and been willing to abandon their mono- | had given a most elaborate and masterly poly. He hoped that this would be the specimen of a digest of that extensive part last time he would have to appeal on this of the Criminal laws of the country, both subject to the House; that Government written and unwritten, which related to between the present and next Session the offence of theft. He should take the would take the subject into their considera- earliest opportunity of forwarding a Copy tion, and sweep away all those discriminat- of the Report, even before it could be ing duties. The hon. Member concluded printed, to the noble and learned Lord near by moving-" That the rates of duty im-him, in order to give his noble and learned posed on articles the produce of our Eastern friend the fullest time for the consideration possessions ought, with the least possible of it. The digest had cost the Commisdelay, to be reduced to an equality with sioners seven months in preparation althe rates levied on articles the produce of though it was very small, for it only occuthe other possessions of Great Britain." pied four pages, but then, as their Lordships must be aware, the Commissioners had felt the most anxious care that nothing should be omitted or ill-arranged; and he thought he might fairly say, that it was the most masterly digest that ever the labour of lawyers had produced. It would be decisive of the question of a code one Way or the other. If it should prove successful it would be unanswerably in favour of the experiment; if unsuccessful, it would, of course, be against making the experiment; and if its success was doubtful, it would also be rather against than for the experiment, since such an experiment ought Mr. O'Connell moved, that the House be counted, and the House was counted out. HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, June 25, 1834. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord ELPHINSTONE, from the Handloom Weavers of Cumbernauld, for Relief, and a Board of Trade.—By Viscount TEMPLEMORE, from Monaghan, for the Repeal of the Union; and from three Places, against Tithes.-By Lord LILFORD, from one Place, against the Claims of the Dissenters. By the Duke of BEAUFORT, and Earls BROWNLOW and ABING DON, from several Places,-against the University Admission Bill.-By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Greenock, in favour of the two Bills concerning Scotch Entails; from Linlithgow, for Protection to the Church of Scotland. By the Dukes of NEWCASTLE and WELLINGTON, and not to be made without some probability of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from a Number of success. Places, for Protection to the Established Church.-By Lord ROLLE, from several Places, against the Separation of Church and State. could, however, promise his noble and learned friend that when he received a copy of the report and digest, he should employ the interval of labour afforded by the recess, thoroughly to examine the Report, and see whether the experiment of a code could be made with safety. If it could, he should be glad to see it made, although he must confess, that he was not much in favour of reducing the law to the state in which it was in France, where the shortness of it almost put absolute power into the hands of the Judges. Lord Wynford was one of those who thought that the preparation of a digest of the Criminal-laws of this country would be CRIMINAL LAW.] The Lord Chancel-attended with considerable difficulty. He lor moved for a Copy of the first Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Criminal Law of this country with a view to form a digest of the same. He observed that the importance of this subject was very considerable, and when the Report was laid before their Lordships he was sure that they would agree with him that it had been most carefully treated by the Commissioners whose sound views upon the subject of framing a digest of the Criminal Law would, he was convinced, be felt by their Lordships to be above all price. The object of the Commission had been to inquire into the practicability of forming a code or digest of the Criminal Law, which should teach all men, lawyers and those who were not lawyers, what the Criminal Law of the country really was. The Report would be found to contain not only the discussions upon this subject conducted by men of the highest practical knowledge, but also that without which these discussions would be of no avail, namely a specimen of a digest; and it would be found that the Commissioners Motion agreed to. PLURALITIES AND NON-RESIDENCE.] The Duke of Cumberland wished to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether he intended to press this Session, his two Bills of Pluralities and Non-Residence. He particularly asked the question, as he thought it proper that the Bills should be discussed before the Bishops went out of town, as they must do shortly. The noble and learned Lord had stated, on a former occasion, that he would intro duce a clause into the Non-Residence Bill; and he wished to ask, when it would be ready to be laid before the House. The Lord Chancellor said, that it was quite true he had alluded to the clause mentioned by the illustrious Duke; and with respect to the question when it would be ready to be laid before the House, he begged to observe, that it was a clause of considerable importance, and, therefore, required to be drawn with the greatest care; and the learned persons who had employed themselves upon it had found some difficulty in framing the clause to meet all circumstances. That difficulty, he believed, was now overcome, and on Monday next he should be able to lay the clause before the House. There was a question connected with the clause relating to non-residence which he considered of importance, and it was as to the way in which days of non-residence should be counted. By the present law, a clergyman was permitted to have ninety days of nonresidence; and the practice now was, to put any days of non-residence, in any one week or month, to any other of such days in another week or month, and to count them all together, as if they were continuous days of