The house divided- For the amendment, 26-For the bill, 21. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourned. House of Lords, June 30.-The Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of the several bills for amending the criminal laws, which had been brought up from the House of Commons. His lord ship, at the same time, explained the nature of each bill; and they were all read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. Mr. Lennard brought up from the House of Commons the felo de se abolition bill. Mr. P. Moore brought up the Southwark Court of Requests bill from the House of Commons. The house having resolved itself into a committee for legalising marriages in Russia, Lord Holland expressed his wish that the Bill had extended to the marriages of British subjects by the chaplains of all our ambassadors abroad. The Lord Chancellor had been fifty years in the profession, and had never heard any lawyer express a doubt on that subject, nor had his lordship any. An address was voted to his Majesty on the pension of the late Lord St. Vincent being settled on his successor, of which some doubt had arisen from the union with Ireland. On the motion of Lord Liverpool "the bill for appointing commissioners to enquire into the state of appeals from Scotland," was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. On the noble lord moving that the house sit five days in a week to hear such causes, a debate arose, in which it was opposed by Lords Grosvenor, Aberdeen, &c. and was adjourned till next day.--Adjourned. House of Commons, June 30.— Mr. S. Wortley moved the order of the day on the sale of game bill, for the purpose of postponing it till next session.-Agreed to. Mr. Hume presented a petition from a person named Mitford, praying an inquiry into the state of private madhouses, which was supported by Mr. Hobhouse. Mr. Brougham defended the conduct of Dr. Warburton, and thought such petitions must be received with many grains of allowance. Mr. G. Bennet knew many of the facts stated by that writer to be false, and hoped he would be prosecuted: he wished, however, for inquiry. Petition ordered to be printed. Several petitions were presented against slavery-against the assessed taxes-and for a repeal of the combination laws. Mr. Kennedy moved the third reading of the Scotch juries bill, which was opposed by Lord Binning, &c. After some debate the house divided-For the bill, 56-Against it, 21. The house then went into a committee on the Irish distilleries bill. -To report to-morrow. On the motion of Lord Nugent, the house went into a committee on the English Catholics elective franchise bill. Messrs. Banks jun. aud sen. opposed it, as leading the way to admit Catholics into parliament. Mr. Peel could not allow this, and saw no objection to the mea sure. Mr. Butterworth opposed it warmly H warmly denied that the Catholics were a whit more liberal than formerly, and felt much alarm from the countenance given to Jesuits in these kingdoms. Mr. Hume protested against such intolerant language, and thought the Protestant Jesuits much more to be dreaded-he meant the Methodists-the greatest enemies of the church of England. Mr. Butterworth, in return, accused Mr. Hume as the abettor of Carlile's opinions. Mr. Hume denied this with great warmth, and amidst loud cries of order. The Chairman (Mr.Brogden) interfered, and order being restored, the house divided-For the bill, 89 Against it, 30, Mr. Goulburn moved the third reading of the Irish insurrection act. After some opposition from Mr. G. Bennet and Mr. Denman, the bill was read a third time and passed. The Irish unlawful oaths bill went through the committee without alterations. The King's message on Lord St. Vincent's pension was agreed to, and the house adjourned. CHAPTER V. Appellate Jurisdiction.-Supply.-Prosecution for Infidel Publications.— The Budget.-Baron O'Grady.-East India Trade Bill.-Slave Trude Consolidation Bill.-Scotch Entails.-Irish Insurrection Act.-Marriage Act Amendment.-New South Wales.-Land Tax.-English Catholics.-Jurors Qualification.-Court of Chancery.-Scottish Law Commission.--Illegal Oaths (Ireland) Bill.-Slaves at Honduras.Churches in Ireland.-Silk Manufactures.-Highlands Church Bill.Sundry Petitions, &c.—Prorogation of Parliament. beer bill. HOUSE of Lords, July 1.-Mr. the London Bridge bill and the Brogden, accompanied by several members of the House of Commons, brought up the Scotch commissary courts, Highland churches, Irish insurrection, and Scotch jury courts bills, which were read the first time. On the motion of the Earl of Liverpool, the five bills for modifying the criminal laws went through committees, and were reported without amendments. Petitions were presented against On the motion of the Earl of Liverpool, the beer bill then went through a committee pro forma, and the third reading was fixed for Friday next. The second reading of the Irish insurrection act was fixed for Friday next, on the understanding that no discussion should take place on that day. The appellate jurisdiction bill went through a committee.-Re port port ordered to be received to morrow. The order of the day was then read for the house resuming the debate on the resolutions relating to the alteration of the standing order of the house, fixing five days instead of three days in the week for hearing appeals. The first and second resolutions were put, and agreed to without a division. On the third resolution, which went to make the attendance of peers compulsory on the hearing of appeals, Their lordships divided-Content, 27-Not Content, 11.-Adjourned. House of Commons, July 1.-On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the report of the committee appointed to consider his majesty's message relative to the pension of Viscount St. Vincent was received; and a bill was ordered to be prepared accordingly. Petitions were presented against the reciprocity duties bill-for reform in parliament. Mr. Lushington moved that a sum, not exceeding 40,000l. should be granted for the new buildings to be erected at the British Museum for the reception of the Royal library. Mr. Bankes wished to add, as an amendment, "and that this sum be granted without fee or deduction." Mr. Croker rose to move an amendment to the words of the resolution, "That it is expedient, before any buildings are undertaken, that a general design and estimate should be prepared under the direction, and subject to the approval, of the Lords of the Treasury." Mr. Bankes's amendment was then agreed to without a division. For the amendment, 80-For the original motion, 54. Upon the resolution for granting 9,2301. for building churches, and for purchasing glebe for the clergy in Ireland, Mr. Hume said he was compelled to divide the house upon this item, for which he thought no sufficient reason had been given by ministers. The gallery was again cleared for a division. For the resolution, 65-Against it, 35. The other resolutions were carried without a division. Mr. Brougham again presented the petition of George Rowan, after having inquired into his character, and having found that he was a man of veracity and good