Commons Sitting of 11 February 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Commutation of Tithes (England); Municipal Corporations Act Amendment; and Registration of Votes.—Read a second time:— Dean Forest.
Petitions presented. By Mr. FRANCIS BARING, from the Corporation of Portsmouth, to Remove Disabilities from the Jews.—By Mr. COLLIER from Plymouth, for Redress of Dissenters' Grievances, and for Compensation to Mr. BUCKINGHAM.—By Mr. BENETT, from the Central Agricultural Association, for Inquiry into Agricultural Distress.—By Mr. AGLIONBY, from Cockermouth, for Compensation to Mr. BUCKINGHAM; and by Dr. LUSHINGTON, from the Dissenters of the three Denominations, for Redress of Grievances.

PRINTED PAPERS.
Mr. Bernaltook the opportunity of requesting the attention of Members to a matter that interested them all; he alluded to the Resolution of last Session regarding Printing Papers and Bills, adopted at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Middlesex, The effect of it had hitherto been, and would in future be, that no Member could obtain more than a single copy of any printed document or Bill without being obliged to pay for it, and often it was necessary for Members to send them to their constituents. Another
272
inconvenience was, that if an additional copy were wanted, a messenger must be sent for it as far as Turnstile, Lincoln's-inn-fields. This was an evil that ought to be remedied without delay.
The Speakerexplained the situation in which he had been placed by the Resolution of last Session. It was his duty to obey the directions of the House, and in the steps he had taken it had been his intention to carry into effect the Resolution of last Session. In order that the experiment might be fairly tried, he had desired that the price put upon printed papers should be as low as possible. As to the inconvenience of sending for papers, that might be easily remedied by appointing a place of sale nearer to the House.
Mr. F. Baringthought that the Speaker had adopted the only course that was open to him, and was perfectly justified in the steps he had taken. It had been found necessary to check the power of Members to take an unlimited number of printed papers, and the House was perhaps not aware of the immense packages of them that were sent northwards. Bills stood upon different grounds, and were excepted from the Resolution.
Mr. Ewartwas of opinion that it would not be enough to allow Members a certain number of copies, and that the printed papers ought to be furnished to all societies wishing to possess them.
Mr. Humeobserved, that in the warehouses of Parliament were not less than, 2,200,000 different printed papers, and he thought that copies of them ought to be furnished to libraries and public institutions desirous of possessing them. In future the Resolution declared that they should be sold, and the price did not amount to more than a halfpenny or a penny per sheet. Three different offices were to be opened for the sale of printed papers; one was at Mr. Hansard's, another at Mr. Knight's on Ludgate-hill, and a third ought to be in the vicinity of the House.
Subject dropped.

CARLOW ELECTION.—MR. O'CONNELL AND MR. RAPHAEL.
Mr. Hardy: I rise, Sir, to call the attention of the House to a case which involves a breach of its privileges; and as my Motion is of such a nature, I am entitled, by the usages of the House, to claim precedence of all those who have other Motions on the paper. I am induced to avail myself of this privilege on the present occasion, because the case

273
which I have to submit contains very serious imputations against the character of a Member of this House, imputing to him a certain traffic for the return of Members to this House from the county of Carlow, which, if true—and I by no means say that they are—would certainly involve the House in considerable difficulty as to how they should act in such an event. I only now ask for leave to bring on this case before the House, thinking it, as I do, most consistent with the dignity of the House to make an inquiry of this nature before any other business.
Lord John Russell; I am only anxious to be informed as to the proper mode of proceeding on this question. In order to show that I have no other wish, I tell the hon. Member who has brought forward this Motion, at once, that so far from interposing any Motion of mine, it is my intention to postpone the two Motions of which I have given notice until to-morrow; therefore, so far as I am concerned, I offer no opposition whatever to bringing this case before the House. I only wish to ascertain from the hon. Member for Bradford whether he thinks he is proceeding in this case consistently with the usages of the House observed in cases of Breach of Privilege relating to bribery, and questions of that nature. [An Hon. Member: No petition has been presented.] I understood from the hon. Member's observations that a petition had been presented. If the petition has been presented on which the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford is founded, and I gave up my Motions for the sake of allowing the hon. Member to bring it forward, I only wish to be understoood as taking that course from a sense of the superior importance of such a Motion as that of which the hon. Member has given notice to all other subjects.
Mr. Hume: I apprehend, Sir, if this House is called on to form an opinion on any statement or speech founded on the allegations of a petition, that petition ought, according to the visual course, to be presented, printed, and then a day should be fixed for taking it into consideration. It is, I think, rather unfair to call upon the House to discuss the statements made in a petition without knowing its contents. All I can say is, that such a mode of proceeding is not usual, and that it has never been at tempted before to act in such a manner; therefore, I beg to suggest to the hon. Member for Bradford that he does not serve his own case, whatever it may be, by
274
not having the petition on which he grounds his charge first presented, and then fixing an early day for taking it into consideration.
Mr. Williams Wynn: I apprehend, Sir, that nothing can be so regular, according to the practice of this House, as when any Member brings under the consideration of the House a breach of its privileges, for the House to hear it—nay, to hear it with or without notice—whether any question is, or is not, before it; and even in the midst of another discussion if a Member should rise to complain of a breach of the privileges of the House, they have always instantly heard him. The practice of the House in this respect may be easily accounted for by this plain reason, that it may be essential that an immediate remedy should be applied and steps taken in the matter without any delay whatever. But when the House is in the possession of the complaint they are to deal with it as they may think fie, either to decide on it immediately, or adjourn the consideration of it to another day. What is the proper course to pursue the House cannot judge until they hear the subject matter of the complaint; when they have heard that, they can decide whether it is best to consider it at once or to adjourn, the question, or to refer it to a Committee of privileges, or a select Committee. Over all these modes of disposing of it the House has a complete jurisdiction, but it is most essential that any hon. Member shall, at at any time, have the right, whatever other business is before the House, immediately to inform the House of any act which in any degree affects the rights of Parliament.
Colonel Bruen: After the usages of Parliament have been so clearly laid down by the hon. Member who spoke last, I feel no hesitation in rising to present the petition which has been intrusted to me from certain freeholders of the county of Carlow; but, in doing so, it is not my intention to trespass at any length upon the patience of the House in calling the attention of hon. Members to the transactions to which it refers. I shall at once, therefore, read an abstract of the facts of the case, because by so doing I shall save time and trouble. The hon. Member read an abstract of the following Petition which we give entire on account of the importance attached to it.
"To the Hon. the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled.
"The humble Petition of the undersigned

275
Freeholders, Electors of the county of Carlow,
"Showeth,—That from various statements and letters lately published, hearing respectively the signatures of ' Alexander Raphael,' Esq., late sitting Member for the said county of Carlow, and 'Daniel O'Connell,' Esq., now sitting Member for the city of Dublin, it appears that, shortly before the last election for the said county of Carlow, a certain agreement or traffic was set on foot between the said Daniel O'Connell and Alexander Raphael, whereby the said Daniel O'Conrsell contracted that he would procure, or endeavour to procure, the return of the said Alexander Raphael to serve in Parliament for the said county of Carlow, in consideration of a concurrent engagement by the said Alexander Raphael to pay two sums of 1,000 l. each, the first of which sums was, by the terms of the said agreement or traffic, to be paid absolutely and entirely for being nominated as candidate, and the second of which sums was to be paid, only in the event of the said Alexander Raphael being returned as Member.
"That the said traffic or agreement was represented by the said Daniel O'Connell to the said Alexander Raphael as a 'safe speculation,' and was concluded upon and carried into effect by both parties accordingly.
"That in pursuance thereof, and before the said election, the said first sum of l,000 l. was placed by the said Alexander Raphael, for the use of the said Daniel O'Connell, in the hands of the said Alexander Raphael's solicitor, from whom the said Daniel O'Connell, before the said election, received the said first sum of 1,000 l. by his son, John O'Connell, Esq., acting on the behalf, and with the authority, of him the said Daniel O'Connell.
"That in further pursuance and fulfilment of the said agreement, traffic, or speculation, a printed address was extensively circulated among the electors of the said county, immediately before the said last election, bearing the signature of the said Daniel O'Connell, and introducing and recommending to the said electors the said Alexander Raphael, who was then a total stranger to the said county, as a candidate for the representation thereof, together with Nicholas Aylward Vigors, Esq.
"That at the said election then ensuing, the said Alexander Raphael and Nicholas A. Vigors were relumed for the said county against the two opposing candidates, Colonel Henry Bruen and Thomas Kavanah, Esq.
"That after the said return of the said Alexander Raphael, the said second sum of l,000 l. was, in further pursuance and fulfilment of the said agreement, traffic, or speculation, placed by the said Alexander Raphael for the use of the said Daniel O'ConneH, in the hands of the said Alexander Raphael's solicitor, from whom the said Daniel O'Connell received the said second sum of 1,000 l. by his son the said John Q'Connell, Esq. acting on the behalf, and
276
with the authority of him the said Daniel O'Connell.
"That a petition was presented to your hon. House against the said return of the said Alexander Raphael and Nicholas A. Vigors, and that the ballot for a Committee of your hon. House to try the validity of the said return, took place on the same afternoon on which the said second sum of 1,000 l. had been so received, in respect of such return, by the said John O'Connell, for the use of his father the said Daniel O'Connell; and that the said second 1,000 l. having been so received in respect of such return, the said John O'Connell and Daniel O'Connell both attended the ballot for the Committee of your hon. House, by which the validity of the said return was to be tried, and the said John O'Connell was in fact balloted as a Member to serve on the said Committee, and suffered to remain on the list of the said Committee as finally reduced, and was sworn at the table of your hon. House, 'well and truly to try the matter of the petition referred to the said Committee, and a true judgment to give according to the evidence.'
"Your petitioners submit to your hon. House that the said transactions were in plain violation of the rights of your petitioners, as electors of the county of Carlow, no less than of the privileges of your hon. House and they humbly pray that your hon. House will be pleased to inquire into the circumstances thereof, and if the same shall be proved, to take such proceedings against the offender or offenders as your hon. House in its discretion shall seem meet."
[Here follow 231 signatures of Gentlemen and Yeomen of the largest property and respectability in the county.]
Having now (continued the hon. Member) discharged my duty to my constituents, I feel that the best mode by which I can continue to do so, is by abstaining from a single remark on the assertions contained in the petition. Well knowing the sensitiveness of many Radical Reformers in this House at the bare idea of such monstrous proceedings, and how naturally inclined and deeply pledged they are to eradicate all such abuses, I with great confidence commit the whole matter to their hands.
Petition read.
Mr. Hardyrose to present his petition.
Mr. O'Connellrose at the same time, and upon its being suggested to him by an hon. Member near him that he ought to give way, he replied, "No, I will not," and proceeded to address the House: Sir, the reason for my interfering between the presentation of these petitions must be obvious to the House. Let me in the first place say, that I hope there is not a single man in the House who

