Sitting of 20 March 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Captain DUNDAS, an Account of the Number of Irish Poor passed from London to Bristol to be shipped for Ireland, and the Expenses incurred thereby.—On the Motion of Captain GEORGE FERGUSON, the Quantity of Foreign Oats imported into Ireland Free of Duty as Seed Corn, since permission was first granted to impost.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from Glasgow, for Poor Laws (Ireland); and from Liverpool, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Offences against Property. By Sir JOHN JOHNSTONE, from Scarborough, for the Repeal of the House and Window Tax.—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from the Retailers of Beer, Stockport, to be placed on the same footing as the Licensed Victuallers; and by Mr. WILKS, from Retailers of Beer, Boston, to the same effect,—By Sir JOHN JOHNSTONE, from Scarborough, Sealby, and other Places; by Mr. ROEBUCK, from Proprietors of Stage Coaches and Waggons of Bath; by Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, from Dumfries, Ruthwell, Dunscore, Langholm, Linlithgow, and Borrowstonness; by Mr. WILKS, from Sion Chapel, Mallow; from Baptists of Bow; from the Minister and Congregation of St. Thomas's Square Chapel, Hackney; and from Ministers, Elders, and Congregation of Albion Chapel, Moorgate, in connexion with the United Secession Church of Scotland; by Colonel WILLAMS, from the Inhabitants of Ashton-under-Lyne; by Sir GRAY SKIPWITH, from Stoneleigh, Atherstone, Berkswell, and Wallsall; by Mr.
876
SINCLAIR, from Bickenhill, and several other Places in Scotland; by Captain CHETWYND, from Stafford; by Mr. GILLON, from the Associate Congregation of Airdrie; by Captain DUNLOP, from Kilmarnock; by Lord ALTHORP, from Titchmarsh, and other Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir JOHN JOHNSTONE, from Scarborough; by Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, from Moffatt and Langholm; and by Mr. WILKS, from. Baptists at Horsham and Stradbroke,—for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from Persons at Stockport,—for the Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—By Colonel WILLIAMS, from Ashton-under-Lyne; and by Mr. GILLON, from certain Persons in Glasgow, and from Other Places,—against the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. EWART, from Glasgow, for the Removal of Restrictions on the Trade to the Brazils; and from Liverpool, in favour of the Jews.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, and Captain DUNLOP, from various Places in Scotland, for the Abolition of Church Patronage.—By Mr. DAVID ROCHE, from Limerick; and by Mr. EWART, from Liverpool,—for an Amendment in Corporation Laws.—By Mr. WILKS, from Dissenters Meeting at Argyle Chapel, Bath, at Boston, and Ashburton, for Exempting from Poor and Church Rates all Places of Worship, and for the Redress of Grievances.—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from the Females of Bath; by Mr. WILKS, from Ashburton; and by Colonel WILLIAMS, from Ashton-under-Lyne,—in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.—Similar Petitions were presented by Mr. STRICKLAND, from Gomersall; by Mr. GILLON, from Operatives of Dundee; and by Mr. SINCLAIR, from Dingwall, Lismahagow, and Stanningley.—By Mr. GILLON, from Lanark; and by Mr. STRICTLAND, from Langfield, for the Reduction of Taxation.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)—PETITIONS.
Mr. Roebuck, on presenting two Petitions against the Irish Coercion Bill, one from Stockport and the other from Bristol, signed by 4,000 persons, felt called upon to make a few observations, especially as he had not hitherto said anything upon the subject. The Members for Ireland had fought their battle in that House manfully, patiently, and with great calmness and discretion; but that battle, from the votes of last night, was clearly shown to be lost. Having thus noticed what had taken place, he felt called upon to say to those hon. Gentlemen, if they would take his advice, they would leave that House at once, and for ever as it was plain Ireland could not look for justice from an English House of Commons. If the opinions of Parliament were to be judged of by the opinions and votes of its Members last night, justice never could be done to Ireland, and the sooner she was separated from England the better. The people of America, having much less grounds than Ireland had now to complain, had fought nobly for their independence, and had put down till then the indomitable pride of England. Unfortunately Ireland had not followed so glorious an example, and the consequence was, that she had suffered oppressions unequalled by any other country in Europe, with the exception of Poland, The time

877
was now come when it was openly avowed that Ireland was to be no longer under a free Government. Irishmen had become the slaves of the despotism of England; and if they wished to continue so, instead of fighting manfully and boldly by every means in their power for their independence, they would passively give way to the provisions of the most iniquitous measure that had ever been brought forward, and they would deserve the desecration of every honourable man. The measure had been brought forward in cowardice—sup-ported by imbecility—and carried through by the most unworthy means. He had expressed his opinions on this subject strongly; he cared not how far some persons might think he had gone beyond the bounds of discretion, for, in his opinion, when the rights of a nation were disregarded, and its people trampled under foot, discretion was but a poor virtue. The open expression of honest indignation was preferable at all times to that careful weighing of a man's words which was the poor refuge of the cowardly and the base.
Mr. Cobbettrose to express his entire approbation of what bad fallen from the hon. member for Bath; he, however, wished that the hon. Gentleman, instead of stating that the people of England were the oppressors of Ireland, had stated that those oppressors were the grinding aristocracy of England.
An Hon. Memberthought that the language which had been used by the hon. member for Bath was such as ought not to be countenanced by the House. He had himself, with great reluctance, given his support to his Majesty's Ministers in carrying the measure, and he should continue to do so; at the same time he must say that, if such questions as the abolition of the right of petition, and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were brought abstractedly before the House, he should enter his earnest and decided protest against them; but when he saw the present state of Ireland, he felt bound to support the measure, which he regarded as one of mercy, as it went to prevent anarchy.
An Hon. Memberlikewise deprecated the language which had been used by the hon. member for Bath, language and expressions almost amounting to preaching open rebellion.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Member
878
must permit him to interrupt him in the course he was pursuing. The hon. Member was mistaken, or had misunderstood the intentions and statement of the hon. member for Bath. It was impossible that any hon. Member could be permitted to preach rebellion, and he (the Speaker) had understood the remarks of the hon. member for Bath to be confined merely to this,—that the people of Ireland ought to oppose any measure by which their freedom was assailed by every legal means afforded them by the law of the land. If he (the Speaker) had entertained any such notion as to the statement of the hon. member for Bath as had been expressed by the hon. Member, he should at once have called the hon. member for Bath to order.
Mr. Finnfelt called upon to make a few observations upon that part of the hon. member for Bath's speech, in which he recommended the Members for Ireland, who had unsuccessfully opposed the Bill, to withdraw from that House. That was an advice which they could not think of following. They had a duty to perform to the people of Ireland, and to the people of the other parts of the empire, which was, to remain at their posts, and effect all the good they could. The question of taxation would shortly come forward, and it was the duty of every Member to be at his post, to endeavour, if he possibly could, to reduce those taxes that bore so heavily on the people. The question of sinecures and unmerited pensions would also be brought forward, and it behoved Members to be in their places to reduce them—to put down useless expenditure of every description—to extend liberty in every way, and to support Triennial Parliaments and Vote by Ballot. If the recommendation of the hon. member for Bath were followed by the Irish Members, the consequence would be, that the different members of the Government would hold their seats on very easy terms.
Mr. Roebuckobserved, that if the hon. Member who had deprecated the strong language he had used, would only take the trouble of looking into the speeches of Mr. Fox, he would find that terms equally strong had been made made use of by that right hon. Gentleman.

