reverend Prelate on that occasion to give him an opportunity of correcting the error into which the right reverend Prelate had fallen.

The Bishop of St. Asaph regretted extremely that he had been prevented by indisposition from attending in his place yesterday evening; but he must add, that if the noble Marquess had had the courtesy to inform him that he was going to present a petition connected with so humble an individual as himself, he would, notwithstanding his indisposition, have made a point of attending in his place in that House. He thanked the noble baron for having given him an opportunity upon this occasion of answering, not only what he (Lord King) had just said, but also the assertion that he had on a former night made an unfounded statement. He had not quoted at all from the pamphlet to which the noble Baron had referred-he had read from a paper (which he believed to be good authority, as it came from a highly respectable clergyman in his dioces) a statement to this effect-that there had appeared in a certain pamphlet, in one passage, that Christ Church Oxford received 4,700l. a-year, and in another that it received 4,500l. a-year for tithes from various parishes in Wales. Now, it appeared that the fact was, that the whole value of the tithes of the parishes in question was only 2,000l. a-year, and that of this sum only 500l. a-year was paid to Christ Church, Oxford. And, such being the case, was not the author guilty of a misrepresentation? In the parish of Llandudno the author had said, that the tithes were 250l., and that the curate received only 681. a-year. Now, it was true, that the author never said that Archdeacon Jones, to whom the living belonged, received all the tithes, but he had left that fact to be supposed by all his readers. The petition which was presented yesterday came from the same quarter as those which had been presented on a former occasion. Mr. Johnes was in London, as many of their Lordships were already aware: for he had written to the editor of a newspaper a letter contradicting the statements which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had made in that House, and had requested the editor to publish that letter along with his report of the proceedings in that House. That was a gross breach of privilege, but certainly not worth the notice of their Lordships. He understood that Mr. Johnes had lost considerably by the publication of

his pamphlet, and that he was now presenting petitions in order to get a sale for it in that manner. He would not say, that that pamphlet abounded with falsehoods, but he would say, that it abounded with gross misrepresentations. He was sorry to hear the noble Marquess, on a former occasion, cast a sneer upon a most respectable clergyman in his diocess, the reverend Mr. Cleaver. A better man did not exist, and he only wished the noble Marquess to imitate the conduct and follow the example of that clergyman, who gave away among the poor three parts of the income which he derived from his living. Regarding this gentleman and his brother, Mr. Johnes had been guilty of many misrepresentations. Mr. Johnes had also given a list of all the places from which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) derived his income. The description was so minute that a stranger must suppose it true, for he summed up all the items by saying, "Total amount of the revenues of the Bishop, 9,2671. a-year." So minute were the items, that any person reading them must suppose that Mr. Johnes had had access to the books of his receiver. He could only say, that he wished very much that his income was such as Mr. Johnes had described it to be. Their Lordships would see, that Mr. Johnes's statement was a gross misrepresentation when they had before them the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Mr. Johnes had published another letter in the papers of that morning, in which he said "I will not believe that the right reverend Prelate would charge me with wilful falsehood on light grounds." He asked their Lordships whether they were to be called to account in consequence of paragraphs in newspapers. He could not retract what he had on a former evening said; on the contrary, he felt it to be his duty to persist in asserting that the book written by Mr. Johnes contained very gross misrepresentations, and statements that were untrue.

The Marquess of Westminster said, that after the very pointed manner in which he had been alluded to, it was impossible for him to refrain from troubling their Lordships with a few observations. He regretted that the right reverend Prelate should have made the remarks which he had done, for as he (the Marquess of Westminster) had observed upon a former evening, they were made upon a person who had not the advantage of being entitled to answer them. The right reverend Prelate now accused Mr. Johnes of not having stated some

matters correctly with regard to the trustees of a certain property. It was possible that Mr. Johnes might not be correct as to the exact manner in which the revenues in question were distributed, but there seemed little doubt, that he was correct as to the revenues themselves. It was somewhat hard on the gentleman to be thus attacked when the substance of his statement appeared to be well founded. The right reverend Prelate had made serious charges against this gentleman on a former occasion, and he now tried to bolster them up by bringing forward fresh charges. The right reverend Prelate said, that he had evidence that Mr. Johnes's statements were untrue, and he referred to a letter which he said was written by a most respectable gentleman to prove them to be so. That brought the matter round to the question, which he had before urged to the House, namely, that they should probe the subject to the bottom, and for that reason he should be glad to call the persons who could give them information to the bar of the House. The petition which the right reverend Prelate before referred to, as presented in the other House of Parliament, did not mention him, but the right reverend Prelate had chosen to take it to himself, and to direct his remarks to it, and to attack the person who had presented it. The statement which had subsequently been published in a morning paper, seemed to him to be a triumphant answer to the right reverend Prelate; but then the right reverend Prelate said, that the publication of that statement was a breach of their Lordships' privileges. If it was so, the printer might, by the rules of the House, be called to the Bar, and he should, in one respect, be glad to see that done-namely, if it would afford an opportunity of proving the truth of the statement. As to the matter of privilege, however, the Orders of the House were daily more infringed by the attendance of persons to take notes of what passed, and to publish them, and still more again by the remarks made on the speeches delivered there; but the custom of calling people to the Bar for these things was now pretty well discontinued, and he must say that it seemed to him a custom "more honoured in the breach than the observance."

JURIES (IRELAND).] Lord Plunkett moved the second reading of the Juries (Ireland) Bill.

