MR. S. HERBERT said, the statement was erroneous, and the mistake had, he supposed, originated in the appearance of a clause in the Mutiny Act this year, which had, in fact, been regularly repeated year after year, for a considerable period; but, as a matter of formality, giving the authorities the power at their discretion of permitting limited enlistments. There was, however, no intention at present to alter the practice on the subject.

THE CASE OF SIR C. TAYLOR.

He had read this with extreme pleasure; | first brought the conduct of Sir C. Taylor and he would, if he found it correct, most under the notice of the House, he brought heartily coincide in the praise given on Sa- forward a statement, and mentioned one turday in the Times to the right hon. Gen- particular individual who was the accuser, tleman for what was termed "the improve- and on whose information the hon. Genment." It was most important that the tleman relied. He had made minute inpublic should not be misled; and he begged quiries, and had referred the allegations to to ask if the statement was to be relied the magistrates sitting at the petty sesupon that the enlistment of soldiers was, in sions of the town in which the case unfuture, to be for limited periods? der consideration had occurred. He had received an explanation from the two justices by whom the information in that case had been granted, and they informed him that the person on whose accuracy the hon. Member had relied, was a convicted felon. They distinctly asserted that the statement of that individual was untrue; he had been perfectly satisfied with that explanation, and this result he communicated to the bon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman then started a new case, and produced certain affidavits proceeding from other quarters, and not from the convicted felon to whose testimony the hon. Gentleman in the first instance referred. He obtained copies of those affidavits; he submitted them to the law advisers of the Crown; and he was then informed, that if false, they could not be made the groundwork of a criminal prosecution, or of a civil action for slander, because they were extrajudicial; and that, on the other hand, if they were true, they might be made the groundwork, not of a civil action against Sir C. Taylor, but of a criminal information, to try the question before the Queen's Bench whether that magistrate was worthy to hold Her Majesty's commission. He (Sir J. Graham) had not under the circumstances thought it necessary to prosecute the inquiry beyond this. He Sir C. Taylor copies of the affidavi Sir C. Taylor gave him the most assurance that in all the more i particulars they were altogether He could not declare, on the Crown, that the investigation carried further, and he did no tell the hon. Gentleman that still remained in Her M mission.

MR. J. COLLETT wished to ask a question. It was three weeks since, in the discharge of his public duty, he had in that House made a statement impugning the character of a magistrate and minister of justice. He had then read affidavits. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) requested copies of those affidavits, and gave as a reason for the request that he desired an early opportunity of making inquiries on the subject. The right hon. Baronet had been furnished with those documents, and a few days subsequently had stated that they were extrajudicial, and that therefore no proceedings could be taken against the parties in question in case they turned out to be untrue. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time had been kind enough to recommend him to bring an action against Sir C. Taylor in the Court of Queen's Bench; but the question was, not whether the affidavits were extrajudicial or simple statements, but whether they were true or untruewhether the magistrate had or had not acted in the manner alleged; and it was not to be expected that a private individual should bring an action against a magistrate for having improperly discharged his public duties. He therefore took the liberty of referring the right hon. Baronet to the statements made, and of asking him whether Sir C. Taylor still continued in the commission of the peace for the county of Southampton?

SIR J. GRAHAM: It would be remembered that when the hon. Gentleman

ampton, and had, by this means, procured | (Mr. Bankes) fully admitted it to be so, as some affidavits relative to the transaction. that of any Member of the House-what They were then brought before the House, would he think if another Member were to and had, of course, been reported at length get up and say, "Oh! your character will in the papers. Now, Sir C. Taylor had never be cleared unless you have a Combeen greatly injured by this course. He mittee?" Was that the way in which they had even come up to town with the object were to go on in that House? Were they of taking legal proceedings against the to be made the objects of public scandal, hon. Member; but, by the advice of his and not to be allowed to have their chafriends, he had abstained from so doing, racters vindicated without a Committee? and had been assured that his character Would it be for a man's advantage afterhad not suffered. The hon. Member did wards to have it said that he was the subnot seem to think so, but he should have ject of the investigation of a Committee? made his charge in some more tangible He should like to hear from the Secretary shape than that in which he had repeated of the Home Department what was the nait. Nothing could be more unjust than for ture of these affidavits. He thought all the hon. Member to make these ex parte voluntary affidavits had been put an end to, as being instrumental to vain and idle scandal. He believed they were illegal, and was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have mentioned them without the censure they deserved.

statements.