FACTORY REGULATIONS.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, that he had a Petition to present of great interest and importance at the present moment, in favour of the Bill

879
before the House, for limiting the duration of the labour of children in factories. It was from the large town of Leeds, which, if not the largest, was, perhaps, the most affluent manufacturing town of this country. This petition had been stated to him to be 240 feet long, and to have been signed by 16,000 persons. It was the time at which this petition was brought forward, and the distinct manner in which it expressed the sentiments of the petitioners, which made him think it of importance; but there was only one sentence in it to which he wished to call the particular attention of hon. Members. In that sentence the petitioners begged to bear their testimony to the accuracy, of the evidence given before the Select Committee appointed by that honourable House to inquire into the subject, and particularly they bore testimony to that portion of the evidence which had reference to the protracted hours of labour imposed upon children in factories, and the consequent destruction of their health and morals. He (Mr. Strickland) was one of those who had devoted great attention to the evidence taken before the Committee at the time, and then feared to prejudge the case; but now that the Bill was before the House, and that imputations had been thrown out against that evidence, on the ground of its being ex-parte, and capable of receiving an answer, he begged to state what his own impression of that evidence was. He thought the reading of it would not give the public a full and correct idea of the real state of the case, or that anything else could, except a sight of the emaciated cripples who were brought before the Committee to be examined. He regretted that the Bill introduced some years back, by Sir John Hobhouse, had met with the opposition it experienced, for he was confident that it was the limitation of that Bill to the cotton manufacture which had excited a great part of the present discontent. He was decidedly of opinion that nothing short of the Ten-hour Bill could satisfy the feelings of the public, or be productive of any advantage. This Bill must be tried for a season, and, if it were found to be impracticable, they must again legislate upon the subject.
Mr. Fryersaid, that no one was more anxious than he was to relieve the misery of these children, and of the working-classes generally; but he was satisfied that the Factories Bill would prove no-
880
thing but a delusion. This was not the way in which the distress of the country could be remedied. The only relief that could be afforded to a manufacturing population was the reduction of the duty on their raw materials, and the abolition of the tax on bread. Foreign countries were rapidly over taking us in the cheapness of our manufactures; and, in some particulars, absolutely rivalled us. How was it possible to expect, that with a duty of twelve per cent on the raw material, and of twenty per cent upon corn, relief could be given to the labourers, cither infant or adult? They might talk of relieving them, but all attempts to relieve them must be delusive, whilst Parliament persisted in creating an artificial scarcity, for the purpose of making them pay a high price for their bread. The only way of giving the starving population of the country real relief, was to afford them a fair chance, by reducing the price of food, and the tax upon their raw materials, and thus enable them to compete with foreign nations.
Mr. Robinsonagreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down; but said it was difficult all at once to make such an alteration in the taxes, as would afford the manufacturing classes relief; and the question was, whether, in the meantime, they would permit the present system to go on, and allow the children to labour more than ten hours.
Mr. Potter, in justification of the cotton manufacturers, begged to say, that the abuses complained of did not rest exclusively with them. When hon. Members spoke of supporting the Bill, they surely did not mean to support all its provisions. Did they mean to support a measure giving the power to Magistrates to commit the masters to prison for twelve months? Did they mean to support a measure which gave Magistrates a power to levy a fine of 200 l. on the masters? If they did mean to support a measure with such clauses, he would tell them they would strike a blow at the cotton trade, from which, in his opinion, it would never recover. He was decidedly favourable to an alteration in the hours of labour, but not to be effected by a Bill like this.
Petition laid on the Table.

TRADE TO THE BRAZILS.
Mr. Ewartrose to present a Petition from a number of shipowners of Liverpool, who were proprietors of 100,000 tons of British shipping.