Lord Carbery could not let this Bill pass

without making some observations upon it, and declaring that he was strongly opposed to the measure. It professed to be a bill for the consolidation of the law for the summoning of Juries in Ireland. A more important subject could not detain their Lordships' attention. In his opinion it had been hastily introduced, and without any sufficient necessity. It ought to be founded upon the opinion of the Judges, and the defects of the present system ought to be distinctly pointed out before there was any attempt made to change it. In his opinion the whole intended effect of the Bill was to be found in the first clause, by which men who held a freehold of 101. a-year value or were leaseholders to the amount of 157., were to be put upon the Jury list. Why many of these persons could not read the issue they would have to try, and many of them were even ignorant of the English language, yet their names were to be put into the book, and the Judges would have no power of objecting to them. If this Bill were to pass into a law, he was convinced that there would be an end of justice, and of the security of the subject. The law would be liable to be abused by a bad or a corrupt Sheriff. He was confident that if the question were put to the Judges of Ireland, whether it was necessary that any change should be made in the law relating to the selection of Jurors, the majority of them would be against the change, and so would the majority of the eminent men at the bar. Instead of an improvement, he was confident that a more dangerous mode of obtaining Jurors had never been introduced. He opposed this Bill, because he was interested in the welfare of Ireland, which he was sure would be injuriously affected by it.

The Earl of Wicklow thought it would be better to continue the present system than to adopt that which was now proposed. It was a curious fact, but it was perfectly true, that among the institutions of Ireland, that which stood pre-eminently forward for its good working was the Jury system. It was said, that the Jury system of the two countries should be assimilated. Noble Lords opposite would better exercise their talents and patriotism if they were to attempt to assimilate the habits of the people and the condition of the two countries, than their system of Jury Laws. If they could do that, then they might come with some degree of plausibility to Parliament, and ask for a law to assimilate the Jury systems of the two countries. If

him an opportunity of correcting the error into which the right reverend Prelate had fallen.

The Bishop of St. Asaph regretted extremely that he had been prevented by indisposition from attending in his place yesterday evening; but he must add, that if the noble Marquess had had the courtesy to inform him that he was going to present a petition connected with so humble an individual as himself, he would, notwithstanding his indisposition, have made a point of attending in his place in that House. He thanked the noble baron for having given him an opportunity upon this occasion of answering, not only what he (Lord King) had just said, but also the assertion that he had on a former night made an unfounded statement. He had not quoted at all from the pamphlet to which the noble Baron had referred-he had read from a paper (which he believed to be good authority, as it came from a highly respectable clergyman in his dioces) a statement to this effect-that there had appeared in a certain pamphlet, in one passage, that Christ Church Oxford received 4,700l. a-year, and in another that it received 4,500l. a-year for tithes from various parishes in Wales. Now, it appeared that the fact was, that the whole value of the tithes of the parishes in question was only 2,000l. a-year, and that of this sum only 500l. a-year was paid to Christ Church, Oxford. And, such being the case, was not the author guilty of a misrepresentation? In the parish of Llandudno the author had said, that the tithes were 250l., and that the curate received only 681. a-year. Now, it was true, that the author never said that Archdeacon Jones, to whom the living belonged, received all the tithes, but he had left that fact to be supposed by all his readers. The petition which was presented yesterday came from the same quarter as those which had been presented on a former occasion. Mr. Johnes was in London, as many of their Lordships were already aware: for he had written to the editor of a newspaper a letter contradicting the statements which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had made in that House, and had requested the editor to publish that letter along with his report of the proceedings in that House. That was a gross breach of privilege, but certainly not worth the notice of their Lordships. He understood that Mr. Johnes had lost considerably by the publication of

ing petitions in order to get a sale for it in that manner. He would not say, that that pamphlet abounded with falsehoods, but he would say, that it abounded with gross misrepresentations. He was sorry to hear the noble Marquess, on a former occasion, cast a sneer upon a most respectable clergyman in his diocess, the reverend Mr. Cleaver. A better man did not exist, and he only wished the noble Marquess to imitate the conduct and follow the example of that clergyman, who gave away among the poor three parts of the income which he derived from his living. Regarding this gentleman and his brother, Mr. Johnes had been guilty of many misrepresentations. Mr. Johnes had also given a list of all the places from which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) derived his income. The description was so minute that a stranger must suppose it true, for he summed up all the items by saying, "Total amount of the revenues of the Bishop, 9,2671. a-year." So minute were the items, that any person reading them must suppose that Mr. Johnes had had access to the books of his receiver. He could only say, that he wished very much that his income was such as Mr, Johnes had described it to be. Their Lordships would see, that Mr. Johnes's statement was a gross misrepresentation when they had before them the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Mr. Johnes had published another letter in the papers of that morning, in which he said "I will not believe that the right reverend Prelate would charge me with wilful falsehood on light grounds." He asked their Lordships whether they were to be called to account in consequence of paragraphs in newspapers. He could not retract what he had on a former evening said; on the contrary, he felt it to be his duty to persist in asserting that the book written by Mr. Johnes contained very gross misrepresentations, and statements that were untrue.

The Marquess of Westminster said, that after the very pointed manner in which he had been alluded to, it was impossible for him to refrain from troubling their Lordships with a few observations. He regretted that the right reverend Prelate should have made the remarks which he had done, for as he (the Marquess of Westminster) had observed upon a former evening, they were made upon a person who had not the advantage of being entitled to answer them. The right reverend Prelate now accused Mr. Johnes of not having stated some