non-residence. He had always thought this a hardship on the clergyman, strongly as he was in favour of a nonresidence law. He knew the consequence of this to be, in one parish with which he was acquainted, that about half-a-dozen farmers kept each of them a log-book of the days of the non-residence with as much exactness as any sailor ever kept a log-book of the days of his voyage, and the parson could not get out of his parsonage on any account, either to be present as a witness at the Assizes, or for his own pleasure, or to visit a small property he had in the neighbourhood, without the days being carefully noted down and summed up at the end of the year, in order to see whether he had exceeded the ninety days. He should like to see this remedied, and he should endeavour to introduce a clause for that purpose. As to the question whether he meant to proceed with the Bill, the illustrious Duke would recollect that a noble Earl, who was a great authority in these matters, had pressed him to give time for consideration. He thought he should yield to that request, more especially as he believed that it would make very little difference whether the Bill was passed late in the present, or early in the ensuing Session. He was the more inclined to put off the matter, as he had had much correspondence with patrons and clergymen on the subject of pluralities, and the protection of existing interests. He did not think that he should proceed further than getting the Bill printed with the Amendments. Lord Wynford said, that the measure never would give satisfaction. Some would think it went too far-others not far enough; and under these circumstances he should oppose every clause of the Bill, whenever it was introduced for their Lordships' adoption. The Duke of Richmond said, that he was an enemy to non-residence, and he thought it might be prevented, if there was a means of enforcing a certain number of preachings every Sunday, for instance, two in every rural district, and three preachings each day in other places. The Archbishop of Canterbury had always, as much as he was able, endeavoured to prevent the practice of nonresidence becoming an abuse. But, as to any further legislative measure, he feared that it would be found totally unproductive of benefit. The subject had been considered by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and himself, and though they employed themselves in considering it for three years, they had not been able to find out any unobjectionable remedy for non-residence. As to the remedy proposed by the noble and learned Lord against what he deemed a hardship in the present mode of counting the days of non-residence, he thought the amendment of the law in that respect unnecessary, and believed that it would open a door to great abuse if the clergyman was allowed on this or that occasion to be absent from his living without having his absence counted as a day of non-residence. He thought that all the days ought to be counted together. This was a point in the noble and learned Lord's Bill to which he particularly objected, and the same objection existed to all measures framed in the same way—namely, that it left the remedy for non-residence in the hands of the informer, whereas it ought to be placed in no such hands, but in those of the diocesan. He felt called upon to direct the attention of their Lordships to these matters, all of which he considered of great importance. The Lord Chancellor said, that when he spoke before, he had no intention of entering this moment, this inconvenient moment, into a debate on this subject, upon Bills not then before the House; but he was attempted to be dragged into it by the noble and learned Lord, and by the most reverend Prelate, who, he must say-and he said it with the greatest and most sincere deference to the most reverend Prelate-had, without the slightest pretence of necessity or convenience, gone into the complicated question of non-residence. To sit quite still under such provocation, would almost imply the possession of more patience than usually fell to the lot of men, and even an indifference to the subject. He felt no such indifference; but he would not suffer himself to be tempted into the discussion at this moment. As to the clause to allow of certain excuses for absence, on which the most reverend Prelate had expressed an opinion, he was bound to say, that that opinion made him hesitate. The most reverend Prelate thought the Amendment unnecessary. God forbid that he (the Lord Chancellor) should be more for nonresidence than the most reverend Prelate. He should follow that opinion, and not produce the clause, but he wished that the clergy should see that it was not he but the most reverend Prelate who kept his amended clause out of the Bill. Then as to the mode of counting the days of nonresidence, the most reverend Prelate said that it would open a door to great abuse he had thought otherwise; but now better instructed on the subject, it was probable that he should not trouble their Lordships with that provision in the Bill-but instead of allowing a certain specified time in the year for non-residence, should permit the present mode to continue as it was. Subject dropped. Sir GEORGE MURRAY, Messrs. FINCH, HALFORD, and Captain BARNARD, from several Places,-against the Separation of Church and State.-By Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, from Chester, for a Reform in the Established Church of Wales.