance or execution of any power or authority conferred by the Act. Therefore, if any officer, either civil or military, did any thing illegal, and exercised his authority in any way which was not sanctioned by the Act, he would still be liable to an action in the civil, or to an indictment in the criminal, courts. It had been repeatedly said, in the course of this debate, that this Bill suspended the Habeas Corpus Act; but the fact was not so. The Bill merely said, that a person in custody under this

977
Act should not, for three months from the day of his arrest, be entitled to be removed by writ of Habeas Corpus to have his case examined by a Judge; but at the expiration of three months, the party so arrested could claim as a right to be brought to trial; or if he was not brought to trial, could claim as a right his being brought before a Judge by a writ of Habeas Corpus. He considered the clause, as it stood, to be indispensably necessary to the efficacy of the Bill, and he should strenuously oppose the Amendment.
Mr. O'Connellaffirmed, that, by this clause, a military man, if in pursuance or execution of any power conferred by this Act, he committed the greatest outrage that ever was committed, was completely protected from all legal punishment. The clause provided, that all officers and soldiers acting in pursuance or execution of such power or authority should be responsible only to Courts-martial. Now, if an officer, after committing an enormous outrage in execution of the powers of this Act, should, before the knowledge of its perpetration reached the Horse-Guards, either sell or resign his commission, he could not be made responsible to a Court-martial, as he would no longer be in the army. He would then only be responsible to civil process; and to make that responsibility a nullity, this clause provided, that he should not be questioned in any civil or criminal court. He maintained that things might be done in pursuance of this Act, which were not in conformity with this Act, and that things might be done in execution of it which were not merely contrary to its letter, but which were also more outrageous than its spirit, outrageous as every body admitted its spirit to be. This clause, therefore, provided the most monstrous indemnity for outrage that ever was inserted in an Act of Parliament, or that ever was inflicted upon an oppressed and injured people. By this clause, not only were all magistrates and peace-officers protected from all process in the civil or criminal courts, but even if they grossly misconducted themselves, nobody was entitled to prosecute them save his Majesty's Attorney General. The Bill cleared magistrates and peace-officers from all responsibility to any body save that most innoxious officer to all persons who act under the authority of the Government, the King's Attorney General. The Diabolus Regis would be for them a protecting
978
angel. He asked the Government to alter this clause in such a manner that no persons, save those who were acting bona fide, and not maliciously, under the authority of the Bill, should be indemnified against the legal consequences of their misconduct. But this alteration he knew the Committee would not make, and therefore he should vote in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that it appeared to him that this clause was taken from an Act of Parliament, passed by the Irish Parliament during the Rebellion, and which Act granted indemnity to those who acted in pursuance of it, in order that vigorous measures might be executed more effectually. The indemnity proposed by the clause was more extensive than was required, or than was safe or even proper to grant. The clause was not well considered by those who had the framing of it, and he would certainly vote against it.
Mr. Stanleysaid, it could not be expected that soldiers, acting under the provisions of the Bill, would do their duty if they were not duly protected; and he conceived that this clause did no more than afford adequate protection. He acknowledged that it was unconstitutional, but so was the whole Bill, and yet it was rendered necessary by the disturbances in Ireland, which disturbances, justifying the passing of such a measure, also justified the present clause.
The Solicitor Generalcould assure the Committee, that the clause under consideration would not allow crimes committed by soldiers acting under the Act to go unpunished. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had said, that it deprived the people of all protection against the outrages of the soldiery. That he most unequivocally denied. If any such outrages were committed as those supposed by the hon. Member, that clause would not protect the guilty party. It would be necessary for him to show that he was acting in the discharge of his duty. It would not do to say: "I was a patrol at the time;" he must prove that he was bona fide carrying the law into execution. If, for instance, a soldier were to insult a woman under pretence of searching for arms, he would certainly be punishable under the Act.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonthought, that it would be perfectly impossible, as the Bill stood, to punish a soldier so acting.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that, in giving such protection to soldiers, they were going far beyond the old Insurrection Act, and he could see no cause why they should do so. They could not plead inconvenience; for it was well known that there were only two or three actions brought against soldiers acting under the old Insurrection Act. Could the Government show, what alone could justify the additional protection then asked, that the provisions of the old Insurrection Act were not adequate to protect the soldiers? He denied it; for experience showed, that the soldiers were fully protected under that Act. The learned Solicitor might be right in his position of law; but he said, with the greatest possible deference and respect, that this was an Act, of which English lawyers had had no experience. It had been clearly shown by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, and his hon. and learned friend the member for Monaghan, men of high standing and reputation at the Irish bar, what the effect of this Act would be. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, proposed that no man who acted in the bona fide discharge of his duty should have a verdict given against him; but how was that to be tried? Not by a Jury? Why, should an officer, who was specially directed by the terms of a proclamation to enforce the utmost rigour of the law, for the suppression of seditious meetings, not be cited before an ordinary tribunal. He was willing to protect the military; give them an adequate protection, but do not take away from the people all protection. Give the defendant treble costs in case of an improper or uncalled for prosecution and if he have acted in the bona fide discharge of his duty, though in mistake, let the Judge have the power of qualifying the verdict. Was not that sufficient? If it were a probable case, let the Jury return a verdict accordingly. He did not wish that the soldiers should be put in a situation of peril; but he did not wish to put them in such a situation as would deprive the people of all protection from the outrages of the soldiers.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, it appeared to him that there were two classes of delinquents who were confounded by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. There were, in the first place, such as transgressed unwillingly—such as contravened the law, either by acting negligently, or by over
980
zeal, but who nevertheless acted bona fide. It was to such persons that the protection of the clause then before them was directed. The other class, however—such as from love of plunder, or any other cause, committed outrages, were not afforded any protection by it. He thought it right that the Committee should observe the distinction, in order to understand the operation of the clause thoroughly. He had looked into the Bill to see whether all the offences created under it could be brought under the cognizance of a Court-martial, and he felt satisfied that they could. A soldier committing any such offences as had been supposed by the hon. and learned Member, would not only be punishable under that Act, but also under the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War, so that his crime would be doubly cognizant.
Mr. Henry Grattanthought that the protection granted to the soldiers by that clause, ought only to be granted in a country which was in a state of revolution. If Ministers meant to say, that Ireland was in a state of insurrection, or bordering on insurrection, they ought to say so boldly, but they ought not to come down to that House and endeavour to pass a clause which insinuated that the country was in a state of insurrection, and would be justifiable only when it was in such a state. He had many cases in his possession, of the most horrible acts committed by officers while on Courts-martial during the time when Ireland was formerly under Martial-law, in every one of which the delinquents escaped with impunity. He therefore thought that the present clause ought not to be acceded to.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, it had always been the practice of the Government of Ireland to defend the acts of their servants, however culpable they might be. As an instance of this assertion he would state a case. Some time since, in the south of Ireland, a man was tried for murder; a Magistrate who was anxious to procure a conviction actually kidnapped the witnesses for the defence, and kept them out of the way until the trial was over. Their absence was perhaps not the cause of the prisoner being convicted, but capitally convicted he was. An action was afterwards brought against that Magistrate when Mr. Barrington, the Crown solicitor, about whom so much had been said during these debates, was instructed by the Go-

