the circumstances that caused those com- | Consul General at Venice, but preferred plaints. In the month of June last a applying for redress in person, and without letter was written by the father of the in- communicating with the Consul. He did dividual to whom the present inquiry had reference, making certain charges against the officials in a public department at Verona; and he (Mr. Hume) begged to ask whether any inquiry had been instituted into the complaints of Mr. Henry Robert Newton, who in June last was arrested in Verona, imprisoned, and treated with great indignity, and all explanation then and there refused; and whether any apology or explanation had been offered by the Austrian Government?

has been that a full and ample expression of regret has been obtained from the Austrian Government, accompanied by a promise that, in future, care shall be taken to prevent British travellers from being ill-treated in a similar manner, and to see that the regulations in force in Austria are carried out with no unnecessary hardship on individuals. That expression of regret having been obtained-the original charge of misconduct having been against a subordinate officer, and the promise I have mentioned having been given by the Austrian Government, it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that, under the circumstances, nothing more could be expected or required.

not succeed in obtaining any satisfactory explanation from the authorities, and having so failed, he then put his case into the hands of Mr. Dawkins, who took it up with great energy and promptitude. Shortly afterwards complaints were made to the Foreign Office by Sir William Newton, the father of the complainant, and a letter was written by him, dated 16th July, stating the particulars which I have related. Immediately on that letter being received, a full account of the circumstances as they LORD STANLEY: Sir, in answer to were stated by Sir W. Newton to have the question of the hon. Member, I have occurred, was sent to Lord Westmoreland to confirm, in the first place, what he has our Ambassador at Vienna. An inquiry stated, namely, that in the month of June was instituted, and there being some dislast a British subject of the name of New- crepancy between the different accounts, ton was arrested at Verona, and detained a correspondence of some length took under circumstances of considerable hard-place; but the end of that correspondence ship. The circumstances of the case were these Mr. Newton was arrested on suspicion of sketching the fortifications, he being at the time, as he stated, and as we have reason to believe, not so engaged; but it is fair to say, that the suspicion was not unreasonable, inasmuch as Mr. Newton had at the time a book and map spread open before him. I merely mention these trifling circumstances to show what, indeed, Mr. Newton himself acknowledges, that as regards his original arrest, he has no ground for making any charge against the authorities. The city of Verona was at the time in a state of siege, and there is no reason to suppose that he was treated, so far as the original arrest was concerned, with exceptional harshness or severity. Subsequent to the arrest he was taken to the guard-house, orders were given that his papers should be examined, and that if, on their examination, nothing was found tending to criminate him, he should be set at liberty. These were the orders that were given, but unfortunately they were not obeyed. The search took place, and nothing was found of a criminatory character amongst his papers. When the search concluded, it was late in the evening, and by a gross neglect of duty on the part of the officer of police in whose charge Mr. Newton was, instead of releasing him, when nothing was discovered only last month. I have very much conagainst him, he detained him all night, sidered it, and it is the intention of the Goand did not liberate him until the follow-vernment to place a Treasury Minute on ing morning. Mr. Newton unfortunately, the table, which I hope I shall be able to in my opinion, did not immediately proceed do before Christmas, indicating all those to put the case in the hands of the British changes that we think ought to take place

THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS.

MR. W. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendation of the Committee appointed last Session to inquire into the constitution and management of the Board of Customs?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have directed the recommendations of the Committee to be submitted to the Commissioners of Customs, and I received their Report-a very elaborate one

"What you have done is against one of the mile Bridge, in the county of Clare, in July most essential parts of the law of this Kingdom. last. Had any real necessity been shown for it? There might be fears-there might be some danger-but did you try the strength of the law to dispel those fears and remove those dangers? Did you make use of those powers the law invested you with, as civil magistrates, for the preservation of the public peace? No; you deserted all that, and wantonly, and I hope inadvertently, resorted to that force, the most unnatural of all others, in all respects, to that cause and business you were then attending, and for the freedom of which every Briton ought to be ready to suffer anything."

MR. NAPIER: Sir, there will be no objection to lay the evidence in this case on the table of the House when the proper time arrives; but at present the proceedings are under the consideration of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that Court has not yet given its decision. But judgment will probably be pronounced in a few days, and then the evidence can be furnished. With regard, however, to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member upon the conduct of the Government, I may be permitted to say that the Government had nothing to do with the calling out of the military. They were called out, as is usual, on the

See also debate on this subject, April 3, 1827, on the occasion of calling out the military at Carlisle. The whole of the proceedings of the Government in this most calamitous event have been most extraordinary, and might well cause the ex-requisition of a magistrate of the county, citement which did prevail during the last who has shared in the fate of the soldiers, elections in Ireland. But let me ask what and who, by this very respectable Coroner's raised those excitements? The illegal acts jury, has been declared guilty of wilful of the Government, infringing on the liber- murder. Sir, before the proceedings of the ties of the subject, a manifest violation of inquest were laid before me, the soldiers the freedom of elections, by employing had been committed to the gaol of the soldiers for the purpose of overawing them, county on the Coroner's warrant, and the in direct opposition to the law and consti- depositions then came up and were laid tution of this country. Finally, I must before me in the usual course; for whendraw a contrast as to the manner the Go-ever any person has been committed on a vernment pursue in this country (England) and in Ireland, in the instance I now submit to the House. Here are a magistrate and eight soldiers, against whom a verdict of wilful murder is given by a coroner's jury. They are imprisoned to answer for so very serious a charge at the next assizes; but what do the Government legal authorities in Ireland? Bail is taken, and the magistrate and the eight soldiers are liberated. Now, mark the different line of conduct pursued here in a similar case. Two foreigners are imprisoned for being implicated in a fatal duel; their counsel makes an appeal for their being liberated on bail, and an instance is brought forward of bail being granted on similar events. What said the Chief Justice of England?