881
They prayed for no additional restriction upon trade; but, on the contrary, for an extension of it. He should not do justice to the petitioners if he did not read the petition at length.
To the Honourable, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled; the humble Petition of the undersigned owners of British vessels trading form the port of Liverpool, showeth—
That your petitioners labour under many disadvantages in competition with foreign shipping, in consequence of the higher cost of their vessels, and the greater expense of navigating them, in the charges for provisions, stores, and wages: and also to their being subjected to many imposts to which foreign ships are not liable, such as the stamp duties on policies of insurance being one quarter, and often one-half per cent upon the value of their property on each voyage; the South Sea duty, still levied upon shipping, of 1s. 6d. per ton homewards, although goods outwards have for some time back been free from that duty; the Greenwich Hospital dues of 6d. per month for each of the crew during the voyage, and the dread of the impress service—that most unjust, tyrannical, iniquitous practice of manning the navy, resorted to in time of war, and which deters many youths of respectable connections from embracing the sea service as a profession.
That, in addition to the above serious disadvantages, your petitioners, in their trade with Brazil, Cuba, St. Domingo, Java, Sincapore, Manilla, and the Indian Archipelago, are deprived of a large portion of homeward freight, in consequence of the chief productions of these countries being prohibited from use or consumption in this kingdom.
That, for the reasons before-mentioned, British shipping cannot be navigated in competition with American and other foreign shipping, when carrying cargoes to foreign ports, as, besides the extra expense at which British vessels are navigated; they also incur a further charge for commission and management to a foreign agent, and have to perform a second voyage in ballast to a British port; or return in ballast to a more distant one for further employment.
That Brazil alone furnishes freightage for 120,000 tons of shipping annually in sugar and coffee, nearly the whole of which is imported as returns for British manufactures; and, were the productions of that country admitted for use or consumption in this kingdom, they would be brought inwards, and a great part thereof re-exported in British vessels.
That St. Domingo, Cuba, Manilla, Sincapore, and the Eastern Islands, likewise furnish upwards of 200,000 tons of similar productions, the greater part of which, as well as the produce of Brazil, is carried by American and other foreign shipping, to European ports,
882
although actually the property of British merchants, or received in return for British manufactures.
That the British trade with China is strictly confined to the Honourable East India Company's ships, whilst Americans, Danes, Swedes, and other nations are permitted to sail from British ports with British goods, freighted on British account, and to return with cargoes of tea and other Chinese productions to the various ports of Continental Europe, whilst the vessels owned by your petitioners are precluded from every share of this profitable and extensive carrying trade.
That your petitioners attribute the present depressed state of the British shipping interest mainly to those unjust and impolitic monopolies and restrictions, and that, if the trade with the before-named countries were placed on a fair and liberal basis, additional employment would be given to a large extent of British tonnage, now lying idle in the ports of this kingdom, or unprofitably employed in vain competition with foreign shipping, trading to foreign ports.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray, that your honourable House will take this their petition into your most serious and immediate consideration; and that an interest, hitherto considered so important to the welfare and protection of this kingdom, may not be suffered to go to decay, while the Marine of our American and continental rivals prospers by its destruction.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
He begged leave most strenuously to support the prayer of the petition. He could see no sources of relief from the grievances and depression under which the country now laboured, but from a diminution of taxation and the extension of commerce. Every removal of the unjust and impolitic restrictions and monopolies which had hitherto incumbered and impeded the prosperity of the country, necessarily would go toward the diminution of taxation. He hoped, that while the people demanded relief from direct taxation, they would not shut their eyes to that indirect system of taxation, arising from commercial restriction and monopoly, which not only took money out of their pockets, but pressed on the commercial relations of the country, and impeded the comfort of all classes. He hoped the subject would meet with the full consideration of Government, and as soon as possible that relief would be given.
Lord Sandonwas prepared generally to support the prayer of the petition, al-though he could not enter into a discussion of all the details contained in it. Each sentence admitted of a long and important

883
argument; but, at present, he could only say, that he generally approved of its prayer. His wish was, that as many restrictions as possible should be taken off commerce; but he did not agree in that particular to the full extent of the petition, that all articles of foreign produce should be freely admitted for use in this country. Even on the produce of our own colonies there were restrictions; and it would introduce complete confusion into the commercial connexions of the country to grant the prayer of the petition to its full extent. He expressed his concurrence in that part of it which directed the attention of Government to the duty on Marine Insurances, which pressed very heavily on the commerce of this country.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorewas of opinion, that the utmost freedom should be allowed to the commerce of this country. Unless it were relieved from all restrictions and monopolies, it would fall to decay in the competition with other nations. He sincerely trusted that his Majesty's Government would seriously direct attention to this subject, as he was fully convinced by that means alone could the difficulties under which the commercial and shipping interests of the country laboured be removed.
Petition laid on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir Robert Peelwished to know, whether it was the noble Lord's intention to press his Motion that the Irish Bill should take precedence of all other-business? He only asked the question, because there might be some certainty as to what business would come before the House.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he hoped the courtesy of hon. Members would prevent him from pressing it; but if they declined acceding to his wish, he feared he should be obliged to press that Motion, as it was necessary that the House should continue the consideration of the Bill de die in diem until it had passed through the Committee.
Mr. O'Connellthought there was no one who would deny that much time—nearly an hour and a half—had been consumed after one o'clock on the preceding morning upon unnecessary discussions. He had no objection to go into the discussion at six, and continue till one. That would surely be enough. Those who were kept for so many hours from all manner of refreshment, were not able, at the end of the time, to bear
884
up against the overflowing strength of those who then came in upon them. Many gentlemen were thus prevented from expressing their sentiments. Under these circumstances, he trusted he should not be thought to be trespassing, if, at one o'clock, he moved an adjournment.
Sir Matthew W. Ridleydid not know-that the hon. and learned Member was in the least degree justified in speaking as if this Bill had not had a full discussion.
Lord Ebringtonsincerely hoped, that his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come to no compromise on this point.
Colonel Williamsprotested against the interminable speeches which were made by hon. Gentlemen upon the Irish Bill—speeches in which nobody was fortunate enough to strike out any new lights, but in which everybody was successful in extinguishing all the old ones. The evil was daily becoming worse and worse.
Speeches immeasurably long,
Seem lengthening as we go.
He recollected that Mr. Jefferson, in one of his letters, remarked, that Franklin and Washington, though one of them was the founder, and the other the president of the new republic, had never found it necessary upon any question to speak more than fifteen minutes.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill.
The twelfth Clause having been put,
Mr. Rolchsaid, that at a late hour last night, he had moved, as an Amendment on the last clause, that the party accused should have a right to be present whilst the Judge-advocate, or his deputy, was addressing the Court-martial in reply to any objection, which he (the party accused) might have taken to the proceedings against him. He had then said, that it was customary for the court to be cleared of the prisoner and his friend, as his advocate was called, whilst the Judge-advocate was left with the court to assist its deliberations. On his stating that such was the practice he was contradicted. At that late hour of the night he was unwilling to enter into the argument, especially as his unsupported assertion might not have had much weight against the assertion of Gentlemen who were speaking upon a point connected with the practice of their own profession. He