981
vernment to defend that Magistrate; the law officers of the Crown were specially retained to defend him, and the unfortunate individuals who originated the proceeding had to pay all their expenses. The Magistrate he presumed had his expenses paid out of that ample fund which the right hon. Secretary had at his control, but of which he hoped the House would at no distant period, require an accurate account. There was nothing in the articles of war to prevent a soldier from breaking into and searching a peasant's house on the most flimsy pretence. If it were not the intention to take away from the subject every protection, and to hand him over to a Judge in a red coat, he besought the Committee to consider that the poor peasant was entitled to protection. When he looked to the provisions of this clause, however, he could not fail to conclude, that the object was, to give an indemnity of the most extensive and the most effectual kind to every person who committed an offence against the people. That conclusion was confirmed when he looked to the clause in the Bill giving to every Magistrate and police-officer, and, in short, every other person, indemnity, if there seemed to be probable cause for what he might do Why, what was the meaning of "probable cause?" He defied any man, not well versed in the jargon of courts, to understand the meaning and intention of the Bill.
Colonel Williamsopposed the clause, which he confidently believed would act as a protection for the most atrocious crimes. He himself remembered with what perfect impunity an innocent man had been shot by a soldier at Liverpool, during: the reign of terror in England. A party of soldiers were conducting a deserter through the streets; he ran away, the officer ordered one of his party to fire, the deserter escaped but a bystander was killed. He had made every exertion to bring the case before the public, and to have this atrocity properly punished, but in vain.
Mr. William Roche: My recollection of the proceedings of military tribunals for civil purposes, authorizes and impels me to remark that if this Court-martial clause is unfortunately to be retained, the House cannot be too particular in diminishing the evil, in guarding it, if that be possible from abuse and from the tyrannical tendency of such tribunals, when taken
982
out of their natural sphere of jurisdiction. Sir, I can remember the proceedings of some of these Courts-martial in the year 1798, in Ireland. I then recollect to have seen three unfortunate men undergoing the extreme sentence of the law in the city of Limerick (which I have the honour to represent), and a similar number suffering flagellation, within the view and hearing of the dying individuals. That men guilty of rebellion should forfeit their lives, provided their guilt be fairly established, is far from my intention to impugn, but that their sufferings should be wantonly and cruelly embittered, that their last aspirations to the Deity, before whose awful and unerring tribunal they were on the point of appearing, should be thus disturbed and distracted by the shrieks of other sufferers, was such a needless, gratuitous, and ferocious act of cruelty, as could alone be perpetrated by men, who under the demoralising influence of arbitrary power, had become lost to every sense of humanity, and enamoured of cruelty for cruelty's sake. Further, Sir, let any Member of this House turn to the pages of "Plowden's History of Ireland after the Union," and he will find at the close of the first volume, a painfully interesting narrative of the trial of a Mr. Francis Arthur, of Limerick, an opulent and respectable gentleman, and as the narrative demonstrates, a perfectly innocent man; a narrative containing such a hideous mass of injustice and tyranny, of ignorance and rapacity, as to satisfy any impartial mind that military tribunals are utterly unfit for civil purposes, and have a natural tendency to degenerate into injustice and tyranny. This gentleman, Sir, was accused by a suborned and unfortunate man named Maum (unfortunate I only call him, because he afterwards did all that lay in his power to expiate the foul offence) of being concerned in the rebellion, and of an intimacy with Lord Edward Fitzgerald. Maum, Sir, was urged on by men, though of higher rank yet of more abominable character than himself, and at length induced by the prospect of pardon (for he was under sentence of transportation for rebellious practices), to bring this false and foul charge against Mr. Arthur, of which he was convicted by the Court-martial in opposition to every principle of the rules of evidence and the claims of justice, escaping with his life principally because