MR. COLLETT would maintain that the charge to which he called attention was in very distinct terms; and all he asked was inquiry.

MR. NEWDEGATE thought that the MR. HUME did not think that the concourse pursued, in reference to this matter, demnation of the conduct of the hon. Memby the hon. Member was most unwise; and ber for Athlone was called for. That hon. he felt persuaded that the allegations Member had acted from a sense of public against Sir C. Taylor were unfounded. duty; he had been informed, and believed The character of that Gentleman had been the information to be true, of a magistrate called in question; and he trusted the having acted in a manner which he conHouse would see the propriety of express-ceived to be unjust; and in bringing the ing disapprobation of the practice of getting affidavits.

subject before the public he had only taken that course which, under similar circumstances, he (Mr. Hume) should have adopted. The facts of the case could certainly not be ascertained without some inquiry.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL had not the honour of knowing Sir C. Taylor, and only knew that a charge of a very serious nature had been made against the character of that gentleman, on the authority of an individual who was known to be a convicted felon. That charge, unworthy of attention when it was known from whom it emanated, was now abandoned, and a second charge was brought forward on the

MR. WAKLEY conceived that, after what had been said, there remained only one course for the friends of Sir C. Taylor to pursue, and that was to move the appointment of a Committee. [" Oh!"] Why, they were dissatisfied with what had been done. They thought the allegations of the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett) were unjust; and they ought, therefore, at once to institute an inquiry in order that they might know the truth. The hon. Member fully believed in the correctness of his statements; and, as the right hon. Baronet did not, nevertheless, think it ne-authority of certain affidavits, sworn by cessary to make any further inquiries, it became the imperative duty of the House to inquire how the magistrate had acted, and if it were customary for the poor to be entrapped into the commission of crime for the purpose of being thrown into gaol. A case which, both as regarded the individual and the House, more loudly called for investigation, he had never known.

MR. BANKES put it to the hon. Member who had just spoken, what he would think if any person were to get up affidavits accusing him— admitting the hon. Member's character to be as clear, and he

certain persons, under what circumstances they were not exactly informed. If these were proved true, any one might obtain an ample redress by applying for and obtaining a criminal information in the Court of Queen's Bench against the magistrate whose conduct was thus impugned. If they were false, Sir C. Taylor had no remedy but in the sense of justice in that House; and he (the Solicitor General) regretted to say that it appeared to him that the only way justice could be done was, that some censure should be pronounced upon one who, like the hon. Member for Ath

lone, had come forward on the sole founda- | would indeed have been surprising if that tion of affidavits, which, if false from be- hon. Gentleman had been so wanting in ginning to end, exposed their authors to the feelings which characterized Englishno punishment, and armed with the im- men in general, as to express himself withpunity which surrounded a Member of that out warmth in such a case where a gentleHouse; stated his belief in the allegations man, above 80 years of age, who had they contained. The hon. Member for been a magistrate for half a century, was Dorsetshire had alluded to the illegality of charged upon such light grounds with an those affidavits. Now, affidavits which offence such as that which the hon. Memwere extrajudicial, which were not sworn ber for Athlone had presumed to impute to in the course of any legal proceedings, him. If the hon. Member wished for a might be so far called illegal that no pro- Committee, one of a different kind might secution could be instituted upon them if be appointed with great propriety, and false. And what was still worse, if the that would be a Committee to inquire into affidavits were sworn in order to instruct a the conduct of the hon. Gentleman himself Member of the House for the purpose of -a Committee to inquire whether an hon. bringing them before the House, no civil Member of that House had not been guilty, action would lie upon them. They were, upon light, frivolous, and vexatious grounds, therefore, rather to be considered a nullity of being the instrument of propagating a than anything else. They were not, how- foul, false, and slanderous charge against ever, illegal; for, if they were, the party a magistrate of the country. making them might be prosecuted if the statements were false. But they were a nullity; and no magistrate or officer ought to administer an oath except in the course of judicial proceedings. Unfortunately, however, the party was subject to no penalty; and thus it was that any one might, under the solemn sanction of an oath, make statements affecting the character of the most honourable of men, and then place them in the hands of a Member of that House, who, having stated in his place his belief of their truth, the newspapers circulated the report throughout the world, and the party injured had no redress. He could not proceed against the Member of Parliament, on account of his privilege; and he could not proceed against the party making the statements, because they had been made with a view to a proceeding in that House. As to moving for a Committee, it just amounted to this, that the most worthless of men might throw out any imputations against the character of the most honourable-imputations which might be known to be utterly unfounded, and yet there was to be no way of vindication except by occupying the public time by a Committee of Inquiry. He hoped no such Committee would be granted; but that the hon. Member who had given currency to these most injurious and most unfounded statements would-for he was the only party capable-do justice to the in-probably inquired of Sir C. Taylor himself, jured party.

