been made by the hon. Member for East Kent and negatived. According, then, to his opinion, the bill, as it passed that House, gave power to the magistrates to punish summarily British subjects to the extent of imprisonment and hard labour for a limited period, without the right of appeal. He must say that he considered that was a strong interference with the liberty of the subject, and he had stated so when the bill was discussed in committee. He objected to the right of any magistrates to imprison without appeal to a jury. He would put the case to the hon. Member for Lambeth, how he himself should feel if placed in such circumstances,

negatived. We were going on abolishing the trial by jury by degrees, until at last we should arrive at the Turkish state in which the criminal law was administered by the will of the magistrate alone. He was most averse to depriving her Majesty's subjects of the protection of trial by jury.

Mr. T. Duncombe was very sorry to hear the hon. and learned Solicitor-gene. ral declare, that he was ready to agree to these amendments of the Lords. To that declaration he could by no means assent; and unquestionably he should take the sense of the House upon them. He rejoiced, however, that the Lords had struck out of the bill the summary clause.

into prison by the command of a single judge, subject to all the heats and infirmities of human nature, and that the right of appealing to a jury of his countrymen was denied him. It was true that parties in that situation might apply to the Secretary of State, and so long as the noble Lord now at the head of the Home Department held thatsituation, they would all have pretty good chance of access. But that noble Lord did not command a perpetual lease of office, and his successor might not be so willing to pay attention to the duties of his office as the noble Lord; he therefore felt it desirable that the power of appeal should exist in all cases. He could speak from his own experience, that he never knew a rogue who had been rightly convicted, appeal from the conviction. With the right of appeal, he should not object to giving summary jurisdiction to a greater extent than they did at present.

Mr. Hawes said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The present bill mitigated the severity of the existing law, by which police magistrates could imprison for three months without appeal.

Sir C. Grey certainly thought that the motion of the hon Member for East Kent, for allowing appeals in all cases, had been negatived, and that the House of Lords had adopted that principle.

The Solicitor-General said, the Lords had done nothing. The law remained precisely the same as formerly, giving an appeal in all cases where imprisonment exceeded one month, and the penalties 31. Mr. Pryme stated, that the hon. Member for East Kent had moved in the com

magistrates, why was the clause to be limited to a circle of fifteen miles round London, and why was not the benefit of it to be extended to the rest of the country? The real alteration, however, of the Lords, to which he wished to call the attention of the Commons, was one which completely spoiled the bill altogether. The Lords had struck out of the bill the third clause. That clause gave the responsible advisers of the Crown, the power of superseding the existing magistrates on payment of a pension or retiring allowance, not exceeding in amount twothirds of their present salaries. The House of Commons, by a subsequent clause, had increased the salary of the future police magistrates, from 800l. to 1,200l. a-year, and had been induced to accede to that increase, from the declaration of Ministers, that under the third clause they should be able to get rid of all the weak, worn-out, imbecile old fixtures in Worship-street and in Queen-square. Yes, all the Whites, and Gregorys, and Nortons were to be swept clean away, and in their stead, we were to get young barristers of seven years standing, distinguished for great learning and legal talent. Now, the consequence of the Lords striking out the third clause, would be this-that Ministers would not be able to supersede the existing magistrates; and the result of that would be, that these old, worn-out, incompetent magistrates would get 1,200l. a-year, instead of the 8001. a-year which they now had, and would continue fixtures on the bench as long as they could either see, write, or eat. When the Lords struck out the third clause, they should also have struck out the clause increasing the salaries of the magistrates. To do Lord Lyndhurst justice, he had come forward to strike out that clause; but then down came the Whigs in flocks, and defeated him for the sake of the golden fleece. After the superseding clause was struck out, the salary-increasing clause ought not to have been kept in. He should move that these amendments be read a second time this day three months. If he succeeded, as he trusted that he should succeed, in carrying that amendment, the effect of it would be the loss of the bill. He was aware that the Police Act expired in the present year, but nothing could be more easy than for Ministers to have recourse to their ordinary practice, and to bring in a short bill to continue it for another year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that considerable misconception appeared to prevail in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, respecting the provisions of this bill. His hon. Friend's observations were quite inapplicable to the real facts of the case. If this bill were to be rejected, and a continuing bill were to be introduced, as his hon. Friend advised, all the objections which had been urged against the present defectiveness of the police system, would remain in full force. In the bill, as it passed the House of Commons, the salaries of the police magistrates were increased with a view to obtain a better administration of justice, through the hands of professional men of learning and experience, than could be obtained from the services of some of those who were now employed by the Government as police magistrates, but whom he would not allude to by name, as they were not present to defend themselves. The clause granting that increase of salary, was coupled with another clause, enabling the Crown to supersede, at its discretion, certain magistrates upon retired allowances of a limited amount. The latter clause had been rejected by the Lords; and, therefore, to a certain extent, the public would not obtain the benefit which the bill as it passed the Commons was calculated to give them. But there were two circumstances which his hon. Friend had overlooked. In the first place, all the existing magistrates held their offices during pleasure; but that circumstance would not justify the Crown in removing them, so