885
had, however, now brought down with him to the House the report of a Court-martial, certified to be correct by the signature of the deputy Judge-advocate, from which it appeared that on an objection taken by the prisoner, the court was cleared; that in the absence of the prisoner, the Judge-advocate replied to his argument in a speech which occupied a closely printed page; that after that argument the court made its decision, and that the court was then again opened, the prisoner called in, and the decision of the court read to him. Having thus established the fact that the Judge-advocate, or his deputy, were allowed to address the court, after it was cleared, against the prisoner in the absence of the prisoner, he should propose to add as an Amendment to this clause, a proviso enacting that no Judge-advocate, or his deputy, should act as counsel against the party accused in any such Court-martial. He contended that from the very constitution of human nature, a Judge-advocate, who had to marshal the evidence, and to examine the witnesses for the prosecution, could not be an impartial member of the court, nor could avoid acting, if he acted at all, as counsel against the prisoner.
Mr. O'Connellbegged pardon of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; but he had an Amendment to propose, which, in point of form, must be put before that just proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The clause stated, that the Lord-lieutenant should nominate and appoint one of his Majesty's serjeants-at-law, or counsel learned in the law to act as Judge-advocate. The responsibility attached to the appointment of counsel belonged, therefore, to his Majesty's Government. Now, he proposed to leave out the words "counsel learned in the law," and to substitute in their stead "or any barrister-at-law of not less than five years standing." This would give the Government the power of choosing a Judge-advocate almost from the whole bar. To limit their choice to King's Counsel would be inconvenient, for King's Counsel in great business would not give up their ordinary professional emoluments to go into the disturbed districts, and King's Counsel not in great business might not possess those qualifications of capacity which, in cases like the present, were so desirable. An intelligent barrister of less standing would be much preferable to such a man; and, such being his opinion, he should propose the Amendment which he had already described.
Lord Althorphad no objection to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. His chief reason for confining this appointment to King's Counsel was his desire to secure the attendance of professional persons of experience before the Court-martial.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Rotch then proposed his Amendment, as we have given it already.
Lord Althorpobjected to the Amendment. It was monstrous to assert that, because it was the duty of the Judge-advocate to examine the witnesses against the prisoner, he was therefore so biassed against the prisoner as to be incapacitated from deliberating with the court. At the Quarter Sessions where counsel was not employed for the prosecution, it was the custom of the court to examine the witnesses against the prisoner, but he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would, on that account, contend that the court acted as counsel against the prisoner.
Mr. Wynnhad stated, last night, his objection to this part of the Bill—that objection had not been removed nor diminished by the observations of the noble Lord. His noble friend compared the functions of the Judge-advocate, at a Court-martial, with the duties of the Chairman at a Quarter Sessions, where no counsel was employed for the prosecution. There was a great difference between the situations of the two. The Chairman of a court of Quarter Sessions knew nothing of the charge against the prisoner until it was brought into court, when the deposition taken before a Justice of the Peace was, for the first time, handed up to him. But the Judge-advocate was the legal adviser who must be consulted before the prosecution was commenced. In point of fact, he was the public prosecutor; and whoever acted in that capacity must prepare the charge against the prisoner, and examine the witnesses, to support the prosecution before they came into court. "There was, besides, another duty belonging to the Judge-advocate, as public prosecutor, which rendered it expedient that some such provision as that proposed by the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough should be adopted—he had to make an opening speech, describing the nature of the charge against the prisoner, and detailing the facts upon which it was founded, with these duties, his duties according to this clause would be inconsistent. In the case of General Whitelock, he remembered that the late