LORD G. BENTINCK said, that the hon. Member for Athlone had expressed surprise at the warmth which had been evinced by another hon. Member; but it

MR. B. OSBORNE said, that after all, this debate was a much ado about nothing. The hon. Member for Athlone appeared to be a sort of monomaniac upon matters of this kind, and before bringing such charges upon the testimony of a convicted felon, he ought to have made a more diligent inquiry. The hon. Member, no doubt, believed the charges to be true; but those who knew the hon. Member took them cum grano salis, for on such points the hon. Member was over credulous. He sent his attorney down into a country town where plenty of blackguards were to be found, and where he (Mr. Osborne) knew that Sir C. Taylor had made himself obnoxious by his rigid and just administration of the law, to get up a case against him. The hon. Member had better cure himself of these fancies; and he ought to apologize to the House for having on insufficient evidence brought forward a grave charge against a most respectable and deserving gentleman.

MR. BRIGHT defended the conduct of the hon. Member for Athlone. That hon. Member had seen certain statements injurious to the character of a magistrate, if true; and if untrue, most unfair towards him. The hon. Member gave notice of his intention to bring the subject forward, and the Home Secretary undertook to make inquiry; but the right hon. Gentleman

and of the policeman, parties from whom it was not very probable he would elicit the truth. In the meantime the hon. Member for Athlone made further inquiries, and obtained from persons of respectable cha

that, considering all these facts, IIer Majesty's Government would have abandoned the measure. But since they had shown a degree of perseverance which was worthy a better cause, it became his duty to oppose, as far as in him lay, the further progress of the Bill. In so doing, he had the satisfaction of feeling that it would not be necessary for him, seeing that he had lately occupied so much of the attention of the House on this question, to trouble the House at any great length on the present occasion; indeed he could not but conceive that a simple reference to dates as regard

racter affidavits that they believed the statements to be true. He (Mr. Bright) had seen the woman, and the other person who had given evidence, and their conduct and demeanour did not subject them to the suspicion of having spoken untruly. This much he would state, that since this case had occurred there had appeared in a Worcestershire paper the acknowledgment of a gamekeeper, that he had placed a snare with dead game in the pathway leading to the church. Now, he did not charge Sir C. Taylor with being guilty of that which had been laid to his charge; but at the same time he did not think that the hon.ed the introduction and progress of the Member for Athlone merited the remarks that had been made upon him. If the hon. Member's conduct was the result of monomania, it at all events took a humane and benevolent course in respect of the game laws, which it would be well for the country if some others were to imitate.

MR. W. R. COLLETT said, he had been put to much trouble by his constituents mistaking him for the mover in this matter, and he wished altogether to dissociate his name from it. He felt that the matter ought to be carried further: he knew not whether the hon. Member for Athlone were right or wrong, but in his position he was bound to prove his statements. He (Mr. W. R. Collett) had made inquiry, and had found that there was not a more worthy or honourable magistrate in England than Sir C. Taylor. Unless the hon. Member for Athlone apologized, it was incumbent that some further step should be taken.

Subject at an end.

PROTECTION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL. Order of the Day read, on the Question that the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill be now read a Second Time.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE said, he rose with considerable reluctance to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. He had been in hopes that after the time which had elapsed since the Bill had been introduced and read a first time in that House, and after the course which the late debate upon it had taken-a debate in which the opponents of the measure had been more successful in arguments than in any debate he had ever listened to; successful, because he believed it had the effect of causing many hon. Members who were previously in favour of the Bill to change their opinions; he had, he repeated, been in hopes