long as they discharged the duties of their stations faithfully and efficiently. In the next place, the retiring allowances to be granted to them, did not rest upon this superseding clause; for they were provided for by the Act of 4th and 5th of William IV., cap. 24, an Act passed in 1834, for the purpose of regulating pensions and retiring allowances. In the schedule to that Act, were contained the retiring allowances to be granted to the police magistrates in the county of Midlesex, the city of Westminster, and the borough of Southwark. The Crown, by that Act, could enforce the superannuation of the police magistrates. As the consequence of rejecting the present bill would be to leave the present state of the police of the metropolis very defective, he did hope, that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, would not persist in pressing his amendment. One word more before he sat down. His hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. Pryme), had declared himself most averse to abolishing the trial by jury, which he described as one of the most efficacious protections of her Majesty's subjects. Undoubtedly so it was, and most hostile should he and the rest of his colleagues be to any proposition which went the length of abolishing the jurisdiction of the petty jury. But the jurisdiction of the grand jury was also a protection to her Majesty's subjects; and yet his hon. Friend and colleague had proposed to abolish it altogether. On the next occasion on which his hon. Friend brought forward that proposition, he must pair off with himself, as nothing could be more contradictory than his opinions on the utility of grand and petty juries.

Mr. Pryme said, that his right hon. Friend and colleague had just shown that he had not listened to his speech on the subject of grand juries, for, if he had listened to that speech, he would have known that the abolition of the functions of a grand jury would not impair, but strengthen the functions of a petty jury.

Mr. T. Duncombe observed, that the Act to which his right hon. Friend had referred was passed in 1834. As in the interval which had elapsed since the passing of that Act-her Majesty's Ministers had not removed on retiring allowances any of those gentlemen who were such ornaments of the bench, he inferred that they had no intention to remove them now. He must, his amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that her Majesty's Ministers had not till very recently received the recommendation of two committees that some of the present magistrates should be set aside. If, therefore, they had set them aside without such a good cause, they would have been accused of removing the magistrates from improper motives. By the present bill they would be authorized to remove the magistrates, and to procure in their room legal gentlemen of greater competency.

Amendment negatived.

The amendments of the Lords were agreed to.

EDUCATION OF SOLDIERS' CHILDREN.] Mr. Langdale wished to ask two questions of the noble Secretary-at-War-first, whether or not the children of soldiers were forced to attend the regimental schools, and to be educated solely in the religion of the Established Church? And, secondly, whether there was any intention of relaxing the rule which had hitherto been acted upon, and which had the effect of depriving the children of Roman Catholics, as well as Presbyterians and Protestant Dissenters generally, of the benefit of the Asylum School at Chelsea, unless they were educated in the doctrines of the Established Church?

Viscount Howick answered, that no change whatever had been introduced into the practice of the army by the late order on the subject. In the regimental schools, no children were required to be educated in any religion of which their parents disapproved. With respect to the education of children in the Asylum School at Chelsea, the education of the children there was wholly in the doctrines of the Church of England. He had some time ago seriously deliberated upon this subject, in concert with the commissioners, and after a very full consideration they had been compelled to come to the conclusion that it was impossible in that institution, as it was constituted, that the children who are there, and who are entirely provided for within the institution, could be educated, under any practicable arrangement, in any religion but that of the Established Church.

quested the hon. Member to state what had occurred that morning in reference to an intimation which the hon. Member had sent to him, that the hon. Member intended to notice some observations he was reported to have made in the course of a trial at the Central Criminal Court. He was aware that he must throw himself upon the indulgence of the House, in begging that the question might be answered; and he did so as well from being a Member of that House, as also because the matter was connected with the discharge of his judicial functions. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would state the substance of any complaint he had to make in consequence of anything he was reported to have said.