277
will not agree with me, that there are grounds for inquiry in that petition. It is certainly my opinion that there are. I have undoubtedly always voted for inquiry, when Parliamentary grounds have been stated for it; and whether the case be my own, or that of any body else, when grounds are alleged for it, I trust I always shall vote for inquiry. For the present, so far as I am concerned myself, I shall not complain of the unusual—I will not call it monstrous —proceeding, that a petition of this kind should be in the hands of any Member, without giving a copy of it, or even an intimation of its contents, to the parties against whom it is presented. But as I have said, for myself I scorn to complain. There is another, however, in whose behalf I appeal to every man of good feeling—I appeal to every father in this House, whether it be right to introduce the name of Mr. John O'Connell on this occasion? I don't say that it was wrong to introduce his name into the petition, but I do say that it was unfair and unjust to bring his conduct before the House in the manner in which it has been referred to, without giving any notice of the intention of the hon. Member for Carlow. How could the hon. Member —is he a father?—consent to lend his authority to an allegation against the integrity on oath of Mr. John O'Connell, without giving him intimation that such a charge was to be brought against him? Party spirit is bad under any circumstances, but it is infernal, when it tears up by the roots every kind and generous and honourable feeling of our nature. And it is through the influence of this party spirit that I am to be now harassed by the imputation of— what? Perjury—before God, applied to as pure a creature as ever breathed, the Member for Youghal. Why, Sir, if the hon. Member had in his composition any thing of humanity—if he were not a person whose desolated villages have marked out him—if the scream of the widow, and the cry of the orphan against his tyranny were not yet crying in his ears—if he were not of such a nature, he never would have made this attack on the hon. Member for Youghal, without giving him that notice which would enable him to throw back into their foul den the calumnies—
The Speakersaid, I am sure the hon. and learned Member will see, on the least reflection, the propriety of explaining the expressions which he has used.
Mr. O'Connell: Perhaps, Sir, I may be excused if, with the provocation, I received,
278
I was carried away by my feelings. I must be permitted, however, to say, that when I spoke of casting the calumnies referred to in the petition back into their foul den, I meant the expression to apply to the petitioners. [oh, oh!] It appears then, that by some I have been understood otherwise. Be it so. ["The Orange Den!"] And suppose I had used that expression, and applied it, as some would infer, let me ask whether I should not be justified in doing so? Is there no Orange Den—is there no conspiracy there (pointing to the Opposition)? Well, I was carried away by my feelings. Be it so; but I don't think that in appealing on his behalf to the House—in whose behalf alone I do appeal—that any man would condemn me of any great error in being a little more violent, if you please, than I should be on any other subject. But I will go on. I will speak on behalf of the Member for Youghal, who has been thus assailed. I will appeal, in the first place, to this fact—was it not perfectly well known that I addressed the electors of Carlow in favour of Raphael and Vigors, the men petitioned against? And was not this perfectly well known to the petitioners; and when they chose to leave oil the Committee Mr. John O'Connell, did they not know that I was a strong partisan of Raphael and Vigors? Have they a right then, I say, to impeach for attending the ballot of the Committee, him whose duty it was to be present? Had they not a full and perfect knowledge of the part which I had taken in the election? Why, then, did they suffer the name of John O'Connell to remain on the list of the Committee? Oh! every body who understands anything of the Committees of this House, understands why they did so. They were secure of their Committee. Even though it is I who say it, I call upon—nay, I taunt any man on that Committee to deny, if he can, that John O'Connell has conscientiously and fairly exercised his duty as any other Member upon that Committee. Why do I say this? Because the very Chairman of the Committee in answer to something more than an insinuation which I felt it my duty to throw out against their conduct, expressed his regret that I had not followed the example set me by the conduct of Mr. John O'Connell. The very Chairman, I repeat, bore testimony upon that occasion, to the integrity of his conduct, and referred to it as being worthy of my imitation. But what, after all, is the accusation against him? That he was his father's messenger on the

279
subject of 1,000 l. when it was known that the it father was an open partisan of Raphael and Vigors. So that his name has now been introduced, not to give weight to this charge, but for the purpose of influencing those feelings which are endeavoured to be roused by means of public meetings abroad, and in order to halloo on the cry of the Tory Press, to which, as a stock in trade, I am worth nine-tenths of all their wealth. It is for these purposes that the feelings of affection, of love, are to be grossly outraged. But when I can express a sincere belief that there is not a not a more dutiful and respectful son than the Member for Youghal—when I am conscious of that —I do not envy the Orange triumph, which amounts to aiming a dagger at my heart, that falls blunted from the shield of the honour and integrity of my upright,' loved, pure, and (except through falsehood) my unimpeachable son.
Colonel Bruen: With respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated as to my not giving him notice of an intention to present the petition which was intrusted to me on this subject, I really did not think that any other notice than what I put on the votes was necessary of a petition, which contained charges with which the hon. and learned Member must have been familiar. With respect to the charge made against me of having desolated villages, all I shall say in reference to it is, that it is just as true as the generality of the accusations which fall from the him. and learned Gentleman's lips. I have no doubt that it will be received by the House with that degree of credit which they generally attach to the hon. and learned Gentleman's assertions. With regard to may private character as a landlord, I do not dread a comparison with the hon. and learned Member, or any other landlord in or out of Parliament in that capacity; and I am happy to say, that the great majority of the freeholders of Carlow, if they were allowed to vote as they themselves pleased, would prove, to the satisfaction of the public and the country, that the character which I bore as a landlord before reform lessons, as they have been called, were taught the electors, still remains the same. But the fact is, that three-fourths of those who voted for the Hon. Gentleman petitioned against, did so against their inclination, and under fear of losing their lives. Hon. Members who belong to this country may be astonished at what I have said but I state what are undoubted and
280
incontrovertible facts. Some intimation of the sort was given to the Committee which sat upon the election, last year, and I hope and trust that such information will be brought before the Committee, which I take it will be appointed on this Motion, as will undeceive the Gentlemen of this country, as to the transactions which take place in Ireland; for I venture to assert that at present English Gentlemen are totally and altogether ignorant of them.
Mr. John O'Connellsaid, it can hardly be expected that I should be able to command my feelings after the expressions which have been uttered with reference to me by the hon. Member who has spoken last but one in this discussion. There are ties and relations between that hon. Member and myself which I shall not farther refer to than to say, that I find it extremely difficult to repress my feelings, after what has taken place to night, and after the observations which he has addressed to the House. I will, however, at once address myself to the matter under discussion, and say, that although I believe the present attack upon me is made for the sole purpose of injuring him, yet I care as little for it as I am sure he does. I, just as he, court inquiry, and am most anxious to have a Committee appointed. The hon. Member who spoke last called on me, as one of the Members of this House, to vote for a Committee, which he says will prove most useful in supplying information to the inhabitants of this country as to the practices at elections in Ireland. I am quite willing, Sir, to vote for such a Committee. I call upon him to do the same, find let an impartial inquiry be instituted into the conduct of both parties. I do not know what infernal machine may be in store for us; so I shall intrude no longer on the patience of the House, than to say that I am, and always have been, and ever shall be, ready to answer, either here or elsewhere, for any conduct of mine which may be considered objectionable or unjustifiable. ["oh!"] Well, then, I shall only say that I am prepared to answer any charge that may be brought against me.
Mr. Hardy: I have a Petition to present on this subject, signed by several inhabitants of Bath, who are entitled "the Friends of Purity of Election and the Enemies of Corruption." I would prefer to my reading the petition that it should be read by the Clerk of the House. As to the charge of not having presented a copy of this petition to the hon. and learned