VOL. LXXXVII. {

Third

Series

Bill, and to the conduct of the Government with respect to it, would be quite sufficient, irrespective of the merits of the measure itself, to ensure the support of every independent Member on both sides of the House to the Amendment which he was about to submit. But having undertaken to move the rejection of the Bill, it would be unbecoming in him were he to omit an allusion to one or two points with reference to it. On a former occasion he had inquired whether the Government had exhausted all the ordinary means which the law afforded them to put down the state of crime which existed in Ireland, and he had been told in reply that it was a very delicate question as to whether the Government would be justified in issuing a special commission for the trial and punishment of offenders wherever crime arose. He had been further told, that it depended very much upon the state of the evidence which might be ready to be produced against offenders in custody. All this he admitted; but he wished to ask this question of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of Lincoln). A special commission had recently been sent into the county of Westmeath. Before that commission issued, an inquiry was made by parties sent down for that purpose, to ascertain the evidence which was ready to be brought forward against the prisoners in gaol. He begged to ask whether the same course had been taken with respect to Limerick, to Clare, and to the other counties sought to be affected by this Bill. If the Government had done So, their excuse for not sending down special commissioners to those counties must be, that the evidence had failed; if they had not taken that course, then he maintained that they had not exhausted all the resources which the ordinary laws afforded them. With regard to the great point of the inap

F

plicability of the measure to the existence | had sufficient weight and standing in the of a state of crime, a more complete failure House to be able to impress those truths of argument than had been exhibited on on the mind of the Government. They the part of the Government and of the ad- had, however, been propounded and vocates of the measure, it had never been brought forward before by some of the his fortune to listen to. The measure, it wisest and best men that either Ireland or had been proved over and over again, would this country ever saw; but even Mr. be of no use whatever for the object it pro- | Grattan had failed in his endeavours to He would read one posed to have in view. It was well known give effect to them. now what led to the state of things which existed in Ireland-the cause was known three quarters of a century ago; and yet nothing had been done to remove it. The same state of things existed in 1772 as ex-beyond the crime." isted now. This was shown by the preamble of an Irish Act of Parliament passed in that year, which stated that

"Whereas it frequently happens that persons calling themselves Whiteboys have notoriously wantonly, and illegally assembled, to injure His Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, and have taken and carried away their horses and arms, compelled them to surrender up and leave the occupation of their farms, tenements, and places of abode, and with threats and violence administered unlawful oaths, and have sent threatening letters,

and so on."

extract from a speech by Curran, in which he said-

"Penal laws have always more exasperated tho people when the infliction of the penalty has gone

They were now, in the same spirit, inflicting transportation for seven years for being out of doors after sunset. He contended that the longer these laws were brought into operation-the longer a proper remedy for the social evils of Ireland was delayed, the more would all endeavours to improve the character of the population fail in their object. He begged hon. Members, in discussing this question, not to be led away by their feelings. He knew they were all apt to be so. The noble Lord the MemWas not this the same thing over and over ber for the West Riding of Yorkshire again? This Act was a stringent one; (Lord Morpeth) had on a former evening, did it have its effect? After three quarters with the ability which the noble Lord of a century, they were again trusting to always evinced, alluded to the dreadful the same thing, devising a remedy for the murder of the late Lord Norbury, and had same disorder, and applying the same depicted in forcible and eloquent terms the quackery to the discase, which had entered shock which his feelings had received when into the very body politic. Did they really the intelligence of that fatal catastrophe think it would be more efficacious in arrest-reached him; but would the Bill now ing crime than the Act the preamble of before the House, if it had then been the law which he had just read, and of which the of the land, have had the effect of arresting present Coercion Bill was neither more nor the arm of the assassin of Lord Norbury? less than a continuation? No; experience No, it would not have been of the slightest was against them; they must go to the use. At present the bulk of the popularoot of the evil; the whole body politic of tion of Ireland believed themselves to be Ireland was diseased; it was "full of wounds out of the pale of the law; and was it surand bruises, and putrefying sores;" the prising, then, that they should frame a people of the country disliked and dis- code of laws of their own? The same relished the law of the land as it existed: thing had been done nearer home. For till they could change that feeling, and example, in Scotland crime had been prove to the people that the law existed not committed, sanctioned, and winked at by for their coercion, but protection-till they the great body of the people, when they could make them love it, instead of hate thought that the laws were against them, it-so long would they combine against and that individuals were employed to init. It should be remembered that, since troduce a system which was obnoxious to the Union, the absence of a coercive law the population of that country. Witness, had been the exception, not the rule; and for instance, the murder of Archbishop till they could win the affections of the Sharpe, when the crowd allowed the assaspeople to the side of law and order, sin to recede without a single arm being so long would their nostrum fail, so raised to arrest his progress. So in Irelong would they be compelled to resort land, when the feeling prevailed that the to unconstitutional measures, which ended laws in force were not intended for the in nothing but exasperating the people. protection of the great body of the people. He (Sir W. Somerville) wished that he They must be shown that they were cared