887
Mr. Ryder, then Judge-advocate, made an opening speech against the accused, and examined witnesses upon all occasions. It appeared to him that the best way of guarding against the evils of this system would be for Government upon every occasion, to appoint a fit and proper person to conduct the prosecution, and that the Judge-advocate should only appear as the adviser of the court. It was highly desirable that every member of a tribunal, of such a kind as it was proposed to institute, should come into court with his mind unprejudiced—which, with the duties which the Judge-advocate in his present capacity had to perform, was scarcely possible—and that after he had taken his seat he should be made acquainted for the first time with the charge and the evidence against the prisoner.
Mr. Stanleydefended the clause as it stood at present. It was not intended that the Judge-advocate should get up for the prosecution the cases which were to be tried before these Courts-martial. His duty would be limited to advising the members of the court upon the evidence that was admissible, the legal bearing of the evidence, and other points of a similar character. He thought that there were other clauses in the Bill which showed that prosecutions instituted before these courts must be instituted by the Government; but if the Bill were not deemed sufficiently distinct upon that point, he should have no objection to introduce a clause providing that there should be a public prosecutor, and that that public prosecutor should not be the Judge-advocate.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that no Amendment which could be made upon this, or any other clause of the Bill could cure the objection which he had to these Courts-martial altogether. The fault was in their constitution. They consisted of officers, whose promotion, whose degradation, whose very bread, depended on their subservience to the views of Government.
Sir Robert Peelagreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be indecent if a party sent to assist the deliberations of the Court-martial were to act as counsel against the prisoner. If he did so act, undoubtedly he ought not to be permitted to reply to the arguments of the prisoner, whilst the prisoner was absent and could not tell what fallacies of fact or argument he might press on the court. He was also of opinion, that if such a person had assisted in getting up the
888
evidence for the prosecution, he was by that very circumstance incapacitated from acting impartially as a Judge. He would take that opportunity to say, that if he had been present at the division last night, he should have voted along with the majority, for he thought that all the benefits of the Trial by Jury were at present quite suspended in Ireland. He was sorry, however, that the tribunals created by this and the preceding clauses, as they had been so materially altered, were still suffered to retain the name of Courts-martial, They were not Courts-martial. They were very different in their construction from Courts-martial appointed under the Mutiny Act. Why, then, when they had abandoned the substance, did they retain a name that was so obnoxious? Nothing could be easier than to alter the name of these tribunals.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that the remarks which had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet were deserving of consideration, but it was impossible to alter the title of these courts now, as the clauses which created them had been passed by the Committee.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he would not prolong the discussion by proposing a new title for those courts, but if his Majesty's Ministers were at a loss for a name for them, he would suggest that of "revolutionary tribunals."
Mr. Warburtondid not think that the Judge-advocate should be both prosecutor and Judge, and he should therefore propose an Amendment to that effect. Such an Amendment would prevent his having an opportunity of tampering with witnesses.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that an Amendment was quite unnecessary, as it had never been intended by the Government that the Judge-advocate should be both Judge and prosecutor. It was intended that a separate prosecutor should always be appointed by the Lord-lieutenant. It would be considered even a breach of trust in the Judge-advocate if he were to take part in the trial as counsel against the prisoner.
Mr. Warburtonthen suggested that, as there were several kinds of Courts-martial, and as it might be difficult to ascertain, by a general reference to the Mutiny Act, how far the provisions of that Act referred to the present tribunals, it might be proper that the special provisions of the Mutiny Act which had reference to the present Act should be especially mentioned.
Mr. Rotchwithdrew his Amendment.
Mr. O'Connellexpressed a hope that some provision would be made for having the Courts-martial open courts. There was nothing in the Bill as it stood for or against that course; but he should wish to see it made a subject of positive enactment. He thought also that the counsel or agent of the accused should have power to take notes of the evidence. This was the more necessary, as cases had occurred where it was held by Courts-martial that none had a right to take notes of the evidence but the Judge-advocate. He wanted these two things—that the court should be open, as the Courts of Oyer and Terminer; and that the counsel of the accused should have power to take notes. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved an addition to the clause to that effect.
The Solicitor Generalhad no objection to the courts being open, with only this limitation—that they should be closed while the members considered their verdict. [Mr. O'Connell expressed his assent to this limitation.] As to the power of taking down the evidence by the counsel or agent of the accused, he did not think the mention of such a permission necessary, but he had no objection to its introduction.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, as were the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th clauses.
The 17th Clause, which enacts "that any person liable to be prosecuted within any proclaimed district for any offence against 27th George 3rd, 50th George 3rd, 1st and 2nd William 4th, and 2nd and 3rd William 4th, or for any offence against the Act, may be tried by such Courts-martial as the Bill appoints; and which Courts-martial may sentence to transportation for life or for a term of not less than seven years; but not to impose the penalty of whipping," &c.
Mr. O'Connellsuggested that some provision should be introduced so as to make it quite clear, that offences committed before the Bill was passed should not be prosecuted under it.
Mr. Stanleythought such a case was already amply provided for by the Bill, but he had no objection to introduce words agreeable to the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. Finally words were introduced, exempting all offences from being prosecuted under this Bill committed subsequent to its passing, and before any district was proclaimed.
Mr. Ruthvenproposed an Amendment,
890
to prevent these Courts from inflicting any other corporal punishment than whipping.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that words like those suggested were proper, to make the Bill accord with the provisions of the Mutiny Act.
Mr. Stanleyhad no other objection to the words, but that they implied the possibility of such tortures being now used as had formerly been employed.
Mr. O'Dwyerthought that some limitation was necessary. He recollected that four years ago a case of horrid cruelty occurred at a gaol in Dublin. Thumb-screws were applied; bolts were put in the mouth. The evidence of what he stated was on the Table of the House; and the gaoler, who had for these cruelties been found unfit for his office, had been made a stipendiary Magistrate of in a distant county. That showed the baneful ascendancy of faction in Ireland.
Amendment agreed to, and Clause agreed to; as was the 18th clause, with verbal Amendments.
The Solicitor Generalobserved, that the Committee had now come to one of the most important clauses of the Bill—that which related to domiciliary visits by the Magistrates, or in virtue of their warrants, between sunset and sunrise, for the purpose of ascertaining the presence or the absence of the inhabitants. It was allowed on all hands to be of the greatest importance that the inhabitants of any House in a proclaimed district should be compelled to furnish the means of ascertaining whether they were at home or abroad; and for that purpose it had been supposed necessary to give the Magistrates, or the persons authorised by the Magistrates, the power of breaking and forcing an entrance into any House under the circumstances in question. His Majesty's Government, however, were very anxious to mitigate the severity of this enactment, and to lessen the inconveniences which it might occasion. They had, therefore, prepared an Amendment, which he should have the honour to propose, and which they hoped would meet the approbation of all parties, and at the same time secure the object which the clause had in view, without rendering it necessary to break or force an entrance into any of the houses. It was proposed that, in the first instance, the Justice, or any person with warrant of justice, accompanied by a Commissioned Officer or Chief Constable, should go to the house, and require the male inhabitants to come forth, and thus enable the authorities