281
Member for Dublin, I can only say, that on the very day that the petition was delivered to me, I saw a printed copy (several of which had been sent up from Bath) in the hands of one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's friends. For this reason, therefore, and because the subject matter of the petition had already gained sufficient publicity—at all events to render it impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman not to be aware of the nature of the accusations preferred against him—I abstained from making to him what could not have been a very gratifying communication. If I have been guilty of any want of courtesy to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, I am sorry for it, and I assure him that I had no intention that such should be the case. But I considered it least of all necessary to present the petition, or a copy of it, to the hon. and learned Gentleman's son, because I can attach no blame to him. I am a father myself—yes, I repeat, I am a father; and I can appreciate the feelings of one who hears his son attacked as he conceives unjustly. But I do not regard the conduct of that young gentleman in any other light than as one who acted under the influence of his father. And if he had done anything wrong in acting in obedience to his father's dictation, I cannot impute any blame to him. I do not think that that young gentleman is at all implicated in the transaction, because I see that he has done nothing which he was not directed to do by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, It now only remains for me to present the petition, which will be read by the Clerk at the Table, and all I shall say in reference to it is, that the House can judge whether the circumstances which it discloses are not a fit subject for inquiry. [Lord J. Russell: Perhaps the hon. Member would read the substance of the petition.] The petition began:—"From disclosures lately made by Alexander Raphael, Esq., of Great Stanhope-street, it appears that shortly before the last election" [hon. Members—"Read the prayer."] The hon. Member accordingly read the prayer of the petition:—: "And your petitioners pray that the principles of Reform may be fully and fairly carried into effect." I am glad (said the hon. Member) to see the hon. Members opposite display such merriment on this occasion. I do not know whether that merriment may be diminished when I tell them that I believe this petition emanated from the Committee and supporters of the hon. Member for Bath. The prayer of the
282
petition concluded in these words:— "Your petitioners are anxious to see the principles of Reform carried into effect in all cases, and against all offenders alike, and pray your honourable House to inquire into this strange transaction, including the contents of the said unpublished letter (mentioned in the petition), and take such measures as they deem fit for protecting the rights of Parliamentary election, and bringing punishment on all persons of whatever political party they may be who deserve it. I shall again repeat that if I have been guilty of any discourtesy in not giving the hon. and learned Member for Dublin a copy of this petition, I trust I may be excused on this ground, that it was not a pleasant thing for me to communicate what I was sure was supplied to him from another quarter. I must, however, at the same time, say, that my regret for any neglect of complying with usage in this case is considerably diminished when I reflect that no man is better able than the hon. and learned Member to dispense with mere forms, and to grapple with the substance of things. The hon. and learned Gentleman is certainly capable of defending himself, and of dissipating any clouds of suspicion which may be raised against him with an ability which few Members of this House can command.
The petition was read by the Clerk.
General Palmerwas understood to express his surprise and regret, that such a petition as that which had been just read, had not been intrusted to him for presentation, because he had never since he entered that House refused to present any petition which he was called on to bring under its notice, no matter what might be the feelings of parties by whom it was agreed to.
Mr. Roebuckfelt himself called upon to say something respecting the petition from Bath; and first in answer to the assertion of the hon. Member opposite, who bad said that it emanated from his supporters. He was happy to be able to say in their name, that he repudiated the petition wholly as proceeding from his supporters—repudiated it both as to its spirit and in the way of carrying it on. To prove that the petition did not emanate from his supporters, he would state, that it proceeded from a society of persons calling themselves the "Liberal Association," who had taken that name lately, because they knew that none other would be popular, and under that name, to which they had no true claim,

283
had made a scurrilous attack upon him when he was 100 miles distant. They were persons, who, on a personal matter, had canvassed Members of that House under the name of a Liberal Association when every one, who knew anything about Bath well knew, that they were among the most rabid Tories in the kingdom. Those were the persons who now stood up for purity of election, having taken a very extraordinary mode of showing their own purity of purpose. They wrote to his hon. Friend, as had been stated, requesting his support, under the name of the "Liberal Association," and his hon. Friend called upon him and inquired if he knew who they were, "for" said his hon. Friend, "when I saw the name at the bottom of the letter, I thought it a Tory name, though at the top of the communication, professed to come from a Liberal Association." He supposed, that his hon. Friend, knowing the changes which sometimes took place in people's politics, and aware that persons, who to-day called themselves Radicals and Liberals, might next day he found sitting on the Tory benches, did not know but a counterpart to this might occasionally be seen, and that a single Tory might come over to the Ministerial side. He had stated the exact truth as regarded this petition, which had emanated from a set of Tories, who chose to associate for party purposes under the guise of a Liberal Association. There was one name attached to the petition, which, by the writing he was very much inclined to believe a forgery. In this case there was nothing but the mere name, and the greater proportion of the signatures were without any addresses. He would ascertain by the next post whether the name referred to was actually a forgery; and he pledged himself to state to the House, whether he found himself mistaken or not in his supposition. It so happened, that this person, whose name appeared attached to the petition, not three days ago wrote him a letter, inclosing the scurrilous attack made against himself by the "Liberal Association," disclaiming it wholly, and using very strong terms against that association. He therefore believed the name to be a forgery, and he knew, that the petition emanated from the Tories of Bath.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, as far as he was himself concerned, had but one word to say about the petition, in answer to the hon. Member for Bradford. The hon. Member, by
284
way of excuse for not sending him a copy of the petition, wished to insinuate that he had omitted it in order to spare his feelings. That was the oddest way of sparing a man's feelings that he ever heard of; the hon. Gentleman would not hurt him by giving him the petition in private, which, at the time, he intended to publish to the whole British empire. He was really surprised to hear an hon. Gentleman state such a thing with gravity. This was the tenderness of the butcher to the calf; he would not show his victim the knife for the world! The hon. Gentleman appeared to suppose, that some exceedingly good natured friend would furnish him with a copy of the petition—the hon. Gentleman might himself he a good-natured friend of that description, but he assured the House, that all he knew of the petition from Bath was this, — the hon. Member for Ipswich showed him a short letter, signed in the name of "the Liberal Association/' which contained no particulars, however, and in which there was only one sentence relating to the matter, to this effect,—"Will you, who have always been an enemy to corruption, allow any man, of whatever party, to put money into his pocket by corrupt Parliamentary influence?" Undoubtedly this was a very proper question to put to his hon. friend; and the only answer that he, or any other man of like principles, could give, must he in the negative. He now asked the hon. Member for Bradford, what he meant to insinuate against the Member for Youghal, when he said, that he held that Gentleman excused, because he had acted under his (Mr. O'Connell's) directions? The hon. Gentleman had given that as an excuse for the conduct of the Member for Youghal, He hoped the hon. Member for Youghal would take his advice, which he offered in the strongest shape,—he said advice, because during all his life, command had been unnecessary, —to leave this matter to be adjusted entirely between the Member for Bradford and himself. He denied that there was any part of the conduct of the Member for Youghal, which rendered an. apology necessary for him. He had attended here at the time of choosing the Carlow Committee in the discharge of his duty; it was well known that he could have been committed if he did not attend. Every one knew the relationship subsisting between him and the Member for Youghal, yet the latter was allowed to remain on the Committee, Then there