"He was firmly of opinion that if a person of the highest eminence was found guilty of murder by a jury, no tribunal of the country would liberate him without trial."

capital charge the course is to lay the papers before the Attorney General, in order to see whether he makes any objection on the part of the Crown to the parties being admitted to bail.

The Crown does not inWhenever parterfere further than this. ties apply to the Court of Queen's Bench in these matters, the Court is always greatly influenced by the circumstance whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given or refused their assent to the motion to admit to bail. On receiving the depositions I felt it to be my duty not to lose a single moment in applying myself to them, and I read them twice over-an occupation which took me eight hours. I read them through before I went to bed, and I read them again the next morning, and having considered them, I felt it to be my duty to state my opinion that these parties should be ad

mitted to bail.

Judge Crampton, after hearing counsel for the next of kin of the persons killed, himself considered the depositions; and he, in pursuance of the au

Now, Sir, all I ask-all I pray for-is, that a trial may be granted to have this melan-thority vested in him as a Judge of the choly event thoroughly investigated. It is due to the people of Ireland-it is due to the bereaved families of the unfortunate men who were so inhumanly shot; and, above all, it is due to justice. I therefore move for the report of the evidence given before the Coroner's inquest, held at Six

Queen's Bench, made an order admitting the parties to bail-a course for which he had, and has, my full concurrence. I may state, with reference to the case having been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, that that Court was the Supreme Coroner of the Kingdom, and had the su

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to restrict the duration of polling for County MR. WALPOLE said, he thought that, Elections in England and Wales. It would seeing leave was given by the last Parliabe in the recollection of the House that at ment to bring in a Bill somewhat similar to the close of the last Parliament he had this, and that it even went to the third moved for leave to bring in a Bill to re-reading, it would be ungracious towards strict the days of polling in Counties from the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex two days to one, and that Bill had obtained to refuse him leave to bring in the present a first and second reading, and had passed through Committee. The Government, however, had thrown out the measure on the third reading, not because they objected to the principle of it, but because it was contended that the time intervening before the general election was so short that opportunity could not be afforded for

was a matter of great importance that pro- | be made in reference to the same Courts; vision should be made for enabling all the and similar difficulties had been experienced votes in every County to be taken. The in obtaining those returns from some of other point was, that the noble Lord was the Courts, whilst others of them had made now going to add to the Bill a new provi- no return whatever. The fact was that sion, namely, that the period between the some of these returns were not made until nomination and the day of the polling the 10th of May, 1852, exactly nine months should be reduced from two days to one. after they had been called for by the House. He thought that was a matter which would He thought that when an order was made require great consideration. They must by that House, either through the medium. remember that there was a great difference of an Address to the Crown, or directly between boroughs and counties in that re- by the House, the persons to whom such spect. In the boroughs the voters were order was sent ought to obey it. And no all living either within the bounds or in the return having been made by the Ecclesiasneighbourhood; but in counties the voters tical Courts of Rochester, he had no hesihad their residence sometimes at a great tation in submitting this Motion to the distance, and assuredly every portion of a House, in order that the information in County ought to have an opportunity of question might be obtained. He would knowing whether more than one candidate also take that opportunity of stating that had been put up on the day of nomination, should that order not be complied with, he in order that the voters might have an op- should take further steps to compel a comportunity of coming up and recording their pliance with it. votes. He only pointed out these things in order that the noble Lord might have no reason to complain, should he find the Government opposing the Bill when it was brought forward.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR said, that he thought that, whenever the discussion came on, he should be able to satisfy the House that the further changes he proposed were necessary. Leave given.

ROCHESTER CONSISTORY COURT, &c. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he rose to move for a return of the appointment of Officers in the Consistory Court, Rochester, and also in the Archdeacon's Court in the same city. He apprehended there would be little or no objection to his Motion; but, inasmuch as the dignity and character of that House was in some measure concerned, he would state the reasons which had induced him to put the notice upon the paper. On the 2nd May, 1850, that House resolved that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that certain returns might be made in reference to the Ecclesiastical Courts; and he was informed by the officers connected with the Government of that day, that they had the very greatest difficulty in obtaining the papers from the Officers of those Courts-so much so, that thirteen months elapsed before they were presented to the House. Another Address was agreed to by the House on the 7th August, 1851, praying Her Majesty to order that certain further returns might

MR. WALPOLE said, a return had been laid on the table of the House with the fullest information on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts of which the Government were in possession; and he could account for the absence of the returns of which the hon. Baronet complained only in this way. Several returns of that kind had been moved for by the hon. Baronet, and the officers thinking they had already made those returns in full, had neglected to continue the returns which were subsequently asked for. He was further informed that a return which had been moved for by the hon. Baronet in 1849, was presented to the House, and that the hon. Baronet never moved that it should be printed. If the hon. Gentleman would now move to have that return printed, he would gain from it fuller information than he could have from the return which he now asked for.

SIR B. HALL said, he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman was under a mistake. During the Session of 1849, he (Sir B. Hall) was unable to attend the House except on one day; he had not made any Motion on the subject except in the years to which he had referred, and the officers of the Ecclesiastical Court of Rochester had made no return whatever to those Motions.

Motion agreed to.

DAY MAIL TO LEICESTER.

MR. FREWEN said, that the House was doubtless aware, from the statements which had recently appeared in the public