-By Mr. FORSTER, from several Friendly Societies, for amending the Act concerning such Societies. By Lord ROBERT MANNERS, from Loughborough, against the Claims of the Dissenters. BOROUGH OF DUNGARVON.] Mr. Feargus O'Connor presented a Petition from an individual named Richard Keefe, of the Borough of Dungarvon, complaining of the conduct of the authorities towards him in respect to his vote at the late Election for that Borough. The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to complain of the acts of the stipendiary Magistrates in the neighbourhood of Dungarvon, and assured the House, that a number of the supporters of the present member for Dungarvon were, without cause, crammed into the Bridewell, and the stipendiary Magistrate refused to take bail for them, or at least demanded such excessive bail, that it was tantamount to a refusal. The petitioner, who was a shoemaker, he refused to release, unless he found bail to the amount of 600l. When he recollected that the gaol of Dungarvon was given to the Whig candidate for his voters, he was led to the very natural inference, that every assistance was given by the Government and the authorities to the opposing candidate of the present member for the borough of Dungarvon. There was, however, a previous election for this town, when it was proposed to start the present Solicitor General for it, and he had in his hand a Letter from that hon. and learned Gentleman to a Member of this House, in which he talked of "liber Further evidence was heard on the War- ating" the town of Dungarvon. How was wick Borough Bill. Petitions presented. By Mr. BERNAL, from Rochester and Stroud, for Amending the Friendly Societies Act.-By Sir R. DONKIN, from Berwick-upon-Tweed, for a Clause in the Poor Law Amendment Bill.-By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Watermen on the River Thames, against the Lord's Day Observance Bill, No. 2.-By Messrs. BAINES and WINDHAM, from two Places,-against the Church Rates Bill.-By Colonel PERCEVAL, Mr. WINDHAM, Mr. WYNN, and Mr. MILDMAY, from several Places,—against the Separation of Church and State. By Mr. SHAW, from Lustleigh, against the Universities' Admission Bill; from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church of Ireland.-By Mr. FINCH and Mr. PLUMPTRE, from three Places,-for securing Protestant Officers against the necessity of attending the Ceremonies of the Catholic Religion.—By Lord ROBERT MANNERS, he to do this? Why, by means of moving. Every one, however, well knew what was meant by "liberating" a place when mention was made of moving in connection with it. As far as the present member for Dungarvon was concerned, he could assure the House, that not a single penny was spent in the way of bribery; and for this statement he pledged his honour as a Gentleman; whereas he could prove that bribery to a large amount had been committed by a Member of this House. He could also prove, that bribery had been committed by the Government of Ireland, or at least with its connivance. The hon. and learned Gentleman read a Letter from the Solicitor General of Ireland to Mr. Galway M. P., in which the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) said, that he trans mitted a draft for 2001. towards opening | jury. Did he intimate to Mr. Galway his the borough of Dungarvon, and that 300l. intention to make this charge? Did the would be ready to be sent for the same hon. Gentleman intimate to the Solicitor purpose when necessary. The hon. and General for Ireland his intention to make learned Gentleman also expressed a hope, that a charge against him? No, he had the Committee was a good one, and that he not done so and those gentlemen and waited with anxiety to know how the Com- the Government had reason to complain mittee stood. He would read a notice from of the conduct of the hon. and learned the notary, acknowledging the receipt of Gentleman. Now, had he made such 3001., and having done so, proceeded to say, an intimation, was it to be supposed that that he did not know what defence the those Gentlemen would not have been right hon. the Secretary for Ireland would prepared to retort those grave charges? make for the Solicitor General. The hon. But those charges were, after all, founded and learned Gentleman further observed, on stolen papers. He felt himself perfectly that the Government had adopted every satisfied in saying, that those papers were means to induce persons to vote for the stolen by some scoundrel employed for the Whig candidate. Amongst others, a person purpose-and they were now produced for named Hughes was threatened with the the purpose of founding those charges loss of his place by Mr. Barron, if he did against the right hon. Gentleman. He not vote for him. The Devonshire family knew that those papers were stolen from had used their influence at the election in the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the a most improper manner. Would the right servant who did so was dismissed. Was it hon. Gentleman say, that he had nothing not likely that the person who would steal to do with the Solicitor General?-or would these would also falsify them? He did he say, that the conduct pursued by the not say, that they were falsified, but he stipendiary Magistrate, and the authorities might assume that they were, and he, of Dungarvon, at the last election, ought therefore, might doubt their authenticity. not to be inquired into? Nothing short He had only to regret that the hon. and of inquiry would satisfy the people of Dun- learned Member should have been made garvon, that unfair measures were not re- the medium of producing them. With sorted to at the last election. Had it not respect to the charge against his right hon. been for the presence of the troops the friend (Mr. Stanley), had the hon. and voters for the present member for Dun- learned Member intimated to him his intengarvon could not have got up to the poll. tion to make it, would that right hon. GenHe also complained of the conduct of the tleman have left the House but a few minutes right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary ago, as he had done? [Mr. F. O'Connor: for the Colonies (Mr. Stanley), at the He had intimated to Mr. Stanley, that he former election for Dungarvon, and he intended to make those charges.] He was could prove, if an opportunity were afforded not aware of that. With respect to the him, that that right hon. Gentleman also charge against the Magistrate, he had no sent money to the town of Dungarvon. information on the subject, and he hoped He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the House would suspend its judgment would give such an answer as would prove, until correct information could be obtained. that Government would punish the per- The hon. and learned Member asked him, sons who had so violated the freedom of whether he had any interest in the Dunelection. garvon