285
must have been eleven Members more unfavourable to the petitioners than his son named in the original list, as they did not strike him off, or else the opposite party left him on the Committee to parade him. In either case, there was nothing in his conduct requiring an apology. His character was stainless as the driven snow, and would ever remain so. He defied the hon. Member for Bradford, or any other man, to cast a stain upon his son's conduct. If no attack could be made openly, let not covert insinuations be resorted to. Let any Member of the Carlow Committee be asked how the Member for Youghal had conducted himself in the course of the inquiry, but let not the affectation of an apology be offered where it was not required. Having said thus much on that subject, as he did not intend to speak again, he would now state to the House what he thought fair, just, and reasonable, to be done in the matter. He suggested that both the petitions he printed and placed in the hands of every Member. This was a question of privilege, and no matter ought to interpose to postpone it, whenever the House thought itself in a situation to proceed. He had not the slightest wish, the least anxiety, to throw the inquiry back; on the contrary he felt anxious that there should be a full and fair inquiry, in order to show how absurd was the notion, which every reasonable man must know to be false, that a single farthing, or the thousandth part of a farthing, remained, or could have remained in his pocket, or that he had the slightest pecuniary interest in the transaction. He was willing to refer the matter to a fair and impartial Committee. He had been all his life battling against packed juries, and would not now submit to anything but a fair and impartial tribunal. Let the petitions be printed; let the hon. Member opposite give notice of a day for taking them into consideration, when he and the Member for Youghal might have a fair opportunity o making their defence before the House meanwhile, he wished the hon. Member for Bradford to state what charge he had to make against the Member for Youghal; but he would give no answer to the charge at present. The hon. Gentleman had implied a charge, if he did not make one directly for he said that "he held the Member for Youghal excused, because be was acting under his father's influence," Let the hon. Gentleman tell the House what act of his son's life required an excuse. He demanded to have it now stated what accusation then
286
was against the Member for Youghal. If the hon. Gentleman brought forward any charge, let the Member for Youghal be heard, and if his conduct appeared to have been pure and honourable, let the fact be distinctly admitted. He proposed that the petitions be printed, and the day after they were in the hands of Members, let the hon. Gentleman give notice of a Motion on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the business —and he admitted that he saw distinctly enough on the face of the petitions, parliamentary grounds for a Committee—he would support the motion for inquiry. But, meanwhile, let him be permitted to make such a statement in reply to the charge as would go forth to the people of England, who, by the by, were not misled by all the calumnies that had been uttered against him. He heard 600 independent men last night answer that question, and express with one voice their disbelief of the charge. All he required was a clear stage, and no favour. He admitted that if he had done wrong in this matter, he was doubly wrong, for he avowed he was a Radical Reformer, a thorough Radical Reformer, and if he had done an act against the great principle of purity of election, no censure could be too bad for him; but he defied any man to show a single act of his life inconsistent with the principles he had ever advocated. He would not taunt Gentlemen opposite with their new-born love of purity—let those who had given 20 l. a-head for votes accuse him of violating purity of election if they pleased—even they had a right to condemn him if he had acted wrong. Even, if there were a profligate purchaser of perjury in the House, still he had a right to condemn him. Give him a fair Committee an honest and impartial inquiry, conducted by men who would not allow party feelings to bias them—he did not shrink from such an investigation; on the contrary, here, in the face of the House, he demanded it on these terms. In the petitions, it was stated that he had attended the ballot when the Committee on the Carlow election was struck he was in the House on the occasion, but if his name had been called, it would have been his duty to have answered "petitioned against," his own return for Dublin being contested at the time. Arising out of the petition against him 11,000, folios of evidence had been sent over, and the 29th of the month was appointed by the Committee for renewing the inquiry into the Dublin election. His intention was,

287
the moment the Committee met, to make an application to it to send back to the Dublin Commission a particular inquiry, which he thought had been stifled on the other side. If he succeeded in that application, he would be ready for this inquiry on the first of March. He did not wish to postpone the inquiry at all—why should he? Did any man think he could have any motive in delaying it? Well; he had done a great deal of complicated business already in his life, and if the House wished, he was willing to undertake both affairs together. On the contrary, if the House thought he had business enough on his hands already, let it appoint' a Committee in the way he had proposed, which could adjourn over for a week or a fortnight, and then meet to proceed with the inquiry from day to day; let the hon. Member have the petitions printed, and appoint Tuesday next for bringing on his Motion for a Committee. This was a question of privilege, and, according to the principle laid down by the right hon. Member for Montgomery shire, it ought to be speedily disposed of. He was quite content that it should he. Let the hon. Gentleman make his statement, and he would make his defence. On the appointment of the Committee, he would state his views as to how the inquiry ought to be conducted, and take objections, if objections he had, to the course that might be proposed, or the persons who should be nominated on the Committee. Then let the inquiry take place. He was desirous of such an inquiry, and wanted to have it as large as possible; he wanted to know whether those who denied their participation in acts of cruelty in Ireland could fix the slightest stain on his character, or show that he had abandoned the principles of a Radical Reformer. If they succeeded in this, he was ready to submit to any penalty that could be imposed on him; but he had a consciousness that no imputations could be cast upon his character—that he had nothing to vindicate himself from, and that he should stand as unimpeachable in point of fact, as he certainly was in point of feeling.
Mr. John O'Connellsaid, he was a very young Member—perhaps the youngest in the House; however, he begged to be allowed to mate his own defence, and required no person to make a defence for him. Young as he was, he had sufficient sense to know what business he was sent about, and when he went with the papers he was fully aware of what he was doing, and felt
288
that he was doing that to which no blame attached; and, if there was any blame, he claimed his full share of it. He begged a full inquiry.
Mr. Hardysaid, that when he made the observations referring to the conduct of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he trusted they would have been taken in the same spirit as they were made in. He had stated that on the face of the proceeding he saw nothing to impute in the way of blame to the hon. Member, because, whatever of secrecy there was in paying the money, he might know nothing whatever of the circumstances under which it was given. The hon. Member might go to a party, and receive the money without being cognizant of the circumstances of the transaction. With respect to this proceeding, if the House would allow him, he would state, in two or three moments, how he happened to appear in his present situation. He was a member of the Bribery and Intimidation Committee, which had sat for so long a time last Session, and he had previously belonged to a Select Committee on the subject of bribery to which a Bill brought forward by him was referred. In that Committee they had the honour of the assistance of the Speaker as a Member. It was his intention to bring his Bill forward again, and he had given notice of it early last Session, but before the day appointed for its introduction, a Motion was made by the present Under Secretary for the Colonies; to appoint a Select Committee on Bribery and Intimidation. Immediately, upon that Motion being made, he proposed that his Bill should be presented to the Committee, in order that having gone through the ordeal of two Committees, it might come before the House in a shape best adapted to effect its object. When the Bill was under consideration before the Committee, there was a Clause in it supplying a defect in Curwen's Act, and fixing a penalty on persons receiving money to procure the return of Members to Parliament; but it was thought that such a Clause would not be necessary now, as there could be no nomination in boroughs under the Reform Bill, and he never knew of nomination in. counties before. He agreed that the Clause should be struck out, and accordingly it was. Some time after the close of the Session, however, in the month of October, there appeared a correspondence in the public papers between Mr. Raphael and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and then it seemed to him that the provision which had been struck out of his Bill was not al-

289
together so inapplicable as had been supposed, and he therefore, stated to some of his private friends, not members of that House, that to justify the reinsertion of the Clause in the Bill, he would make a point of bringing the present case before the House, and proposing an inquiry, if that course should be thought proper. On the first day of the Session, he watched till the last moment to see if any Member of more weight and influence than himself would bring the matter forward, and that not being the case, he had given his notice on the subject. In pursuance of that notice here he was. He would not shrink from his duty. He did think this was a case demanding inquiry, and it appeared to him that the country thought so too. Imputations were cast upon the Member for Dublin, which he should have thought would have made the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, the first to call for an inquiry, and not wait till it was proposed by another Member. Here were imputations which clearly amounted to a breach of privilege, and he had seen Members have persons called to the bar for publishing in the newspapers imputations of a much higher nature than these. When such severe imputations were cast upon an hon. Member, it became him, or some other individual, to call for an inquiry; and therefore it was, that he had made the present Motion, in order that the hon. Gentleman might vindicate himself from suspicion. He was quite ready and anxious to give the hon. and learned Gentleman every opportunity of vindication which the House might think he ought to have. All he wished for was a full, fair, and free inquiry into circumstances which appeared, at the first blush, to attach discredit to a Member of the House, and to reflect on the character of the House itself. When he looked at the correspondence published by the late Member for Carlow, and examined the facts contained in it, he did not draw the inference that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had put any. money in his pocket, though he saw it imputed to the hon. Member in the newspapers, and observed that something like it was alleged by the person with whom the bargain was made. He did not wish to insinuate that, but it was not necessary, in order to imply corruption, and an improper traffic, that a man should put money into his own pocket, if it appeared that he had secured the return of partisans bound to maintain his own principles in the House, and indeed tied down by written statements.
The Speakercalled the hon. Member to order, the limits of which he was now transgressing. The only question was, that the petition do lie on the Table, and when that was decided, it would be for the hon. Member to state what course he meant to take.
Mr. Hardywould in that case postpone any observations. He was only anxious to show, that he was influenced by no motive but the discharge of his public duty.
Colonel Parryobserved, in reference to a complaint made by an hon. Member, as to the Bath petition not having been intrusted to him, that he was sure no reflection was intended upon the venerable character of that individual. He hoped the inquiry would be fairly conducted, and wherever blame was found to rest there it might fall. He must hold up both his hands against the doctrine of the hon. Member for Bradford, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was to be responsible for the conduct of his son. The hon. and learned Member must have anxiety enough without this consideration being added to it. In conclusion, he had only to add, that he should vote for an inquiry.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Member for Carnarvon had mistaken him if he supposed that he declined to be responsible for the Member for Youghal. What he said was, that there was nothing in the conduct of the Member for Youghal, that required defence, or called upon him to interpose the shield of his authority over his son; that was what he said, and he defied the hon. Member to contradict, him.
Colonel Parry: The hon. Member for Dublin spoke in defiance of him, but that must be owing to the hon. Member's misapprehension of what he said. What he said, or meant to say, was, that he held up both his hands against the doctrine of the Member for Bradford, because it wens to annoy the feelings of the hon. and learned Member, already sufficiently excited, by making him responsible for the hon. Member for Youghal.
Mr. Hardymoved, that the petitions be printed and taken into further consideration on Tuesday next.
Mr. Williams Wynnthought that there should be as little delay as possible. He would suggest Monday as the best day for the discussion, unless that would be inconvenient to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
Lord John Russellthought it would be more convenient to postpone the discussion