891
to ascertain that they were not absent; and that if, on the ground of illness, or on any other ground, the male inhabitants, above the age of fourteen, should refuse to come forth, the persons authorised should then have power to demand admission into the House, but should not have power to enter without the leave of the inhabitants, and that if they were not allowed to enter with such leave, then the male inhabitant or inhabitants should be deemed and taken to be absent, and should be subject to the operation of the Act. Such was the substance of the proposed Amendment; it would have the effect of preserving every man's house as his castle; and none of the inconveniences or abuses which had been anticipated by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and other hon. Members, could possibly arise.
Mr. O'Connellmoved that the immates should be called "by name."
Lord Althorpobjected to it, as, through a mere mistake the object of the Bill might be defeated.
Mr. O'Connell: Yet you would make a man liable to the punishment of a misdemeanor without knowing his name.
Captain Yorkesaid, that the Bill had been so altered and modified since its introduction, that it could answer no useful purpose whatever. Indeed its only effect would be to add to the irritation of the Irish people, so that the sooner it was thrown into the fire the better,
Mr. O'Connellwould willingly second that Motion, but there was no chance of its being made, and if made, not the least chance of its being agreed to. At the same time he must say that he was so anxious to put down Whitefootism, that he would add to the efficiency of the present clause by making it compulsory on every farmer and cotter to furnish the police authorities with a list of the male inmates of his dwelling, a duplicate of which should be posted behind his door.
Mr. Walkerwas indeed surprised that a proposition for adding to the coercive measure against the Irish peasant and small farmer should, of all men, have emanated from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, who was ever vaunting himself as being their uncompromising defender.
Mr. O'Connellwould not be deterred by any absurd calumny from doing his duty to the people of Ireland. It would be a protection to the farmer to have his inmates called over by name, and be would, therefore, move as an amendment upon the So-
892
licitor General's Amendment, that the persons summoned should be called over, and answer "by name."
Mr. Stanleyhad no objection to the learned Gentleman's suggestion, provided that the whole clause were, in a future stage, so modified as to enable the police to obtain lists of the names of the inmates.
Mr. O'Connell'saddition of the words "by name," and the Solicitor General's amendment, agreed to.
On the "search for arms and other offensive weapons, with a penalty on detecting them on the premises of a person not duly authorized to possess them," Clause being read,
Mr. O'Connell.proposed, as an Amendment, that the penalty should obtain only when it was proved that the arms were "knowingly" in the possession of the individual on whose premises they might be found, the onus probandi to lie on the finding party. Without some such provision, no man would be safe from the malice of an enemy who might hide arms on the premises of a person he might wish to injure, and who could hardly be expected to prove his ignorance of their being so concealed.
The Solicitor Generalconceived that the Amendment of the learned Gentleman would defeat the efficiency of the clause altogether. In larceny it was sufficient to show that stolen goods were found in the possession of a person accused, who was thereby compelled to prove that he had obtained them in a proper manner, if he could; if he could not, it was fairly assumed that he had obtained them in an unlawful manner. And so with respect to the search for arms clause. Besides, how could it be proved that the person was "knowingly" aware that arms were on his premises?
Mr. O'Connellmaintained that the constitutional principle was, that the man should be presumed to be innocent till he was proved to have been guilty. In larceny previous ownership, which was always proved on the outset of the charge, was a primâ facie evidence of guilt. No such primâ facie evidence was required by the present clause. If his Amendment should not be adopted, he trusted at least that the penalty would only be for arms found in the "dwelling-house."
The Amendment negatived.
Mr. O'Connellmoved that the words "dwelling-house" be inserted in the Clause.
The Solicitor Generalhad no objection to make a compromise with the hon. and

893
learned Gentleman. He had no objection to exclude from the operation of this clause, arms found in outhouses, unless the person in whose outhouse they were found were proved to be knowingly in possession of them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to include within it arms found in any tenement under the lock of the owner.
Mr. O'Connelldefended the propriety of his Amendment, but would have no objection to close with the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to include arms found in any tenement under the lock of an Irish peasant. The lock of an Irish peasant! The hon. and learned Gentleman knew little of the condition of the Irish peasantry or he would not have used that phrase. The Irish peasant was not rich enough to buy a key, let alone a lock to his cabin. If he were, you would hear no more of these Whitefoot outrages; for having property of his own to preserve, he would not dream of injuring the property of others.
Amendment negatived, and the Clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The 21st Clause, which proposed to enact "that any person selling or circulating any seditious paper in a proclaimed district should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and should by and under the sentence of a Court-martial be liable to imprisonment for not more than twelve months, unless he discovered by whom he was so employed," was struck out of the Bill.
The 22nd Clause read.
Mr. O'Connellcalled the attention of the Committee to the passage which rendered any person guilty of a misdemeanor who should "by menaces or otherwise," deter any witness from giving evidence. Now there were legitimate menaces, as, for instance, if a man went to another, and informed him, that if he did not give his evidence honestly and fairly, he should be indicted for perjury. Now you ought not to prevent such a caution, or it might be called such a menace, from being made to a witness. The words "by menaces or otherwise" were at once too vague and too comprehensive.
The Solicitor Generaldefended the clause. Such a menace as the hon. and learned Gentleman had described was a most improper menace when applied to a witness who had not been examined. It would certainly pervert the course of justice and tend to deter witnesses from coming forward, if the accused party were permitted to say to them, "If you give evidence
894
against me, I will indict you, I will have you set in the pillory, or, it may be, sent to Botany-bay to repent of your perjury."
Mr. O'Connellcontended that there was no menace in telling a witness that if he swore falsely, he should be indicted for perjury. He objected to the words of the clause, because "menace or otherwise" included every kind of dissuasion, even of friendly dissuasion, which one man might employ in conversation with another to prevent him from swearing unintentionally to that, which in point of fact was false, although he did not know it to be so. He had no objection to let the words stand, so far as Jurors were concerned, for menace and persuasion were equally illegal as applied to them; but he could not allow them to stand as applied to witnesses, for in matters of identification it might be necessary to dissuade a person who was mistaken as to the identity of another from swearing as be originally intended.
Lord Althorpthought, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had argued this clause very partially. He was to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor who "by menaces or otherwise "deterred a witness, not from giving false evidence, but from appearing" at all as a witness.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonthought the words of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained to be absolutely necessary to the Bill. Instead of weakening, he would rather strengthen the enactments of this Clause.
Clause amended, to stand part of the Bill.
The 23rd Clause agreed to.
House resumed; Committee to sit again.

STAFFORD INDEMNITY BILL.
Mr. Spring Ricemoved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill.
Captain Chetwyndput it to the good feeling of the hon. Member to postpone the Second Reading.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that his right hon. friend who brought forward the Bill was not present, and he could not answer for his consent. He might observe, however, that as the objection which was taken to a previous Bill, with regard to particular names having been introduced, had, in this been obviated; the Bill had been made general. The Bill had been extended to all cases, in order to lead more certainly to the detection of bribery and corruption. As the previous Bill was entertained by the House, and reached the step of a second

