parties accused, and he was inclined to think, the petitioners were themselves much in fault as well as the man Collins, with whom they were at variance on a point of disputed possession. One of the petitioners had been found guilty of an assault upon that person, and it was from a sworn information relating to this assault that the petitioners desired to indict Collins for perjury. The Judge refused to try the cause, and sent it to the Sessions, and there the Grand Jury threw out the bill. He had reason to believe Collins was exonerated on the merits of the case itself, and not from any technical difficulty. From all his inquiries he had reason to believe that no case of corruption could be made out against the Magistrates.

Sir Robert Bateson was of opinion, that these petitions were brought in, night after night, for the particular purpose of traducing the conduct of the Irish Magistrates, and keeping up excitement. He believed on the whole, the laws were as justly administered as in this country, and he spoke as an Irish Magistrate.

Mr. Hunt said, one good effect was caused by these discussions. They made the law officers of the Crown inquire into the cases of alleged misconduct on the part of the Irish Magistrates. He should be happy if the same course was followed in this country.

Mr. Estcourt considered the insinuations of the hon. member for Preston most uncalled for. He had no doubt, if any case of oppression could be made out in England, however humble were the suffering parties, that the law officers of the Crown would promptly attend to it.

Petition laid on the Table.

Mr. O'Connell moved, that it should be printed. He thought he had some reason to complain that his statements had not been duly attended to. He had no doubt from the information of the attorney of the petitioners, that the facts could be distinctly proved. The report upon the face of it evidently shewed a neglect of duty on the part of the Magistrates.

Mr. Blackney said, the two statements, like those on most Irish questions, differed so completely, and were so much mixed up with partizanship, that there was great difficulty in deciding upon either of them. The great ground of complaint respecting the Irish magistracy was, that there were too many churchmen among them, he did

not believe they were personally corrupt, but he heard with great satisfaction there was to be some change in the system.

Mr. Henry Grattan said, so long as there were grievances to redress, he for one should make complaints; but what he wished at present to bring before the House was, the custom of giving blank summonses by many Irish Magistrates to persons who did by no means deserve such confidence. He had seen cases of great oppression growing out of this practice.

Sir Francis Burdett said, such a practice was evidently liable to abuse, and ought to be wholly put an end to. He fully believed, from several cases recently brought before the House, that a complete revision was required with respect to the constitution of the frish magistracy.

Petition to be printed.

PROSECUTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION.] Mr. Hunt presented a Petition, numerously signed by respectable persons, Inhabitants of the Metropolis, setting forth their disapprobation of Prosecutions on Account of uttering Religious Opinions, and praying that Mr. Taylor might be relieved from the very severe punishment he was suffering, which was contrary to justice and exceeded the sentence passed upon him.

Mr. Hume would seize every opportunity to declare his detestation of the laws under which this man suffered. The House deserved some censure for permitting such laws to be enforced. He did not mean by these remarks to express any particular anxiety relating to the individual who was the subject of the petition; but he would maintain, that every man had a right, which ought to be inviolable,to express his opinions upon religious questions, and, indeed, upon all other matters which were not at war with the principles of public morals. The country could not be said to be in possession of much liberty, when a man was liable to be punished, not for acts, but for opinions.

Lord Althorp thought, that the publication of all religious sentiments ought to be unrestrained and free, provided they did not militate against the peace and decency of society, or contradict the first principles of religion. As to remarks on the characters of public men, he desired there should be no restraint whatever on the publication of opinion; but this case was somewhat different. It operated against the principle on which the foundation of

and in a public theatre burlesqued the most solemn rites of our religion, and had insulted all the feelings which the community most reverenced. It was absurd to suppose such a man excited sympathy.

Petition to lie on the Table.

Mr. Hunt, in moving that it should be printed, said, he did not mean to say anything in favour of Taylor, or attempt to justify his conduct. He had never read his writings, or heard him speak; but the complaint of the petitioners was, that the punishment exceeded the offence. He concurred with other hon. Members in thinking that they had better have their present laws, with all their faults, than to be exposed to the attacks of an infuriated rabble.

Mr. Hume wished to know what the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) meant by first principles of religion. He would find that the State in different parts of the empire tolerated Jews, Hindoos, Mahometans, and other sects, all of whom were as much opposed to the first principles of Christianity, as the person whose conduct was now before the House. Every person ought to be tolerated, whatever opinions he might entertain, provided he did not disturb the peace of society. It was allowed by the right hon. Baronet who had recently presided over the Home Department, that the laws on this subject ought to be enforced with great discretion, but unfortunately that was of no avail, for any individual, or self-constituted Society, might prosecute. One of two things, therefore, ought to take place; either the laws should be repealed, or some regulation should be made as to prosecuting for such offences. He never could tolerate a man being punished for publishing an honest opinion. He claimed to have that privilege himself, and he was willing to allow it to others.

public blasphemy against the Holy Scriptures. He regretted that the hon. Member had put forth the opinions he had with the weight of his authority, and to correct them as far as he could was the motive why he had addressed the House. Petition to be printed.