291
till Tuesday, inasmuch as the hon. Member for Bath had given notice of a Motion relative to the state of the Mauritius, which had already been fixed, for Monday.
Mr. Humehoped there was no wish to show any want of courtesy in the present case, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had already named Tuesday, he put it to the gentlemanly feelings of the House not to press the matter any further. Twenty-four hours would really make very little difference; and, as another very important subject had been fixed for Monday, Tuesday would be quite time enough to proceed with the inquiry.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the reason he preferred Tuesday was, that he regarded the whole charge as a mock solemnity. The noble Lord (Stanley) might differ from him. He considered the charge a ridiculous one, instigated, not in that House, but out of it, by the grossest party spirit; and repeated in that House by men who had employed all their lives in bribing and corrupting. He wished for Tuesday, because there were two important questions fixed for Monday, in the discussion of which he wished to take a part. Tuesday would be quite time enough, and he could assure the House he should repose with the utmost nonchalance under all the anxieties of this mighty and weighty accusation, in regard to which he had already been acquitted of all pecuniary turpitude by the hon. Member for Bradford. ["No, no.] He did not mean the noble Lord (Stanley); he did not say the noble Lord had acquitted him; —oh, no! he knew too well the delicacy of his enmity;—he had experienced it too often already; but he understood the hon. Member for Bradford to acquit him of any pecuniary turpitude in the matter. If the House would fix Tuesday, there he should be, he trusted, in perfect health, certainly in good spirits, and ready, at all events, to meet and refute the charge,—refute, did he say?—Oh, no! it could not be necessary for him; but to convince every impartial man in that House that there was not one particle of ground for the imputation. He was entitled to that assertion, and all he required for the present was, that the House should suspend its judgment till Tuesday, when the hon. Member for Bradford might speak at any length he pleased, and with all his accustomed power, and the hon. Member for Carlow would be at liberty to talk as disparagingly as he had ventured, most untruly, to speak of him. ["Order,
The Speakerwas sure the hon. and learned Member would see at once that the expression he had used was very strong, and altogether unparliamentary.
Mr. O' Connellwas sorry if he had made use of unparliamentary language. If he had done so, he begged leave to retract it; but he did not think that to say he had been untruly accused was very unparliamentarily language. If it were so considered by the House, he had no feelings of resentment to gratify, and therefore he repudiated the expression. Having said thus much, he would not enter into the subject more at length, beyond again expressing the hope that the House would postpone till Tuesday further discussion.
Mr. Roebucksaid, it would be a serious inconvenience to postpone the inquiry which, had been fixed for Monday; and as the noble Lord opposite (Stanley) would have on that evening to meet a very important charge, which would be brought against himself, he had no doubt he would be anxious that it should take precedence of the discussion in which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was personally implicated.
Lord Stanleycould assure the House that, as he had never shrunk from the discharging of any part of his public duty, so he never would shrink from meeting any charge made against him by the hon. Member, or any one else. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether the Motion of the hon. Member for Bath came on upon Monday or on any other day; and it was equally indifferent to him, as far as he was personally concerned, whether the Motion relative to the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was fixed for Tuesday or not. Whatever that hon. and learned Member might be pleased to think of the delicacy by which his enmity towards him was characterized in that House or elsewhere, he trusted it would never lead him to take any step which would be disgraceful to his feelings as a Gentleman and as a Member of that House. He considered the hon. and learned Member's political character and political position fraught with danger to the empire at large. Politically he had always opposed him, and he thanked his candour when he declared it was a high gratification to hear the expression of his belief, that during the Administration of Lord Grey he (Lord Stanley) had essentially served to thwart that hon. and learned Member's political schemes. But political grounds of hostility

293
he would never suffer to degenerate into personal vindictiveness. He never would sit on such a Committee as that to be moved for by the hon. Member for Bradford, because he should distrust his own judgment in a case where he sat on the character of the hon. and learned Member. If, therefore, he were nominated on the Committee he should at once decline serving on it He never had made an attack on the hon. and learned Member—he never would do so—in his absence, when it was impossible for the hon. and learned Member to answer for himself; but he was bound to say, when the hon. and learned Member appealed to him, whether he were already exempted from any charge of personal corruption, whatever might be his own opinion as to the justice of the charge, he was bound to say that the charge did hang over the hon. Member's head, and answer it he must in that House and before this country. Whatever application the hon. and learned Member was prepared to make of that money which it was alleged he had received, the allegation that he did receive it, and that for such a sum he contracted that a Member should have a seat in that House, fixed him distinctly and substantially with the charge; whether he meant to apply it personally to his private advantage, or politically as a means of public corruption, it was equally discreditable to him as a charge of personal or pecuniary corruption. He had not intended to say one word on this subject. He declared on his honour as a Gentleman he had no such intention, but the learned Member provoked him to speak. He denied that he considered the hon. and learned Member exempted from the charge of corruption. He pronounced no opinion as to whether he was guilty or not, but this he would say, that the hon. and learned Member was not justified in representing — and much had he been astonished in seeing his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) intimating his assent to the statement by a loud and vociferous cheer—as if so grave an imputation on the character and conduct of any hon. Member of that House should rather be laughed away and treated as a thing too ridiculous to demand the serious and deliberate investigation of that Parliament, which had already proved itself determined to do away with the corruptions which subsisted under a former system, and which, most of all, was bound consistently to ascertain and punish the delinquency of those who had been the foremost in de-
294
nouncing and the readiest in determining and in inflicting the punishment of others. He hoped he had misunderstood his right hon. Friend, and yet his manner was so marked that he could not persuade himself that he had been mistaken; he heard him so loudly cheer the assertion which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that this was a charge so utterly ridiculous that it should be treated altogether with contempt—that it was one which that House was taking up as a matter of mock solemnity, and for that reason it was a matter of indifference to him on which day it should be brought forward. He thought is could be no matter of mock solemnity to that House, which had already instituted so many proceedings into cases of corruption in various towns and boroughs, such as York, Ipswich, Yarmouth, and even the alleged case of Chatham. It must be a matter of deep importance to the Members of that House, whether there was or not an individual in. it capable of exercising such influence, as to introduce into a county of Ireland a person utterly unknown to the constituency, of whom he expressed the lowest and the meanest opinion, and who, possessing that influence, was prepared for its exercise to receive, on whatever pretence, the sum of 2,000 l. If there was anything in reform, if there was any desire to support the purity of election, if there was any desire really to maintain those principles to which he ever had been, and now was, sincerely attached, the last thing that should be urged on such an occasion as the present would be, that this was a mere matter of mock solemnity, and on that account it was quite indifferent whether brought forward on one day or another. As he said before, he cared not on what day it was brought forward; if the hon. and learned Member preferred Tuesday, Tuesday let it be. He knew not why it should not be proceeded with at once. The hon. and learned Member confessed that he thought it fitting for inquiry before a Committee— the hon. Member for Bradford only moved for a Committee— nothing more; yet, said the hon. and learned Member, give us three days between the time of giving notice and the moving for that Committee. It was not for him to say how that time was to be employed. It was not for him to say whether a delay of three days was necessary or desirable for the hon. and learned Member; he freely confessed he could not enter into the hon. and learned Member's

295
feelings; he did not understand them—he never participated in them; but this he knew, that if he sat in. that House under such a charge—a charge repeated over and over again—a charge supported by documents, detailing facts, some denied, much admitted on both sides—a charge that he had obtained money corruptly to procure for an individual a seat in that House, twenty four hours should not have elapsed from the meeting of Parliament without he himself moving for the appointment of a Committee. He remembered one occasion on which the hon. and learned Gentleman found it convenient to take some days to answer a charge which had been made against him; he never quarrelled with the hon. and learned Member for taking as much time as he considered necessary to enable him to answer any of his observations; he did not complain of the hon. Member's requesting till Tuesday on the present occasion; but were it his own case, rather than move for the postponement of one single hour, if the matter had not been investigated sooner, he would call on the House at once to express its judgment.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the noble Lord had totally misstated him. He never said that the noble Lord had acquitted him; he had not even insinuated it; all he said was, that he understood the hon. Member for Bradford to exonerate him completely from pecuniary corruption. The noble Lord put it unfairly; but he ought to have listened to what had been said before he rose to make his speech. The noble Lord had also said that he could not see why any postponement should be required. Where was the noble Lord when the petitions—the first tangible ground laid before the House for inquiry—were ordered to be printed? Did the noble Lord mean to say that it was not a fair and legitimate course to require that they should be printed? For what purpose? That in the reply to them, deliberately made, that calumny against him so industriously circulated—that calumny which the noble Lord had repeated tonight, in defiance of the facts, should be repelled from that House, and every one of those insinuations which the noble Lord threw out, shown to be as unfounded as were ever dictated by malevolence, and countenanced by party spirit. That was his object. Not one word had fallen from the noble Lord of charge against him. but he should be able to prove it wholly destitute of the slightest shadow of truth. When the noble Lord talked of having thwarted him
296
in his exertions in Ireland, he could only say that no man ever made greater advances in that or any other country under such supposed unfavourable circumstances. So far from having thwarted his plans, the noble Lord had materially advanced them. There was about the noble Lord something he could not describe, that the Irish did not fall in love with—whether it was in matter or in manner, or in the combination of both — whether it was the want of impartiality, of judgment, and bias.
Viscount Horvickrose to order. He was sure the House would feel, that the hon. and learned Gentleman having been already heard on this question, it was not desirable he should again persist in addressing it. He certainly was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should at that moment still wish to be heard; for he confessed that he listened with feelings of the very deepest regret to the speech made by the noble Lord who immediately preceded him. But, without following the example of his noble Friend, without pronouncing a strong opinion on either side of a question which by common consent had been put off till another day—without entering at that moment, when they could not be fairly discussed, into charges of a nature which must be deeply felt by the hon. and learned Member—keeping his mind perfectly free and unbiassed on either side—not being either personally or politically the friend of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he did hope, having agreed that the discussion should fully and fairly be taken on Tuesday, it should for the present be allowed to drop. He was sure his noble Friend himself, whose generous feelings he knew so well— ["Hear, hear" from Mr. Sheil]—he repeated, in spite of that cheer, the generous feelings of his noble Friend would lead him the first to regret that he had allowed himself, in the momentary warmth of debate, to enter into the statements he had just made. Having thus cautiously abstained from saying one word, or expressing the slightest opinion, on either side of the subject in dispute, he did hope the House would not now hear the hon. and learned Member speak again on this occasion, and in refusing to hear him allow the matter to rest, in common justice, where it did for the present.
Mr. O' Connelldid not desire, being in the hands of the House, to persevere. He was ready to submit to their opinion, whatever it might be. It having been insinuated that there was an impropriety in postponing