895
reading; but was then withdrawn on account of the objection which had been obviated, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would see no reason for not reading the Bill a second time.
Captain Chetwyndcould not accede to the wish of the light hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Bill in question accused the greater portion of the constituency which he had the honour to represent, of being guilty of bribery and corruption. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that he had a great responsibility attaching to him on this occasion. The borough of Stafford contained nearly 7,000 inhabitants, and upwards of 1,100 voters; many of whom were men of high character and respectability. It was for the purpose of watching over their rights and privileges, and defending them, as far as he was able, that those individuals had sent him to that House; and he should ill deserve their confidence, did he not oppose a Bill which not only cast imputations on that constituency, but which might hereafter vitally affect their rights and privileges. That was an unprecedented Bill, at this stage of the business arising out of a disputed election. No Committee had been appointed, no case made out, no ground whatever laid for bringing forward a measure of such great moment as that. Some case ought to be made out, before such a Bill should be entertained. The preamble contained an allegation which it was most consistent with the practice of Parliament should be proved before the measure were proceeded with. He was sure that no person could be more anxious than he was, that justice should be done; but in such a case, the utmost caution should be observed before the House appeared to give the slightest sanction to the sweeping allegation contained in that Bill; not the smallest portion of which had yet been proved. The effect of the Bill would be, to give an indemnity to the greater offenders, while those who had been guilty of minor offences would be, exempted from its operation. He hoped that the principle of English law, that every one is innocent till he is proved to be guilty, would be observed. He entreated the House to pause and consider well before proceeding any further with this measure, until not merely a common, but a strong case in support of it be made out.
Mr. Gisbornethought delay was unnecessary. The great majority of the respectable inhabitants of the borough of
896
Stafford were desirous that the Bill should pass. It would not in the slightest degree affect the seat of the hon. Member who had just spoken. His return was, not petitioned against; there was not the slightest pretence for the House suspecting that his election was irregular, or effected by any-thing like improper means.
Mr. Forsterin answer to the observations of the hon. member for Derbyshire, said, that he had received information which enabled him to state that the respectable part of the constituency of the borough of Stafford, who were free from any imputation of bribery, were decidedly averse to this measure.
Mr. Humecould not consider that the hon. Member who opposed the Bill, or any other hon. Member was anxious that bribery should be exercised with impunity. If report were true, there had been wholesale bribery at Stafford, and it was difficult to get at the information necessary to establish the truth of that rumour without an indemnification of witnesses. The object of the Bill was to afford that indemnity; and what objection there could be to it on the part of any hon. Member desirous of punishing bribery and corruption wherever it existed, he could not conceive. What injury would it be to the hon. Member's constituency if they were innocent? It would not make them guilty; and none of the respectable inhabitants of that town could object to it. They must wish that the character of the place should be cleared up, and the imputations, upon investigation, be removed, which had been cast upon it. They must be anxious to have the stain which had so long been upon their town wiped away. In no way could that be done but by passing this Bill. Justice would then be done to Stafford and to the House. He hoped then, that the right hon. Gentleman would press the Motion for the second reading now.
Mr. Shawsaid, the question to be considered was, not whether the constituency of the borough of Stafford, or any other parties, consented to this Bill; but whether there should be an indemnity granted to all persons who might come forward as witnesses before the Committee which was to conduct the inquiry. If it were granted, would not all persons who were hereafter called on to give evidence before an Election Committee, look for an indemnity also? Were they to expect that in every case of a petition against one or both of the sitting Members for any place, an Indemnity Bill

897
was to be brought in to shield the witnesses on the inquiry which must ensue. It was usual to confine an indemnification to cases in which the disfranchisement of a constituency was involved.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid that the House had already decided the main principle concerned in this question, by the postponement of the Election Committee appointed to inquire into the petition presented against the return of one of the Members for the borough of Stafford, until a certain period, that was for the purpose of allowing this Bill to pass. It was incumbent on them to read the Bill a second time now, and proceed with it in order that the Committee might go on with its labours.
Sir Oswald Mosleyobserved, that by the preamble of this Bill, the whole of the borough of Stafford was declared to lie under the disgrace of having been notorious for corrupt practices. It did appear to him that as a petition was presented against the return of one of the sitting Members for that place, some report should have emanated from that Committee before a Bill of this kind had been even brought in. Some-thins; like evidence ought to have been produced before assuming the fact that the borough had been "notorious for long-continued and general corruption" in the words of the preamble. It was too much for the whole of the burgesses of Stafford in the mass to be involved in this indiscriminate charge. He could state, that among them there were many individuals as respectable and of as high a character as were to be found among the constituency of any hon. Member, It had been properly observed by the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, that if this principle were once admitted, of indemnifying witnesses in the manner of that Bill, there was no possibility of saying where it would end. Any hon. Member who had been guilty of corrupt practices at any election, might come forward, and, on a petition being presented, obtain a Bill of Indemnity for all witnesses on the inquiry to be instituted; and turning round, might himself be screened from all consequences, give evidence against the place for which he was returned, on account of the very corrupt practices which he had himself been a party to. It would be better to put off the further consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Warburtonthought the objection to the Billon account of the allegations contained in the preamble not having been proved, might be a very good reason for altering that
898
preamble in the Committee, but could be none for postponing the second reading. The hon. Member said, that they ought to proceed no further, because no case had been made out. Why, if there were strictly legal proof of bribery, that Bill would not be necessary It was introduced because, otherwise, legal evidence could not be obtained. But a primâ facie case had been made out: for the hon. Member who introduced the Bill, stated, on the authority of communications made to him by many of the electors, that there were facts which would be disclosed before the Committee which might fully justify the assertions contained in this preamble. The House, therefore, would be fully justified in passing this measure.
Mr. Prymesaid, that the argument in the present case amounted to this; you ought not to have an opportunity of doing a thing because you had not done it. The object of the Bill was, to give an opportunity of proving certain circumstances. A witness might refuse to answer a question, because he might, by so doing, criminate himself. This Bill would completely indemnify him, and he could then do so. Of all the extraordinary arguments he had heard, the one then used was the most extraordinary:—"You shall not be allowed to produce proof because you have not already produced it." If ever there was an argument in a circle that was one.
Bill read a Second Time.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Sir Andrew Agnewsaid, that he rose for the purpose of submitting the Motion which he had brought before the House yesterday, for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the law relating to the observance of the Lord's Day. At that very advanced hour of the night (two o'clock) it was not his intention to occupy the attention of the House by going into any explanation of the grounds on which he should ask the House to sanction this measure. That explanation he would defer to the second reading of the Bill. All he should now ask was, for leave to bring it in and let it be read a first time. He would then move that it be printed, and fix the second reading to a distant day—some five or six weeks hence—he would say that day six weeks. He did hope that, considering the great importance of the subject, and the numerous petitions which had been presented from all parts of the country in support of it, the House would accede to his proposition.