CALL OF THE HOUSE.] Lord Ebrington wished to know from the hon. and learned member for Kerry, whether it was his intention to enforce the Call of the House on Monday next.

Mr. O'Connell said, he felt it a duty he ought to perform, but as he had some doubts as to the propriety of causing general inconvenience on account of the Irish Reform Bill, he should propose that the Order be discharged.

Lord Ebrington said, that considering the condition of the country, he should feel it his duty to enforce the Call of the House, and he, therefore, gave notice he should do so on that day, in order that he might bring forward a motion upon the state of public affairs.

MONEY PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL.] Mr. Littleton moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. Hume felt himself bound in principle to oppose the third reading of this Bill. He never could consent to a law which would have the effect of fettering the hands of both masters and operatives, or that should prevent the one buying, and the other selling labour, on the best terms. He had hoped the day for these restrictions had gone by, and that we had grown so much wiser by experience, as to believe that no man could take such care of another's affairs as the individual himself. The main evil under which the commerce of the country had suffered, arose from the restrictions imposed by ignorant legislation, which prevented labour being bought and sold at the market price. The persons who had petitioned in favour of the Bill, he believed were unacquainted with its probable effects

Lord Granville Somerset said, that nothing had occurred since he had delivered his opinions on this Bill, to make him believe those opinions were erroneous. He still believed the Bill would operate injuriously to both masters and workmen, but after the discussions that had taken place, he did not expect to alter the opinions of the House; he would, therefore, content himself with recording his own.

Sir Robert Bateson said, he resided in the manufacturing district in the vicinity of Belfast, and he knew both masters and workmen were favourable to the principle of the Bill, and he also knew that many industrious work people had suffered very much by the Truck-system, in having damaged goods forced upon them. Its provisions might be obnoxious to the principles of political economy, but he was quite sure the present system required alteration.

The House divided on the Original Question: Ayes 61; Noes 4-Majority 57.

Bill read a third time and passed.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL ADJOURNED DEBATE.] The Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Second Reading of the Bankruptcy Court Bill read, Sir Charles Wetherell complained, that there had been a partial distribution of some statements relating to the Bill; he had not received one, although he understood several of his learned friends had.

Mr. Hume said, there ought to be no mystery, whether this Bill would cost 25,000l. or 50,0001.; he wanted to know, whether the Commissioners were to be entitled to superannuations.

Mr. John Williams was sure, that 9,000l. would be saved by the plan, if there was any truth in figures.

Sir Charles Wetherell thought the honour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerned in this; they were about to establish a Court which was likely to cost 40,000l. per annum, and they had no knowledge of the materials.

The Attorney General said, there was nothing of mystery in his statement; he had distinctly stated the cost of the proposed and the present Court.

Mr. John Williams rose and said, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge, upon the previous debate on this question, had made a very general, and therefore, in the opinion of many persons, a very successful attack

upon this Bill. With the moderation and care which were becoming to a subject of such very great importance, he (Mr. Williams) should embrace the objects of his learned friend's attack, in the order in which he took them, and he hoped that, when they were fully stated, as clear a case for the necessity of change and amendment would be made out, as any person could conceive. He should consider the subject as one which affected the administration of justice in an enlarged and most important sense. His learned friend (the member for Boroughbridge) had begun by stating, that he could not think of abolishing the whole system of these Courts, from the long continuance of it; and he reminded the House, with warmth and earnestness, that that system had very long received the patronage equally of Whig and Tory Chancellors. Such an argument would be equally good to justify the continuance of any system, however vicious or pernicious; and yet systems were not perpetual, but were often modified, or entirely changed, to meet the wants and opinions of society. But his learned friend had said, that he might be brought to consent to the modification of these Courts, though not to the abolition of them; for the system was good, his learned friend said, and by him should it be defended. Without any disrespect to any one person now concerned in the present transactions of the Courts-for he utterly disclaimed all personalities, and believed, that among the Commissioners there were many honourable and learned men-he was convinced, that the whole system was utterly bad, and that it required one entire and complete change. His learned friend had objected to the multiplication of places by the Bill, to the patronage it would give to the Lord Chancellor, to the pension to be paid to the retiring Chancellor; and, lastly, he objected to the Bill because he said, that no competent opinions had been pronounced in its favour. He (Mr. Williams) would first take one opinion of the learned Gentleman's in which they were equally agreed. His learned friend had said, that the question was one of the very highest importance, and of the greatest moment

that it was full of intricacy, and that points of legal decision were submitted to the present Commissioners of Bankrupt. Upon these points there could be no difference of opinion. He agreed with his