983
the rapacity of the court or of the influential part of it preponderated over their injustice and cruelty—a court composed, too, of some military men of high rank, and assisted by a Judge Advocate. Mr. Arthur's sentence was commuted by the Government to a mere residence in England, very much arising from the representations and influence of my father, whose sense of Mr. Arthur's innocence and unjust condemnation induced him to interpose; and ultimately, he (Mr. Arthur) was allowed to return to and stay in his native city. Sir, with these recollections and impressions I cannot too strongly express my condemnation of the clause altogether, and my hope that if retained, it will be fenced round with every possible protection against abuse and injustice.
The Amendment negatived.
Mr. Lynchmoved that the words "That all officers and soldiers, acting in pursuance of such power and authority, shall be responsible only to Courts-martial" be struck out. The House had been repeatedly told that these officers were not to act as a regular Court-martial, but were to administer justice according to the principles of the common law; this tribunal ought, therefore, to be amenable for their acts to the common law.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Prymeprotested against that portion of the clause which enacted that no person should institute a prosecution against any of the persons acting under the authority of the Act, except by the permission of the Attorney General. This prohibition he thought monstrous. There were already sufficient obstacles in the way of persons wishing to prosecute without this restriction; and he considered that the military had sufficient protection granted them in other clauses of the Bill. If this clause were allowed, officers and soldiers might not in violence with impunity. He should therefore move, that this part of the clause be struck out.
The Solicitor Generalthought the Amendment unnecessary; the Attorney-General would not refuse his warrant when the cause of justice required it. Even supposing the prosecution to be commenced, the Attorney General might defeat it by entering a noli prosequi, which he always had the power of doing.
Mr. Prymewas well acquainted with
984
the existence of such a prohibitory power in the Attorney General, but he seldom used it unless in some extraordinary cases. He wished that military officers should be amenable to a civil tribunal for offences committed under this Act, and surely the observation of his learned friend was not meant to apply to civil suits.
Mr. O'Connellthought the argument of the Solicitor General convincing, but it was convincing against his own view. If the Attorney General could, under the directions of the Crown, stop any trial, why grant this additional power? It was at least unnecessary, and therefore he would support the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. O'Connellasked whether the clause had undergone any amendments?
The Chairman replied in the negative.
Mr. O'Connellrose to oppose it altogether, as giving a general indemnity for any act whatever, which might be done in pursuance, or in execution of the powers conferred by this Bill, and leaving no power to have it questioned in any Court of Justice in the kingdom. He took it to be clear law, according to this clause, that if a party was acting under this Bill, anything he might do was indemnified, no matter how atrocious. He might break open houses, or commit any violence under the Act, and with perfect impunity. The Courts of Justice in Ireland carried their protection of officers acting under an Act of Parliament to such extraordinary lengths, that any one committing any act whatever had only to prove that he was at the time in the execution of his duty under an Act of Parliament, and he would have no necessity for such a clause as this to protect him. The words of the Act were more comprehensive than had ever been introduced into an Act of Parliament before. Anything might be done—any property destroyed, and the party doing such injury would be free from responsibility to any civil or criminal tribunal other than a Court-martial. This clause would give an indemnity to soldiers who might think proper to shoot hundreds of the King's subjects. He would at once throw over board the assertion of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that this clause was not intended to indemnify all soldiers who might kill people at the order of their officers—but the Act went further, for it indemnified the officers also. A man might have his house burnt and lose the whole of his