reputation, and one whose statement, prima facie, he was bound to consider as entitled to credit. But here he must observe, that, ou presenting a petition, a member could not be held answerable for the accuracy of its contents. If he believed the party to be entitled to credit, he was bound to present the petition, and could be held answerable, in the same manner as if he stood up in his place in parliament and made the same assertions on his own authority. He had done all that he could effect, by cautioning the petitioner that in making a charge against any member he was bound to make good his charge, or he must prepare to suffer the punishment which awaited a breach of privilege. He moved that the petition be brought up; and upon the next motion for laying it upon the table there would be opportunity enough for a for particularly discussing the contents of it. Mr. C. W. Wynn opposed the bringing up this petition. Mr. Brougham hoped, although in point of strictness he was not entitled at this moment to reply, that he should be allowed to add a few words. He was fully aware of the difficulty of turning the course of the criminal law into this house. But there was another and not a less important difficulty-that the house of commons should avoid the imputation of being too slow in receiving charges against its own members. Here was a distinct charge of the abuse of patronage by a member of a county. In the case of Lord Melville, he had been censured by the house for an indictable offence, and the house had afterwards directed his prosecution by the Attorney-General, although that mode of proceeding was afterwards abandoned for that of impeachment. His right honourable friend would say that this was in his office of public treasurer; but there was another case-that of Thomas Ridge, a member of the house in 1710, who was a brewer and a contractor with the victualling board; but not, therefore, a public functuary. He contracted to furnish 8000 tuns of beer, and delivered only 3000, having received payment for the whole. The house examined into the charges, expelled the member, and followed that proceeding by an order to the Attorney-General to prosecute; so that he was sent upon his trial, not only with the vote of the house about his neck, but under the additional weight of their sentence of expulsion. Of so little importance did he (Mr. Brougham) consider this, that he thought a man could not go into court with a better chance in his favour than under a prosecution by the Attorney-General, in pursuance of a vote of the house. He thought, notwithstanding the difficulty which he admitted, the house could not refuse to receive the petition. When a day should be fixed for its future discussion, the Attorney-General might be directed to prosecute, and thus the difficulty would be got rid of. Mr. Wynn said that the house, being the guardians of the public purse, could not discharge that duty without proceeding as they had done in the case quoted by his hon. and learned friend. Mr.Maurice Fitzgerald rose with great pain to speak of the conduct of an honourable gentleman who was his own colleague. He was compelled to do so in consequence of an allusion which had been made to him in the speech of his hon. and learned friend on Friday last, and which had been made public in a paper distinguished by the fairness and ability of its reports. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had been applied to by his hon. and learned friend as to the character of the petitioner; and feeling that he had no right to refuse the information required, he communicated it in the following terms, which his honourable friend had read in the house :-"I know Mr. G. Rowan; he is a relative of mine. I never heard any thing against him, except the charges on which he was dismissed from his situation; and whatever was the merit of the charges against him, there can be no doubt that they were prosecuted from the most base and treacherous motive. He is a clever and at the same time a cautious cautious man." He added, however, that as there had been election jealousies between his friends and those of Colonel Crosbie, he wished to avoid any interference in the business, and particularly requested that his name might not be mentioned. Whether this did or did not preclude his honourable and learned friend from mentioning his name, the house would decide; but he must now state it was his intention that he should not do so. Not that he had wished to conceal his having given the petitioner's character, but he wished not to lend any corroboration to the charges which had been made. In this spirit he wrote the letter which had been quoted, and in this spirit he wished it to be carried into the house. He was satisfied that his explanation would be sufficient to gentlemen who heard him, on whatever side of the house they sat; because he knew that personal feelings in matters so delicate as that of which he was speaking were held by them paramount to all political inclinations; but it had been hinted to him that it might else where be believed that the petition had been caused by him. To those who knew him it was enough to say that such an imputation must be, of its nature, false. If he had thought it necessary to make any charge, he should not have disgraced himself by adopting any indirect means. So far from encouraging the charge, he had abstained from all correspondence with the petitioner, whom he had not seen for some years; and he had not replied to his letter, because he knew that in the county in which they both resided any correspondence would be constructed into an encouragement, 1823. and he wrote confidentially to a friend of his, Colonel Church, desiring he would have it understood that he was no party to the affair. He concluded by saying that the charge had given greater pain to no individual (his hon. colleague excepted) than himself. He trusted that he had now removed the impression which the partial quotation of his letter had occasioned. Mr. Brougham explained. Colonel Crosbie expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the explanation of his honourable colleague, which had removed the impression caused by reading the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman. Mr. M. Fitzgerald said, that the phrase "base and treacherous," applied only to the means by which the charges had been preferred, and were adopted from a former petition which had been presented in 1819. They referred to a person who had formerly been employed in the petitioner's service, not to his hon. colleague, not to the persons by whom the petitioner was tried, and least of all to the Government by which he had been dismissed. After a few words from Mr. Peel, the petition was brought up and read. On the motion that it be laid on the table, Mr. Wynn opposed it, and recommended that the petition should be withdrawn, and placed in the hands of the proper officers. The house then divided, and the numbers for laying the petition on the table were-Ayes, 26-Noes, 51. The petition was therefore rejected. Mr. Brougham said, if the petitioner should askhis advice as to 2 B his |