election? He had no hesitation in saying he had. He naturally wished that the person whose politics he preferred should be returned, but he interfered in no way in the election. With respect to the money transmitted to Mr. Barron, it was a subscription collected in Dublin by Mr. Barron's friends. It was certainly an indiscreet thing for the Solicitor General to transmit it, holding the situation he did; but he did not think it a matter of serious charge against him. He should not himself have done so. As to any money having been transmitted by Government, he knew Mr. Littleton felt the utmost astonishment at the extraordinary proceeding of the hon. and learned Member, in bringing charges of so grave a nature without enabling him, by previously communicating them to him, to procure any information on the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given neither to him or his hon. friend, any intimation of the charges he intended bringing forward. Had he done so they would have been prepared with evidence to meet these charges. The hon. and learned Member charged a Member of this House with no less a crime than per-nothing whatever about it. however, to say, that he went further than the Secretary for Ireland in condemnation of the share which the hon. and learned Solicitor appeared to have in the proceedings of the election. He could not conceive a more grave offence than for a member of the Government, having no local connexion with, a town, and whose duty it was to tranquillise the public mind, to stir up social animosities, to identify himself with political cabals, and give the influence inseparable from his office to the side of one of two hostile political parties. With respect to the production of these letters, however they were obtained, they were now before the House, and should be dealt with (unless their genuineness was repudiated) as evidence so far as they went. It ap Mr. Feargus O'Connor said, he hoped he might be allowed a few words by way of reply to the serious charge brought against him. He had, as he had already informed the House, told the right hon. Secretary for Ireland of his intention to charge the right hon. ex-Secretary for the Colonies. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland, had applied harsh terms to the individuals who procured these papers. He had no knowledge whatever of them, and he could not therefore, undertake to defend them. He had received the papers from the hon. member for Dungarvon, though the hon. and learned member for Dublin, in whose possession they had been, he had no doubt whatever would have been able to throw light on the subject, if his attendance as chairman of Mr. Harvey's Committee had not pre-peared from them that a sum of unusual cluded his presence there. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had said, that if he had intimated to him the grounds of his charge, he would give him an opportunity of bringing it before the House; but he did not think it consistent with the dignity of the House that any hon. Member should do that. He stood on his own integrity as the Representative of a large constituency; and he required no aid whatever either from the right hon. Secretary or any other hon. Member, in stating to the House any case of grievance worthy of its consideration. The right hon. Secretary had made but a lame defence for his friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland. He said he believed he had interfered, but he thought it at worst only an imprudence. But by this admission the right hon. Gentleman had fastened a charge where there was before but a suppositious inference. For so much had the Solicitor-General for Ireland to be grateful to the right hon. Secretary. The case was now in such a condition that a Committee of the House to investigate into the whole transaction was absolutely imperative; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had the honour of his friend so much at heart would move for it himself. Mr. O'Dwyer was willing to admit, that those who gave such letters to the public were responsible for the correctness of the means by which they were obtained. He entertained no desire, but, on the contrary, he felt every disinclination to give utterance to a word offensive to the Solicitor General for Ireland, who was not there to defend himself, and whom he believed to be in private life a gentleman of great amiability and worth. He was bound, magnitude had been subscribed by an officer of the Irish Government to the purposes of prosecuting an election petition. It was due to the character of the Government to ascertain from what source this contribution proceeded.—If the funds were drawn from the secret service money voted for Ireland, which, in days of less claim to political virtue used to be the manner of assisting ministerial adherents to a seat in the House, it was desirable to have that ascertained. At all events, the matter should be investigated, if it were only in a spirit of justice towards those against whom the hon. member for Cork had brought forward accusations, in very unmeasured terms. Mr. Sheil said, there was one phrase in the letter which he wished to call attention to. It was that which said "making altogether 500l." It was a matter of importance to ascertain the facts. The right hon. Secretary had admitted "the imprudence" of the Solicitor General. Now, it was well known that in many Government cases imprudence was a palliative expression for guilt. It was something like the old Spartan custom which made the essence of crime consist in being detected. If it were the fact, that 500l. was sent to the Dungarvon election; and if it were proved that the Solicitor General for Ireland had been the medium through which it was conveyed, he (Mr. Sheil) asked the House would the disapprobation of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland be sufficient for the country? Would not a strict and a searching investigation into the facts of the case be absolutely requisite? The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had said, he believed that the Solicitor General had sent the money, and that the money was the amount of a |