297
this matter, he was entitled, he thought, to show that the charge was substantially groundless. Calumny could be insinuated in various ways—it might be insinuated out of that House, and in that House— even under the affectation of fair play and justice there might be the most malignant construction put on a charge, which the charge itself did not bear—["Spoke, Spoke, Chair, Chair."] He did not wish to persevere.—[" Spoke, Spoke."] Well, he would finish in a single sentence. — ["Chair, Chair."]
The Speakersaid, the hon. and learned Member had taken a somewhat irregular course. Either a question of this sort should be thoroughly discussed, or altogether postponed. It was not, perhaps, unnatural for the hon. Member to wish to be heard, but, having already spoken more than once on the subject, and as it was now agreed on all hands that it should be postponed till Tuesday next, the more convenient course would be, not to pursue it further at present.
Mr. Humethought his hon. and learned Friend had been treated unfairly. The noble Lord had, by implication, advanced what appeared to him to be the most unfair charge conceivable against his hon. and learned Friend, namely, that his hon. and learned Friend wished to postpone the consideration of the question. The noble Lord said this, not knowing the rules of the House, and not doing his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, the justice to recollect what the right hon. Member for Montgomery had said. The right hon. Member for Montgomery said, that to-morrow would be too early to proceed with the inquiry, and suggested that the proper time would be Monday. All that could be alleged against his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin was, that he wished the subject to be brought forward on Tuesday instead of Monday. But what did the noble Lord (Stanley) say? "I know not what may be done in the course of three or four days." Did the noble Lord think that they were all so stupid as not to understand his insinuation? He had no hesitation in declaring what he thought the noble Lord meant to insinuate. The noble Lord intended to imply, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin asked for the postponement of the further consideration of the subject until Tuesday, in order that improper means might be used in the interval to prevent justice being done. No!
298
What, then, did the noble Lord mean by saying that he knew not what might be done in three or four days? If the noble Lord did not intend to make such an insinuation, let him state it fairly to the House, otherwise he would tell the noble Lord that he had made a most unfair and unparliamentary attack. Besides, the noble Lord forgot, or did not choose to remember, that the hon. Member for Bradford himself proposed Tuesday. He certainly had understood the hon. Member for Bradford to propose that day; at all events, he assented to it as soon as it was named by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Therefore, in every point of view, the noble Lord appeared to be in fault; and he thought the House was not acting with impartiality towards his hon. and learned Friend, when it listened to insinuations against him of so abominable a nature, without allowing him the privilege of a reply. When he heard the noble Lord (Stanley) say, that during his official career he had done every thing in his power to thwart the views of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he thanked God that the noble Lord was no longer in office. Much had Ireland to rue the influence which the noble Lord once exercised there. Hundreds of families in Ireland had to bewail the loss of life arising from the noble Lord's infernal policy. If ever any country was treated—["Order."] He was not aware that he was out of order—. ["Question."] He was speaking on the subject of the noble Lord's speech, and in doing so, he conceived he was perfectly in order. In fact, it was scarcely possible that he could be more in order than he was at that moment, although, perhaps, the hon. Gentlemen opposite might not he very anxious to hear what he had to say. The noble Lord now admitted, for the first time that ever he had heard him, that he was the individual who did every thing in his power to ruin the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin by increasing the grievances of Ireland. Some hon. Gentlemen might flatter themselves that that that was not the case; but what had a noble Lord in another, place said?—that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had more power than any other individual in Ireland. Why? What had given him that power?—["Question."] He did not know why he was to be subjected to such interruptions. He was speaking as much to the point as the noble Lord opposite, whose speech had been received with

299
tumultuous shouts of applause from, those who were now seeking to put him down. If assertions which he maintained to be false were cheered, it might perhaps be some reason why those which were true should not be listened to. He pronounced it to be unfair to prevent his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, from replying to the assertions and to the insinuations which the noble Lord had thrown out. He had stated why he considered it to be unfair; and he was sure the noble Lord (Stanley) himself, if he for a moment considered what he had said, would feel that he had thrown out insinuations against the hon. and learned Member for Dublin which were not justified by any thing which had occurred in the course of the debate. He protested against the injustice which had been done towards his hon. and learned Friend; but it was not the first act of injustice his hon. and learned Friend had suffered, nor would it be the last He would have to bear many more, but out of them he would come with increased power and influence, to confound those who might plot or conspire against him.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that it was really of little consequence whether the debate should take place on Monday or Tuesday next, the only effect would be that the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire; would be under the necessity of postponing, for a few hours longer, that display of generous feeling for which his noble Friend on the Treasury Bench had given him so much credit, but of which he could not help observing, that the noble Friend of the Secretary of War had given a somewhat peculiar specimen. The noble Lord, the Secretary of War, had interposed and stopped the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who was replying to an assault made on his character, and insinuations worse than any direct imputation. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin certainly was out of order in speaking twice, but he was a party involved, and the Secretary of War might, perhaps, as well have indulged him in a slight departure from the ordinary rules of the House, as have indulged the noble Lord in giving expression to those generous feelings of which his friends on the Treasury Bench were so much better competent to judge than those who, judging merely from the noble Lord's conduct in the House, had arrived at a somewhat different conclusion. The noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, had
300
stated that it was not for him to conjecture how the interval between this night and Tuesday was to be employed. Generous insinuation! How characteristic of the instinctive magnanimity of the noble Lord, who adopted this mode of dealing with a political rival to whom he acknowledged that he bore no very kindly sentiments. But the noble Lord deserved not only credit for generous feelings but for perfect frankness. He told the House, that he so far distrusted his own biases and prejudices, that he would not consent to serve on the Committee. But, if he were disqualified as a Judge, what weight ought to be attached to him as a witness; and what impression ought his impassioned advocacy to produce on the House? Why did he rise at all? Could he not have waited for a more becoming opportunity, and was he hurried to-night into a premature disclosure of his motives in. order to correct the learned Member for Bradford, who declared that he acquitted the hon. Member for Dublin of all corrupt dealings—["No, no?"] He would repeat, that the hon. Member for Bradford had acquitted the hon. and learned Member for Dublin of all corrupt pecuniary dealing for his own personal advantage. This was, on the part of the gentlemen to whom the Tories—he liked to designate them by a title to which they had an unimpaired and indisputable title—had committed this great enterprise, a most important admission, and the noble Lord had vainly endeavoured to do away with the effect of this hon. acknowledgment on the part of the distinguished, but ever honest leader, to whom this effort to ruin the character of a political antagonist had been confided. One word more on an observation of the noble Lord. He had said that, as a member of Lord Grey's Government, he had done all in his power to thwart the hon. Member for Dublin. He had: and what was the result as it had affected Ireland and himself? The consequences of his unfortunate policy with respect to Ireland were known to all the world; and, as to the noble Lord himself, he (Mr. Sheil) would only bid the House look there! Behold him sitting in. direct and ostentatious opposition to his old colleagues, whom he still designates as his noble friends. Let the House (said Mr. Sheil, pointing to the Opposition Bench on which Lord Stanley was sitting)—let the House behold that juxta position— honourable to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and to

301
the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire—the great sustainer of the Reform Bill, which annihilated the party on his present side of the House—I hope not entirely ignominious and suicidal.
The petitions to be printed—Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee deferred till Tuesday.

