Ireland was at the same time fixed for this | scheme, and it was to proceed pari passu evening. If, however, the hon. Member for with the Corn Bill. They were to go Finsbury, not being content with the deci- through the same stages, and together were sion of the House on the instruction moved to be sent up to the House of Lords. The by the hon. Member for Malton, after no- one was to be taken as a counterpoise to tice given before Whitsuntide-and if he the other; and as the Corn Bill was unfathought it expedient, after the full discus- vourable to the operative and the labourer, sion on Friday night, now, without notice, the Poor Removal Bill was contended to be to put it to the vote in a more full House, as much to his advantage. As to interposby raising the question whether the Poor ing any delay in the discussion of the CoerRemoval Bill should not have precedence, cion Bill, he believed the notion was univerof course it was open to him to do so. sal that Government had no idea of carrying [Mr. DUNCOMBE had given notice on Fri--that they had resigned all hope, if they day. He was not aware of that. He believed, however, that if the hon. Member did take the course he proposed, the decision of the House this evening would be in conformity with their decision on Friday; but, on the other hand, it was most important that the point should be decided, because the form in which the Bill would come before the House would depend upon that decision. Such a reversal of the decision of Friday, after the Bill had been prepared in accordance with it, would, he agreed with the hon. Member, almost render it impossible to proceed with the Bill. If, however, the House should adhere to its decision of Friday night, he apprehended that there would be no objection to allow him, as was usual with Members who had charge of a Bill, to go into Committee pro formá-on Wednesday, for instance when the Bill could be presented to the House in the shape required by the instruction, and reprinted.

had not lost all wish of carrying-it. He admitted the principle to be deserving of consideration; but he had this objection to the instruction of Friday, that the Poor Law Commissioners had made unions so injudiciously large, that unless they were remodelled, the principle would be found impracticable. He trusted that the hon. Member for Finsbury would persevere in his Amendment, in order that a decision might be come to which was not open to the objection of surprise.

SIR R. PEEL said, that the great majority of Members present must have come down with the expectation that the second reading of the Bill for the Protection of Life in Ireland was the chief subject for discussion this evening. When opportunities had become so precious, he should be sorry that a night should be lost. He regretted that the hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to think he had not fulfilled any engagement into which he had entered: he was MR. BANKES entirely concurred with always anxious to be explicit, and to carry the hon. Member for Finsbury, that the into effect all his assurances; but the House had been taken by surprise on Fri- House would be aware of the difficulties day. The surprise among his Friends had with which he had to contend, arising very been to see Ministers voting for a measure much from not being able to foresee to what which it was thought they would have re-length discussions might be carried. He sisted, because the right hon. Home Secre- had always felt that the second reading of tary had said some time ago that he found the Poor Removal Bill had been agreed to, it universally distasteful to the agricultural in order that the debate might be taken interest. His Friends had been very thin on the question that the Speaker leave the in their attendance under this persuasion. Chair; and, notwithstanding the great True it was that they had not been univer- pressure of some Votes in Supply, he had sally in the habit of trusting Ministers; given way, in order that a night might be but in this instance they had confided in devoted to the Poor Removal Bill. He them, and, as might be supposed, they had could not admit that he had ever led to the been deceived. Before it could be said that expectation that it should proceed pari the instruction had been adopted by a ma-passu with the Corn Bill: all he had said jority of the House, another opportunity for a division ought to be afforded. He knew not when a more full, free, or dispassionate consideration of the subject could be given than at the present moment. The Poor Removal Bill had been introduced by Government as part of a great comprehensive

was, that he would afford the earliest opportunity for the discussion; but he had constantly stated, that, on the first possible occasion, he would submit the Bill for the Protection of Life in Ireland to the decision of the House. As to the instruction carried the other night, it

tives of that country to take benefit under the Bill. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet had given directions to have proper words introduced to carry out the intention of the Government.

SIR J. GRAHAM stated, that he by no means departed from the pledge he had given. He meant to extend the principle of irremovability to the cases of all Irishmen who had resided for five years in the place where they might fall destitute. Had it not been for the high authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should have thought the present words in the Bill sufficient for the purpose.

MR. DUNCOMBE'S object was to save the House trouble. The two questions were separate, and ought to remain separate; and there was no use at all in going into Committee pro formá, until the question had been decided by the House whether there should be settlement by unions. Question again put. Amendment withdrawn.