985
property by the command of an officer, and yet he would have no remedy by action or otherwise, for he could not get damages at the hands of a Court-martial, and damages were the only things that could recompense him for his loss. By this clause all pecuniary remuneration was wholly excluded. It was the most preposterous clause he had ever heard of, and he was astonished how it could have been contemplated in a civilised country. He would put a case of a general officer choosing to break into a House, burn it, and destroy everything. He would be liable to be tried by Court-martial, but then no damages could be given, and therefore the sufferer could have no redress. But he would suppose the case of an officer committing an outrage, and then quitting the army. The Court-martial could take cognizance of him only as long as he was a soldier, and in that case he would place himself beyond the only jurisdiction whatever that could punish him for his conduct. This clause went beyond any Act of Parliament that ever yet had passed that House, and left no redress whatever, except what could be obtained from Courts-martial, and gave no compulsory process by which it could be got even from that Court. He repeated, that anything which might be done under this Act, was already amply indemnified, and the only effect of this clause would be to give protection to all outrages that might be committed beyond the sanction which it afforded.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, he should not refer to the principle, "whether the state of Ireland was such as to justify the measure," but would content himself with defending the clause. A jurisdiction would rest with the Judge in the first instance, to decide whether there was probable good reason for any act committed by persons employed in carrying the measure into effect, or whether such parties had abused the powers intrusted to them. If the Judge had a doubt on the subject, he would send the case to a Jury to decide whether the individuals had acted bona fide or mala fide. If it should appear that they had acted in the latter way, they would not escape punishment—there was no analogy for assuming that they would; but if, on the contrary, an error had been committed in the bona fide discharge of their duty under the Act, was it fit that the error should subject indi-
986
viduals to punishment, and to the jurisdiction of a tribunal with which they were least acquainted? But the hon. and learned Member asked what was to be done if a party retired from the army after committing an offence? Such a case, it would be admitted, was likely to be exceedingly rare, but it was not impossible. Assuming such a case to occur, he declared that it was impossible for a man to put on a character for the purpose of abusing the power it conferred, and then, after committing a malignant act of injustice, to divest himself of that character and escape. Any one attempting to do so would find himself worse than mistaken, he would merely aggravate the punishment of his offence by such inconceivable baseness. Did the articles of war supply means of punishment? He had no doubt they did. He admitted that there was a great deal of vagueness in military law; but, be that as it might, it had always been found sufficient to repress offences committed by the military; and he took it upon himself to say, that there was no offence that could possibly be committed by abusing the provisions of the Act which could not be punished under the articles of war and the Mutiny Act. This clause would protect the military, while in the bona fide discharge of their duty; it would protect them against trial in a civil court, but would send them to a tribunal where they would not escape the punishment of excesses committed in the execution of a lawful mission.
Mr. O'Dwyerwas of opinion, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered one of the objections of his hon. and learned friend the member for Dublin.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the Insurrection Act gave complete protection to Magistrates so that they could not be prosecuted for anything done under it. And this Bill went still further. No prosecution could be instituted against Magistrates for offences committed under the Bill, unless with the sanction of the Attorney General. There could then be no action at all brought against the Magistrates. Was that intended, he desired to know? He knew a case of a Magistrate who had quarrelled with a gentleman, and who arrested him in the middle of the street of a town, surrounded by people, under the Insurrection Act. The arrest was made after night-fall, and the gentleman was put into gaol. If such a case were to occur