Mr. Hawes really did not know whether he were called upon to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. Had the hon. and learned Member been in his place in the morning, as he ought to have been, he would have heard the statement he had made; and he thought it too much to be called upon to state over again the observations which, in the discharge of his public duty, he had thought it right to make. He could not, perhaps, recollect the exact phraseology he had used, and he must say, that it appeared to him a most unnatural course, having intimated to the hon. and learned Member in the course of Friday, that he should take an opportunity when the Police Courts Bill came before the House, to notice (not to complain, for he had no complaint to make) an address reported to have been made to a jury in the Central Criminal Court. He had yesterday requested the noble Lord, who had charge of it, to postpone the bill till today, in order that the hon. Member from whom he had received no answer till three o'clock that day, might have full notice. He was now in the hands of the House, and was willing, if it thought proper to enter upon the debate. [" No, no."] If the House wished it he was ready to defend what he then stated, but it was rather too much to ask him to repeat his observations.

Mr. Law assured the hon. Member and the House, that although the hon. Member's letter to him was dated on Friday last, he being out of town, did not receive it until one o'clock yesterday. He immediately returned to town at great personal inconvenience to himself, and arrived at the door of the House at a-quarter before Q

four o'clock, not being aware that the House would sit at an earlier hour. This being the case, he confessed he was somewhat surprised at the hon. Gentleman's disinclination to re-state what he had said in the morning. However, as the hon. Member now stated that he did not complain, and as the mere personal opinion of the hon. Member as to any part of his conduct was a matter of complete indifference, he would not trouble the House with any further remarks upon the subject. He, thought, however, he might be allowed to observe, that when the hon. Member sent a notice to him of his intention to direct the attention of the House to some part of his conduct when acting in a public capacity, when the hon. Gentleman received an answer to that communication as soon as circumstances could possibly admit, and when he came to town to meet any observations the hon. Member might feel it his duty to make; he thought it was not too great an indulgence from one gentleman to another, not to say from one Member of the House to another, to restate the substance of any observations-[The hon. Member was interrupted by cries of "Order!" and Chair!"]

The Speaker thought it would not be wise to press the matter further. The hon. and learned Member had called on the hon. Member for Lambeth to state the substance of any observations he had made; and it was certainly competent for the hon. Member to do so, but the hon. Member having declined, it was ir regular to create any further debate. He had understood the hon. Member, when he rose, to make some explanation of what had occurred, which he (the Speaker) conceived was perfectly in order, but beyond that he thought any dicussion would be irregular.

Mr. Hawes hoped he might be permitto state, with reference to the communications on which the hon. and learned Gentleman laid great stress, that he had addressed a note to the hon. and learned Gentleman on Friday; that he had taken great pains that the note should be delivered, and on the door of the hon. and learned Gentleman's chambers there was a notice that the person in charge would attend again directly. He had heard nothing further upon the subject until he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman today, when the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the only reason why the hon.

CANADA-CASE OF MR. VIGER.] Mr. Hume wished again to draw the attention of the Under Secretary for the Colonies to the case of Mr. Viger, who had been confined in the gaol of Montreal, Lowe Canada, for two years, without having been brought to trial. It would be in the recollection of the House, that some time since he had asked a question on this subject-but he had this day seen an individual who had just arrived in this country from Montreal, and who stated that Mr. Viger was still detained in the gaol of that city, and that his family were denied all access to him. Such treatment as this he considered exceedingly cruel towards a gentleman seventy-five years of age, and who had for a long period occupied the high situation of a Member of the Assembly of the colony. It was cruel that he should be compelled to linger out another winter in prison, suffering such severe privations. He had asked to be brought to trial, either before the ordinary tribunals, or before a court-martial, he did not care which: but it was a cruel case that he should be detained in prison at his time of life, and made to undergo these privations.

Mr. Labouchere said, he had answered the question of the hon. Gentleman some time ago, and he could only now reply in the same terms that he had on that occasion; but he thought that the House would be of opinion, that under the circumstances of the case, Sir John Colborne could not have acted otherwise than he had acted. He could not state exactly the manner in which Mr. Viger had been treated; but he thought it was unlikely that he was subjected to any hardships which were not necessary for his safe custody.

Mr. Hume wished to know why any British subject should be confined for two years without being brought to trial? It was most cruel and most unjust.

BANK OF IRELAND.] On the Order of the day for going into Committee on the Bank of Ireland Bill being read,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,