MR. BRIGHT would take that opportunity of adverting to a statement made by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), to the effect, that while from some towns he had experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining certain returns for which he had moved, specifying the number of persons removed from Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire, in 1841, 1842, and 1843, he had more especially experienced such difficulty in getting them from the town of Stockport. The hon. Gentleman had gone on to say, that "he had sent down to Stockport, and asked for information on this subject, because he had understood that great numbers of families had been removed from that town in 1842; but the clerk of the union would not suffer the persons who applied on his behalf, although a ratepayer, to see the books of the union, or afford him any facilities for his inquiry." He had received a communication from the gentleman pointed at, declaring that there was not one word of truth in the statement, so far as he was concerned; and that he had always in the discharge of his duties given all facilities for obtaining information as to the working question of the Secretary at War. It might of the Poor Law; that no such application be in the recollection of the House that, had been made to him, nor did he know last Session, he had brought forward a Motill Saturday last that such information tion concerning limited enlistments; and was required by the hon. Member for Fins- the Motion now stood on the books, to be bury. It was added that the return pre-made when the Army Estimates were sented to the House was made out as brought forward. He had been much surfully, and with as great despatch as pos- prised, on Friday last, at reading in the LORD H. VANE hoped the hon. Mem-statements, the following important and Times, a journal invariably correct in its ber for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) would withdraw his Motion, after what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member

sible.

for London.

MR. DUNCOMBE wished to know what course the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take in reference to the Poor Removal Bill?

SIR J. GRAHAM proposed to make it an Order of the Day for Thursday.

SIR R. PEEL thought it would be better to see the Bill before coming to a decision on the subject. The opinion of the House might afterwards be distinctly taken on the question of union settlements.

LIMITED ENLISTMENTS.

CAPTAIN LAYARD wished to ask a

new clause under the head of " Mutiny Act," and he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the information thus conveyed was authentic. The clause was Clause 8, as follows:

"Are you willing to be attested to serve in the regiment of for the period of [This blank to be filled up by the justice with 7, 14, or 21 years, as the case may be-10, 16, or 24 for cavalry, and 12, 16, or 21 for artillery, if the person is of the age of 18 or upwards; but if under his age and 18 to be added to such 7, 10, 12, 14, the age of 18 years, then the deficiency between 16, 21, and 24, (as the case may be)] years, provided Her Majesty should so long require your service, and also for such further term, not exceeding 12 months, as shall be directed by com

MR. O'CONNELL observed, that at an early stage of this Bill the right hon. Baro-manding officers on any foreign station, and not net was asked whether it was proposed to include Irish paupers under the operation of the Bill, and stated that such was the intention. In Ireland there was no law of settlement, and provision would require to be made in express terms for enabling na

exceeding three years, as shall be directed by any proclamation of Her Majesty; such additional period, in the latter case, to determine whenever six months of continuance in peace, to be reckoned from the ratification of any definitive treaty, shall have elapsed subsequent to the expiration of the said 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, 24, (as the case may be)

years?"

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

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 autho-statement of that individual was untrue; rities the power at their discretion of per- he had been perfectly satisfied with that mitting limited enlistments. There was, explanation, and this result he communihowever, no intention at present to alter cated to the bon. Gentleman. The hon. the practice on the subject. 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 sent Sir C. Taylor copies of the affidavits, and Sir C. Taylor gave him the most positive assurance that in all the more important particulars they were altogether incorrect. He could not declare, on the part of the Crown, that the investigation should be carried further, and he did not hesitate to tell the hon. Gentleman that Sir C. Taylor still remained in Her Majesty's commission.

THE CASE OF SIR C. TAYLOR. 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?

MR. P. SCROPE thought that it was a most insulting mode, adopted by the hon. Gentleman, of dealing with the case, to make, first, a very strong charge, and then to ask if Sir C. Taylor still held a commission of the peace. The hon. Gentleman had, when he found his case breakSIR J. GRAHAM: It would be re-ing down, sent a fishing commission, conmembered that when the hon. Gentleman sisting of an attorney, down to South

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.

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 The SOLICITOR GENERAL had not appointment of a Committee. ["Oh!"] the honour of knowing Sir C. Taylor, and Why, they were dissatisfied with what had only knew that a charge of a very serious been done. They thought the allegations of nature had been made against the characthe hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett) ter of that gentleman, on the authority of were unjust; and they ought, therefore, an individual who was known to be a conat once to institute an inquiry in order victed felon. That charge, unworthy of that they might know the truth. The hon. attention when it was known from whom Member fully believed in the correctness of it emanated, was now abandoned, and a his statements; and, as the right hon. second charge was brought forward on the 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