FISHERIES OF ENGLAND.
Captain Pechellsaid, that in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better protection of the fisheries in England and Wales, he felt it incumbent on him to show the necessity there existed for the measure he proposed, as also to explain the means by which it was intended that the great evil complained of should be remedied; and in so doing, he should hest show his acknowledgment for the kindness with which he was always received by the House by trespassing on its attention as briefly as so important a subject would permit. He would therefore remind the House that owing to the decrease of fish which had been generally complained of in the channel, a Bill was brought in in the year 1819 which was however lost on the third reading; but being renewed in 1822, it passed this House, but was lost in the House of Lords. Ever since that period, continued complaints have been made of the encroachments of the French boats, as well as of their constant aggression on the property of the English fishermen, particularly on the coasts of Kent and Sussex. These foreigners have been in the practice of coining to our shores to obtain the brood of young fish which by the laws of France they were prevented doing on their own side; and as great destruction of the brood and spawn takes place by trawl and ground nets during the breeding season, a Committee was appointed by this House in 1833 to examine into all the grievances of which the fishermen complained; and it was upon the recommendation of that Committee that the Bill he had now the honour to propose was entirely founded. "As far," continued the hon. member, "as regards the preservation of the fish in the bays and shallow waters in certain seasons, that part of the report of the Committee relating to the aggression of the French boats, will I trust be immediately taken up by the government, particularly as these vexations encroachments are of daily occurrence by the boats from Dieppe and Boulogne, which heedless of all remonstrance, drag their
302
trawl nets right across the floating and drift mackerel and herring nets of the fishermen of Brighton and Hastings, doing irreparable damage and inflicting great loss, and in many cases absolutely carrying off the nets of our defenceless fishermen to their own ports. Defenceless they are, because the French boats are compelled by their ordonnances to carry crews of twenty and thirty each, while those of the English boats, never exceed eight or ten." He could assure the House, that if the English boats could meet the French on anything like equal terms, the summary justice which British sailors are wont to inflict would suffice, and no demands for redress would be made to Parliament. As it was, protection had been demanded by the fishery of Brighton and Hastings, which, although it had been refused by one Board of Admiralty, had, he rejoiced to say, been granted by another; and which, he trusted, would always be continued. He should now proceed to explain the principle of the intended Bill, which had for its object the prevention of the destruction of the young brood of fish, it having been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee, by the evidence of Lord Vernon and many others, that it is essentially necessary to restrict the use of trawl and drag nets within limited distances during the breeding season of the fish, because it was ascertained that the young brood resort to the bays and shallows till they are of a sufficient size to take refuge in deeper water; and that by an experiment tried on the coast of Devon by mutual consent of preserving their breeding ground undisturbed from July to September, there was a greater abundance of fish in the ensuing season than had ever been known on that coast. The fishermen were therefore desirous that the restraint which they had thus voluntarily imposed upon their fishing should in future be enforced by law. He should therefore propose that the months of May, June, July, and August, should be declared the fence months, and that during those periods, no trawl or drag net touching the ground should be used within one league of the shore, or in less than ten fathoms water, which depth would enable French boats to fish with advantage near the great headlands without injury to the breeding ground. To accomplish which and other improvements it would be necessary to repeal certain old and most oppressive statutes as to what was deemed to be unsizeable fish. For instance, it was declared, that a

303
brill or turbot should be sixteen inches, soles, plaice, dabs, and he believed maids, should be eight inches, to be measured from the eye to the utmost extremity of the tail, in default of which the offender to be severely whipped. Now, hon. Gentlemen would see that it was high time to get rid of such enactments, the impossibility of putting them in force being manifest, notwithstanding the newly improved yard measure introduced by the noble Lord, the Member for Devon (Lord Ebrington). He should propose to limit the size of the mesh of the nets, which, by not interfering with those delicacies called white bait, would no doubt ensure to him the support of the Cabinet Ministers, as well as of the worthy Aldermen of the City who were Members of that House, It was also necessary that conservators should be appointed. He therefore proposed to choose the conservators from the most intelligent of the class of fishermen, they being the most likely to be interested in preserving the breeding grounds. He named these persons in the first instance, because it should not be said that he was arming the Government with further powers. At the same time it was necessary, in default of obtaining proper persons to serve the office, that the Justices at Quarter Sessions should appoint the officers of the Revenue, who, from being always on the spot, would no doubt be the most efficient persons to perform the duty required. There was one recommendation in the Report of the Committee, that he could not suffer to pass without notice., and which, if the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department would do him the honour to place in his hands, he (Captain Pechell) thought from the experience he had obtained last Session that he could dispose of the question in a summary manner. He alluded to the tithe of fish, which the Committee recommended to be abolished, and which they found was demanded and paid in. Cornwall and Norfolk. He considered that this tax was most burthensome and oppressive to the fishermen; and he trusted that the noble Lord would give his attention to the subject. As he conceived that the Report of the Committee of 1833 was conclusive, he had taken great pains to found the Bill strictly on its recommendation; and as the grievances still continued and many fishermen were driven during the winter months to the parish rates for support, in great part owing to the scarcity of fish in the channel, he confidently relied that the measure he now
304
proposed would have the effect of improving the condition of the fishery generally.
Mr. Wigneyrose to support the Motion of his hon. colleague, which he did with the greatest satisfaction, being aware of the grievances that had been stated, and of the acts of aggression that had been committed on the property of his constituents, by the fishermen of France. There was a petition now lying on the Table from the Directors and Guardians of the Borough of Brighton, praying that some steps might be taken to prevent the destruction of the young brood and spawn of fish, which petition both himself and his gallant colleague had supported. Believing this to be a most necessary measure, and trusting that the Government would prevent the encroachments of foreign boats, he should give his support to the Bill, which he was glad to see was so favourably received by the House.
Mr. Barlow Hoyalso rejoiced at the prospect of the introduction of the measure by the gallant officer; but as it did not appear that any mention was made of giving protection to the oyster fisheries, he wished to call the attention of the gallant Member to the many complaints which were made by the fishermen of Chichester, Emsworth, Havant, and even of Guernsey and Jersey,
Mr. Poulett Thomsonrose to express his approbation of the proposed measures to be introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton; but though he agreed to much of the Report of the Committee of 1833, there were some parts of it which the gallant officer would find more difficulty in accomplishing than perhaps he imagined; and that was, as regarded the interference with the fishing boats of France, which was a subject more fitting for negotiation than legislation.
Captain Pechellin reply said, although he might be flattered by the supposition that he could manage that most difficult and important question of the oyster fishery, he begged to assure the hon. Member that it was fortunately in the more able hands of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bonham Carter), who had bestowed vast attention and great labour on that subject. He, Captain Pechell, did not anticipate any difficulty in carrying through the Bill which he hoped now to have permission to bring in, because he had adopted solely that part of the recommendation of the Committee which related to the preservation of the breeding grounds. The other part relating to the foreign boats he left with his

305
Majesty's Ministers, as he had nothing to do with the law of nations more than to express his opinions and sentiments thereon. He therefore relied upon the support of the Government; and he assured hon. Gentlemen that any suggestions and improvements that they might tender to him should receive his best attention; and in order that the best information should be afforded, he would take care to give ample time before the Bill was brought to a second reading.
Leave given.

ENGROSSING ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. Humemoved, that all Bills be in future engrossed in plain round hand, instead of black letter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the hon. Member's Resolution were adopted, there would then exist the anomaly of the Bills of one House being written in one way, and those of the other in a manner quite different.
Mr. Williams Wynncomplained, that the rolls from the time of George 2nd were more illegible than those of the five centuries preceding, and he apprehended, that unless some plan were laid down which would be uniformly adhered to, it would be better they should remain as they were.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that every reason he had heard was one for passing the Resolution of the hon. Member for Middlesex. The records formerly were written legibly, because writing not being a general acquirement at the time, the clerks made up the records. The fees being latterly abolished, the parties now made them up, and they were not so uniformly written.
The Solicitor Generalobserved, that whatever other subject of complaint might exist against the Court of Chancery, that Court had enjoyed for above a century and a-half the benefit of having every thing placed on record there in a good plain round hand, and the consequence was that every word was capable of being made out and read distinctly by all persons interested.
The Attorney-Generalsaid there was no doubt that the old system was very inconvenient, and that many Members could not read the rolls of Parliament as they were now written. He confessed he was himself sometimes puzzled with that sort of writing, although he had studied it. Indeed, it was known that it had puzzled the printers, themselves, and the printers' devils. In the case of the printing of the late Municipal Corpora-
306
tions Bill, it was found, notwithstanding a supposed careful revision of the Bill, as printed by the printer employed and responsible, that some words had crept into the printed Bill which were not to be found, upon examination, on the roll itself. It would be well that a uniformity also should be adopted in the size of the letters in which these Bills were hereafter to be written, so that every one who ran might read them.
Sir F. Pollocksaid the alteration sought to be made was hardly worth contending for. Bills were not printed in black letter, and why they should continue to be written in that character he could not see. He hoped, however, that the system in use would be replaced by a better one.
Lord John Russellagreed with the hon. and learned Member that the thing was not worth contending for. He should, however, give his support to the Motion as he deemed some change necessary.
Mr. Humesaid, that in consequence of the observations made in reference to the House of Lords, he should beg to withdraw his Motion for the purpose of re-modelling it, and of substituting in its place a Motion to the effect "that a message should be sent to the House of Lords, praying their concurrence in the Resolution of this House that Bills before Parliament should be written in a plain round hand instead of black letter.
Colonel Thompsonsuggested, as an improvement on the Motion, that every document of importance coming before Parliament should be printed. He could not see why that which was written should not be as well in print; nor why things should be found in one which were not in the other. With respect to ink, he was able to state that he never saw Oriental ink of any kind fade or lose colour, a fact which arose from the use of lamp black in large quantities in their ink, and its absence in ours.
Resolution agreed to.