987
under this Bill, the gentleman could get no redress at all. Was that meant? Was it intended to exonerate Magistrates, whatever they might do? They could not be prosecuted for damages, because the Bill specified that no offences committed under it should be questioned except by Courts-martial. The Magistrates could not be prosecuted in the Court of King's Bench. No pecuniary compensation could be obtained—none could be given by a Court-martial—no Courts of Law could take cognizance of the Magistrates' offences. How could this be remedied. By the addition of two words, "bona fide" The Solicitor General said, that injuries committed bona fide, would not be punished; but unless they were so committed they would be liable to punishment. Make that clear in the face of the Bill—introduce the words, that nothing which is done bona fide under this Bill shall be questioned but by Courts-martial. Make it clear that the Act is not to support oppression. Let it not be employed to crush the liberties of the subject one bit more than there is need. When flagitious violations of duty take place let the Act not be so drawn up as to screen them.
The Solicitor Generalthought the words unnecessary. As the Bill was drawn, actions such as that described by the hon. and learned Gentleman might be prosecuted. An action would lie. If persons in the exercise of authority acted wantonly, they would have no protection from the law, and they would deserve none. No words were wanted to make the actions which were done mala fide punishable, and it was only the actions which were done bona fide which would receive indemnity. Not only individuals who so acted might be brought before Courts-martial, but they might, if the Attorney General pleased, be brought before a Civil Court.
Mr. Henry Grattanwould oppose this clause, as the most mischievous, the most dangerous, clause of the whole Bill. It put the whole people of Ireland out of the protection of the law, and gave them no redress whatever in case of oppression or wrong. It ought to be expunged. It was impossible that the people of Ireland should ever forgive England if this clause were passed. It would sow the seeds of separation, and they would grow up to a frightful harvest. It was establishing the government of the sword; and if the
988
Union were to be made the means of establishing such a government, Ireland would be lost to England for ever, England would not find one man in Ireland to lift up his voice or his hand in her favour. So help him God! he would not stand by England, unless he was to have the Constitution. He would not go to war for France against England, but he would go to war against England for the British Constitution. He had been taught that lesson by the resistance to the tyranny of Charles and James, and he would teach it his children. He would disinherit them if they did not obey it [laughter]. Gentlemen might laugh; it was easy for them to laugh, who knew nothing about tyranny; but he did know something of it—he had seen its practices—he had seen men turned out of their houses, and their houses burnt down—and he knew what tyranny was. They might attempt to silence and subjugate the people of Ireland, but in doing so they only hastened the Repeal of the Union. They could not prevent them from feeling—
Hæret lateri lethalis arundo.
This Clause applied only to a country in a state of war, flagranti bello. He denied that Ireland was so, and therefore he should give the clause his most determined opposition.
The Committee divided on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill: Ayes 141; Noes 67—Majority 74.
Clause to stand part of the Bill.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Williams, Colonel

Aglionby Hon. A.

Wood, Alderman

Attwood, T.