899
The hon. Baronet then moved, "that leave "be given to bring in a Bill to promote the better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. Shawseconded the Motion.
On the Question being put,
Mr. Warburtonexpressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion at that hour, as many hon. Members had left the House, who had not expected that the Motion would be brought forward that night; but who, if they were aware of it, would, he knew, oppose the Motion even for the introduction of the Bill. The House ought not to be called upon to assent to a proposition of this kind without hearing an explanation of the grounds on which it was brought forward. That explanation the hon. Baronet had not given; and, as it was too late to enter into the subject at that hour, he did hope, that the Motion would not be pressed; if it was, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. Finchsaid, that as the Motion had been prefaced for some weeks by the presentation of a vast number of petitions in its favour, bearing the signature of many thousand persons in all parts of the country, and as there were many others still to be presented on the same subject, he did hope that the House would accede to the Motion of the hon. Baronet. The petitions in its support were, as he had said, signed by many thousands; but he might add with safety that they expressed the sentiments of millions of the inhabitants of these kingdoms, who most anxiously desired that some legislative provision should be made for the due observance of the Lord's Day. These were not the opinions of one class or body of men. The petitions were signed by men of all ranks and denominations throughout the country, who, whatever might be their differences in other respects, were all agreed on this one important point. Under these circumstances he did think, that it was not quite fair in the hon. Member to oppose the Motion for leave to bring it in—a course not usual even in the cases of Bills whose principle might be matter of dispute.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonhoped that on a subject in which a very large portion of the community felt so deep an interest, an opposition would not be pressed against the introduction of the measure.
Lord Morpethconsidered that as hon. Members must be aware, that if this Motion were discussed in a full House it would be carried by an overwhelming majority,
900
the opposition to it in the present stage was vexatious. In the propriety of the Motion he fully concurred, and in doing so he felt that he expressed the opinions of the vast majority, not alone of his numerous constituents, but of the empire at large.
Mr. Petresaid, that he had been instructed by his constituents to support this Motion, which he did most cordially. He apprehended that a very erroneous notion had gone abroad with respect to the object of the proposed Bill. It was thought that it was intended by it to curtail the innocent amusements of the poor. Nothing of the kind was intended. The chief object of it, as he understood it, was, to prevent Sunday trading, which tended to so many immoral results, and which was also injurious to the fair trader who was anxious to make the Sabbath what it ought to be, a day of rest.
Mr. Humesaid, that he did not know what were the provisions of the Bill which the hon. Baronet asked leave to introduce, but the subject was one which interested so large a portion of his constituents of all classes, that he should give his support to the Motion, though, at the same time, he should not consider his acquiescence in the introduction and first reading of the Bill as at all pledging him to its provisions when they should become the subject of future discussion. Lender these circumstances he would request of his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, to withdraw his opposition to the Motion.
Mr. Haweswould give his cordial support to the Motion, as one from which he anticipated the most important results to the community. He could state that, amongst his own constituents, a very large body were anxious for the introduction of a measure of the kind to secure the due observance of the Lord's Day.
Mr. Lambhoped, that after the laborious exertions of the Committee which had sat on this subject last year, and after so many petitions had been presented to the House in support, the House would consent to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, which was only a following up of the steps taken in the last Session on that important question.
Mr. Shawobserved, that no Member of the House was more courteous in giving way in matters where the convenience of the House was concerned than the hon. member for Bridport. He did hope, there-fore, that the hon. Member would not depart from his usual courtesy—by opposing

901
what was now proposed by the hon. Baronet, as that course would certainly tend to the convenience of all parties. Many petitions in favour of such a measure had been intrusted to him from different places in Ireland, which he had not yet had an opportunity of presenting—nor did he know when he might have such opportunity, according to the new arrangement for receiving petitions. But whenever they might come before the House, they would show that this was a subject on which a large portion of the people of Ireland felt an interest equally strong with that of their fellow-subjects in England.
Mr. Hullexpressed a hope, that the hon. Member would not persevere in opposing its introduction.
Mr. Prymesaid, that he had a petition to present on this subject, and in favour of such a measure as that for which the hon. Baronet now moved. He would say that, in its prayer, he fully concurred, and therefore he would give his support to the Motion before the House.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that he bad as large a constituency as most hon. Members in that House, a considerable portion of whom were favourable to some measure of the kind proposed by the hon. Baronet.
Sir Michael Shaw Stuartsupported the Motion. He had several petitions on the subject, which he would present on the first opportunity.
Mr. Warburtonrepeated his objection to the introduction of a measure in the absence of many hon. Members, who would oppose it if they were present. He must also observe, that he expected a declaration of the objects of the Bill before it was submitted to the vote of the House. He would not, however, object, if the hon. Baronet would consent to let the debate on the subject be adjourned. It was not, in his mind, sufficient that they bad the Bill itself instead of a speech. They ought to have also stated to them the grounds on which the Bill rested. The omission of those grounds was getting quietly over the first stage.
Sir Andrew Agnewdid not think, that this was getting over the first stage so very quietly, considering the labours of the Committee last year. That the feeling of the country had become more general in favour of such a measure since then, was proved by the number of petitions which had been presented in favour of it. He possessed fifty-four petitions on the subject, but had not yet had an opportunity of
902
presenting them. It was not his fault; neither could the absence of hon. Members, who might have taken a part in the discussion, be urged as an objection to his Motion, as full notice of it had been given.
Mr. Warburtonwas not disposed to attach much weight to the evidence before the Committee, which he looked upon as ex parte.
Sir Andrew Agnewsaid, that a great part of the evidence given before the Committee was by parties who had come voluntarily before it.
Mr. Warburtonmoved, as an Amendment, that the debate be adjourned till tomorrow.
The Amendment negatived, and original Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Exchequer Bills and Transfer of Aids.
Petitions presented. By Lord SEAGRAVE, from a Number of Places,—for the Abolition of Slavery.—By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the Congregation of the Scotch Church, Swallow Street, St. James's; and by Lord HOWDEN, from Tadcaster,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Dysart,—against the System of Church Patronage (Scotland).