LAW OF LIBEL.
Mr. O'Connellthen rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Libel. As this subject would be fully discussed on the first of second reading of the Bill, he trusted the House would not think it necessary for him now to go further than to state this fact—that every one admitted the law of libel to be at present in a most unsatisfactory state. The noble Lord who lately filled the office of Lord Chancellor was certainly of that opinion; and the noble Lord who now filled that office, when in

307
that House, spoke at length and very ably upon the same subject. The obvious necessity of altering the law of libel would be shown, if he were to state nothing else than this fact—that as the slightest written imputation upon character was, in point of law, a libel, where the smallest exaggeration occurred in any one paper, which should be copied in nineteen other papers, any speculative attorney might bring twenty different actions against the parties, and if he got but one farthing in damages, he punished the parties in penalties perhaps of 500 l. in the shape of costs. There was another part of the law of libel which required amendment, though he admitted it should not be approached without caution. At present it was a criminal offence to charge any man with any crime, or with anything that might mate him appear ridiculous, however he might merit the charge. It was a crime to tell the truth—indeed, it had been said that a libel was aggravated by the force of its truth. Now, without concurring at all in that opinion, or of being supposed to give any countenance to it, yet there was no lawyer, in or out of the House, but who must admit that it was no defence in the case of criminal proceedings for a libel to prove the truth of the words. And this anomaly also existed—that if one person published the truth concerning another, with however innocent a motive, yet, in the case of criminal proceedings against him, he was convicted and punished; but if he published the truth, with however malicious a motive, and however injurious it might he, yet, in a civil action, no redress was made to the injured party, and this arising from the circumstance that in a criminal proceeding the truth was no justification, while in a civil action it was. Without entering further into the subject, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Libel.
Sir Frederick Pollockadmitted that the law of libel was not in a satisfactory state, and that it required considerable alteration. It was impossible for any one, acquainted with the proceedings of the courts of law upon the subject, not to be impressed with the truth of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He, for one, should be happy to contribute whatever was in his power, in the way of suggestion, to the amendment of the present law; at the same time, if the Bill should be introduced with the same amendments as were proposed last
308
Session of Parliament, he must in candour say, that he could not give it his entire concurrence, for he entertained considerable doubt as to the propriety of several of those amendments being adopted.
The Attorney-Generalsaid that one great evil arising from the present law was this, that the most atrocious libellers were afforded the pretence of complaining that in the present state of the law of libel justice could not be obtained. The most atrocious libellers defended themselves by mixing up their cases with the cases of those against whom some pettifogging attorney had brought the most unfounded actions. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had pointed out two imperfections in the present law, upon which alone he was fully entitled to ask for leave to bring in his Bill. The first was, that any speculative attorney might bring an action merely to put the costs into his own pocket; because (by an absurd distinction made where no real difference existed,) if, in an action brought for a written slander, where no real injury had been sustained, the Jury gave only one farthing damages, that would carry full costs; whereas, if the action were for words spoken and the Jury gave a verdict of one farthing damages, the plaintiff would be entitled to no more costs than damages. Another fault pointed out was, that at present the consideration of the truth in all criminal cases was excluded. He thought the truth ought always to be admitted to be given in evidence, and that it should go to the Jury for them to say whether the publication was banâ fide and justifiable, or whether it was done from malicious motives. Ample justice would then be done to the party, and a sufficient protection would, at the same time be afforded to the public, which they did not now enjoy. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Frederick Pollock) that several of the provisions in the Bill of last Session were objectionable; but, at present, he gave the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin his entire concurrence.
Leave given.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. Estcourtmoved that a select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition, management, and affairs of the British Museum.
Mr. Warburtonwas glad the hon. Member had moved for the appointment of a Committee on this subject; and he hoped that, in addition to the opinions that had been expressed by the witnesses who were

309
examined before the Committee of last Session on the subject, the opinion on the constitution of the Board of Trustees, which had been published within the last few days, would be laid before the Committee, because he considered it to be the opinion of one who was a great authority on the subject. It was that of a late President of the Royal Society, Sir Humphrey Davy. The hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the publication to which he had referred. After stating that of late years the trustees had always been chosen from a branch of the aristocracy, or of gentlemen who possessed some Parliamentary influence, Sir Humphrey proceeded to say, "that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, were considered as the really acting governors of the institution. But overwhelmed as those great officers must be with the religious, legal, and legislative affairs of the country, it could not be supposed that they could have much leisure or opportunity to attend to the government or management of a national institution of that kind. All the officers of the Museum —librarians and curators—were elected in turns by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of the House of Commons, for the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Eldon, always refused to act as trustee, considering (and very properly so) that he had other duties more essential to discharge. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that among the curators, librarians, and sublibrarians, there should be found many persons taken from the inferior departments of the church and public offices. The places were, no doubt, filled with respectable and well educated men, but not by men naturally fitted to hold them, either by their knowledge as naturalists, or as being profound in taste for antiquities and collections of works of art." Sir Humphrey Davy then stated this emphatic opinion:—"There must be a general change in every thing belonging to this institution before a proper system of radical improvement can be effected." This was not the opinion of a Radical Reformer, for he believed that in politics Sir Humphrey Davy was a great Tory. Sir Humphrey proceeded to say, "that it appeared to him this was the best moment for a distinct, radical, and fundamental change to be made in every thing belonging to this ancient, misapplied, and he might almost say, useless institution;" in consequence of the care of this great institution being devolved upon a Board com-
310
posed of gentlemen who could not be supposed really to understand the affairs and circumstances of it. Meanwhile men of science formed themselves into different societies, and at their own accord, and at their own expense, undertook the promotion of those various departments of knowledge to which they were peculiarly devoted, feeling that it was hopeless to look to the British Museum, as at present constituted, for that encouragement to those different branches of science and art which, as a national institution, it ought unquestionably to afford.
Mr. Estcourthoped that the Committee would have the valuable assistance of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Warburton) in the examination which would ensue into the condition of the institution, as one of the first names placed in the list was that of the hon. Member. He would in his place then have every opportunity he could desire of making his communications with practical effect, and it would, perhaps, be better to reserve any discussion on the constitution of the Board till then. He also hoped to have the assistance of the several Members who sat on the Select Committee last year, as their names would also remain on the list if the House had no objection.
Mr. Humecontended that there ought to be a radical change in the system of management. The way the funds were applied showed that the Board were not sufficiently at leisure to attend to considerations of economy and public utility. Where an individual had six or seven engrossing and important duties to perform it was impossible that he could discharge them all satisfactorily, and it was the duty of those who granted the means of supporting the establishment to arrange measures so that in future there would be nothing for the public to complain of. Looking at the present state of its affairs, he must declare that it was imperative on the Gentlemen connected with that institution to defend themselves, and unless they make a good defence it would be impossible for Parliament to allow them to continue in their present position.
Mr. Ewartagreed with the hon. Members for Bridport and Middlesex on the necessity of Reform which existed in the management of this great national institution, and change in the constitution of its Board, composed as the latter were of trustees of three kinds—hereditary, ex-officio, and elective. It could not be denied by any rational, man that this great institution should be thrown open, to the public who

311
paid so liberally for its maintenance. He thought it ought, for the convenience of that public, to be kept open all day, particularly in the evening, and every day, Sunday and holiday. It contained the only public library in the metropolis, and it was a national reproach that it was not rendered more accessible and useful. It appeared by the Report of last Session, that there were in Paris five libraries, open at all times to the public, and to all persons, whether they came on foot or in a carriage; and here he begged leave to give his opinion, that a great obstacle and a great bar to the utility of our library, consisted in our requiring tickets of admission, which, though they could be procured by properly asking for them, were yet the means of keeping many out who would otherwise avail themselves of its advantages. At the Bibliothèque du Roi, on the contrary, any one could enter at once without any question, and every one enjoyed the opportunity of improvement. He thought there ought to be a library open to the public in. every section of London, and hoped that the establishment of such libraries would be one of the earliest fruits of Municipal Reform.
Lord Sandonsaid, he had heard that great inconvenience resulted from the Parisian system of indiscriminate admittance—that books were constantly lost from the shelves, and nothing was more common than to see books for sale on the stalls in the street marked with the stamp of the Royal Libraries. He had heard no complaint of that kind made of carelessness or loss of property concerning the British Museum, but on the contrary, was happy to find that, with the best arrangements for safety, the public were afforded increased facilities, both for the inspection of the Museum and the library, and that the readers were becoming more numerous every day. He deprecated the discussion which had been thus prematurely started, and which, he felt, would have the effect of prejudicing the question in the eyes of the public. He had every wish that the state of the institution should receive thorough investigation and impartial consideration. The Committee had sat long last year, and he hoped it would sit longer this year, as he anticipated that great advantages would arise, which, however, it would be premature to enter on at present.
Mr. Hawesbegged to acknowledge the obligations which the Committee of last year had been under to the noble Lord (Sandon) for the great care and kindness
312
he had manifested in procuring every valuable information for their use. The returns which he had furnished them formed the best foundation for the proceedings of the Committee, and had received the attentive consideration they were justly entitled to.
Committee appointed.