Young, G. F.

Briggs, R.

SCOTLAND.

Cornish J.

Gillon, W. D.

Dawson, A. E.

Kinloch, G.

Ewart, W.

Oswald, J.

Faithfull, G.

Oswald, R.

Gisborne, T.

Wallace, R.

Gully, J.

IRELAND.

Hawkins, J. H.

Baldwin, Dr. H.

Hume, J.

Barron, W.

Hutt, W.

Butler, Hon. P.

Lister, C.

Chapman, M. L.

Parrott, J.

Evans, G.

Philips, M.

Finn, W. F.

Potter, T.

Fitzgerald, T.

Pryme, G.

Fitzsimon, C.

Romilly, J.

Fitzsimon, N.

Romilly, E.

French, F.

Strutt, E.

Galway, J. M.

Thicknesse, R.

Grattan, H.

Tynte, C.

Grattan, J.

Wilks, J.

Lalor, P.

989

Lambert, H.

Perrin, L.

Lynch, A. H.

Roche, W.

Maclaughlin, L.

Roche, D.

Macnamara, Major

Ruthven, E. S.

Martin, J.

Ruthven, E.

Nagle, Sir It.

Sheil, R. L.

O'Connell, Maurice

Sullivan, R.

O'Connell, D.

Talbot, I. H.

O'Connell, C.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connell, J.

Walker, C. A.

O'Connell, Morgan

TELLERS.

O'Connor, F.

Grattan, H.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Paired of against the Clause.

Tynte, K.

James, W.

Scholefield, J.

Clause 30 read.
Mr. Ruthvendeclared that he should not be doing justice to the country if he did not resist such a measure as depriving Ireland of the benefit of the Habeas Corpus, to the last extremity. If he were to be the only man who went out, he would divide against it.
The Committee again divided on the question, that Clause 30 stand part of the Bill: Ayes 156; Noes 64—Majority 92.
[Nearly the same Members who voted against the 26th Clause voted against the 30th Clause, and the following Members in addition:—

Humphery, J.

Clay, W.

Hall, B.

White, L.

Turner, W.

Mr. Pryme and Mr. G. F. Young, who voted against the 26th clause, voted for the 30th clause.]
Clauses 31 and 32 were then agreed to.
Clause 33 read.
Mr. O'Dwyermoved, as an Amendment, that the words giving power to Magistrates of counties of cities, and counties of towns, to act under this clause should be struck out. The character of these Magistrates was notoriously such as to render their exception necessary. They were elected by, and consequently were under the influence of their respective corporations.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the Amendment. He had no objection to Magistrates of counties acting in adjoining counties, but he had a strong objection to any Magistrates acting, who were elected in the manner of those corporate Magistrates. But a very short time before the right hon. Secretary came into office, one of these Magistrates was so notoriously corrupt, that he had his regular prices for the favourable exercise of his judicial functions.
990
For taking bail for capital felonies he charged twenty guineas, for common felonies he charged 20 l. and so on in proportion.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that without giving full credit to the charges brought against these Magistrates, he saw quite sufficient reason for yielding to this Amendment, in the fact that they were appointed by Corporations, and not by the Government. The Government having all the responsibility of the execution of this Act, their subordinate officers should at least be appointed by themselves. He had, therefore, no objections to strike out the words.
The Clause with the Amendment agreed to.
All the Clauses of the Bill having been gone through, Mr. Stanley brought up several additional Clauses which were agreed to, and the Report was brought up.

SUPPLY—BRITISH MUSEUM.
On the Motion of Mr. Baring, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply. The hon. Member moved a vote of 16,844 l. to defray the expenses of the British Museum up to Christmas, 1833.
Mr. Hawessuggested, that an improvement should be made in the catalogue of the manuscripts in the British Museum. He wished, that the manuscripts should be arranged alphabetically, and that there should likewise be through the catalogue a facility of inquiring into the subjects of the manuscripts. He also complained of the want of foreign books in the library, and expressed a hope that the arrangements of exchanges between the privileged libraries of France and England might be carried into effect, and that those arrangements should have a retrospective effect. That was to say, that standard works published in either country, before the completion of the arrangement should be exchanged.
Mr. Baringobserved, that the attention of the trustees had been directed to these matters, and no doubt some means would be adopted to supply the defects complained of.
Mr. Humethought it desirable, that the Museum should be open for six days in the week, instead of three. If that object could not be accomplished with the present number of officers, they ought to have relays of officers. He thought it would be proper to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole subject of the Museum. It was a most extraordinary circumstance, that during two months of the year—and

991
two months, precisely those in which most strangers came to London—the British Museum was shut to the public.
Lord Allhorpwas surprised that it should be stated, that the months of August and September were those in which most strangers arrived in town.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the town was not frequented during these months by gentlemen who were in the habit of going out shooting. A Committee was desirable; for it was of importance, considering that the British Museum was supported by the public money, that the greatest possible accommodation should be afforded to the public.
Mr. Emerson Tennantsaid, that the British Museum afforded every facility of which such an institution was capable, as well to students as to casual visitors, and he did not think that further accommodation could be given consistently with the purposes for which it was established.
Lord Mahonbore his testimony to the proper management of the institution, having derived great advantages from it. It would bear comparison with any similar Institution on the Continent, and though perhaps not open for so many days as some of them, it was open for many more hours.
Vote agreed to, and the House resumed.

BOROUGH OF STAFFORD—INDEMNITY.
Mr. Ellicemoved the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Bill, and that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. Baringbegged to call the attention of the House to the unusual circumstances under which this Bill was brought forward. There was no ground for going out of the ordinary course of proceeding in this case. All that the House knew was, that there was an ordinary election petition against the sitting member for Stafford, which petition contained inter alia, the usual allegation of bribery. If a Committee above stairs had decided that bribery had been so extensively practised that it was necessary for that House to take notice of it, and to open the borough, or adopt any other proceeding which that Committee might recommend, that would have been the regular and proper mode of proceeding. But in this case when no Committee had made a report, the hon. Member came down with the whole weight of the Government to which he belonged, and called upon them to violate their usual course of proceeding, and suspend for six weeks the Committee on this election, for the pur-
992
pose of continuing in the House a Gentleman who, by his own confession, could prove that 524 out of 526 persons had been guilty of gross bribery and corruption. What instance was there of any similar proceedings? What other case could be adduced of the House having consented to such a Bill, and that, too, on the mere assertion of an individual? He greatly disapproved of this interference with the established regulations for examining election petitions, and it ought never to be had recourse to, unless it was found that there was no chance of obtaining satisfactory evidence of corrupt practices without it. This Bill would enable the hon. member for Stafford to sit in that House, after a confession that his seat had been obtained by bribery, and he would be relieved from every possible disability that might otherwise affect him. The very first clause of the Bill said, that he should be "discharged from all disabilities and incapacities whatever."
Mr. Ellicesaid, that two persons had stated in the Committee, that they could prove that 524 out of 526 persons had received bribes, and that they would do so if they were indemnified, and he in the name of that Committee, had promised them such a security.
Mr. Baringcontinued: Why did not the hon. Member then confine his indemnity to those persons who were to give this evidence? If they freed the hon. member for the borough from all disabilities, as the Bill stated, he did not see what could hinder him from sitting for Stafford. Or was he to go back and be returned again—thus making the enormity of the offence his protection? This was a question of general principle, and they should be very careful not to establish a precedent which might produce very mischievous results. He moved, that the Bill be committed that day six months.
Mr. Ellicesaid, the hon. Member's objections were of two kinds. First, that it was establishing a bad principle, because there had been no previous inquiry and report; and next, because it indemnified the candidates. The hon. Member found fault with him, because he proposed to omit the usual words, "not having been a candidate at the late election." Now, his hon. friend would have an opportunity of moving the insertion of these words, as in the Bills relative to East Retford and Gram-pound. One ground for the course he had pursued was, that it was the grossest hypo-

993
crisy to select particular persons in such cases. It was well known, that up to the present time scarcely a Member had sat for this borough without having paid for his scat. He feared, that if the House waited for the Report of a Special Committee, they might wait till it was too late to make any inquiry. In the observations which his hon. friend had made on him, his hon. friend had spoken of him as connected with the Government, and as introducing this Bill in consequence of that connexion. He assured the House, that he was no more connected with the Government than his hon. friend was. He had been also unjustly accused of merely wishing by this means to keep the sitting Members in the House. He was not influenced by any such motive, All he desired was, that justice should be done. He thought, that on this question the House owed a duty to the public, and that the first Reformed House of Parliament was bound to investigate matters of this sort, if it wished to give satisfaction to the public. This Bill was not a perfect novelty. There was one recent instance of such a Bill having gone up from this House, and several instances of bills of this kind having been brought down from that House into the House of Commons. One particular instance was that of the Melville case, where a Bill of Indemnity was passed with regard to Mr. Trotter. He thought it of importance, that the Bill should be passed before the Election Committee sat to try the question of the return for Stafford. That Committee was appointed for the 16th of April, and it was for that reason that he now pressed the Bill through the House.
Lord Sandonthought, that the candidates, if they were the persons who had been guilty of the bribery, ought not to be included in this Bill of Indemnity.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that his object was, not to punish any party whatever, but to obtain a full disclosure of the facts, in order that the House might afterwards deal with the matter as a public abuse.
Mr. Littletonwould certainly vote for referring this Bill to a Committee; but he must say, that he looked upon it with some degree of distrust, since it extended the proposed indemnity to all persons whatever. At the same time he thought, that if some measure of this kind were not passed, public justice would be eluded. He thought, that the House should go into a Committee, where the Bill might be put into a less objectionable shape.
Mr. Shawthought, that a Bill of this kind ought not to be introduced, except it was founded upon the Report of an Election Committee, or otherwise the House would be adopting the bad precedent of acting in such matters on the suggestion of an individual. The hon. Member ought first of all to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.
Sir John Wrottesleyagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just addressed them. He thought an Election Committee would be competent to meet the case, and with such a Committee it should be left. He wished the present Motion to be withdrawn, and the Bill not to be committed before the 20th of April, in order that the matter might previously be taken into consideration by the Election Committee, which would be appointed on the 16th. If, when the Election Committee was appointed, the sitting Member withdrew from opposing the petition, there would be ground for supposing that bribery had taken place, and then he should agree with any one who proposed a proceeding of the kind. If the hon. member for Essex would allow him he would substitute his Amendment for that proposed by the hon. Member, and would move, that this Bill be committed on the 22nd of April.
Sir Robert Inglislooked at the Bill with great distrust, and was disposed to concur with the Amendment of the hon. member for Essex.
Mr. Baring withdrew his Amendment in favour of that proposed by Sir John Wrottesley.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, that this Amendment would leave them in a great difficulty, and ought not to be adopted, for, according to this, if there should be no Election Committee appointed, then there would be no Bill. The House ought not thus to put themselves at the mercy of the persons concerned in this election, but ought to set their faces against bribery wherever they found it. A Reformed House of Commons would disgrace itself if it submitted to let such bribery escape as that which the right hon. member for Coventry was prepared to prove had been practised at Stafford.
Sir Thomas Freemantleobjected to proceeding now, as the course recommended seemed to him one of a most anomalous nature. If they did then go into a Committee, he should certainly vote to except the sitting Member from the benefit of the Bill.
Mr. Ellicecould not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; and if it were carried, he must leave the whole matter under his management.
Mr. Warburtonthought it was impossible for any unbiassed man to have heard the statement of the right hon. member for Coventry without being convinced, that the House ought now to go into a Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Fostersaid, that it was an unjust principle, that certain parties should obtain indemnity for their individual crimes at the expense of the borough. The respectable part of the constituency of Stafford would consider it extremely hard to lose their franchise by the misconduct of some of their unworthy brethren.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 84; Noes 16—Majority 68.
The Bill considered in Committee; verbal Amendments agreed to.
The House resumed.

List of the NOES.

Bankes, W. J.

Pigott, R.

Chetwynd, W. F.

Ross, C.

Eastnor, Lord

Sandon, Lord

Foster, C. S.

Shaw, F.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Stormont, Lord

Gordon, Hon. Capt.

Welby, G. E.

Handley, H.

Hay, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baring, A.

Nicholl, J.

Wrottesley, Sir J.