should be the first to impress upon the conversation; but he wished to remark people their duty to obey the law, should that, whatever were the causes of the hold out to the people that their crimes recent lamentable acts of murder and are to be excused in any way on account agrarian outrage in Ireland, there could of the condition of the land question. I be but one feeling among the Members of have risen, on this occasion, to protest that House in regard to them-that of abagainst the doctrine that we are to be horrence of the crime and the desire that grateful to those who issue such documents, additional security might be afforded to for preserving the peace of the country. life and property. The hon. Gentleman I cannot at all agree in the attack that has who had just spoken had correctly declared been made on the Irish portion of the Ad- that it was the duty of the Government to ministration. It has been stated that my take measures for that purpose. The Goright hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for vernment had done, and were doing, all in Ireland said in his place in this House their power; and he was not aware how that there was no distress in Ireland. Sir, they could take any further measures withI was present on each occasion when the out proposing some special legislation, subject was under discussion, and I can conferring extraordinary powers, which state positively that he never said any such they did not think it their duty to do. thing. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Hear, hear.] The police were actively employed in enThe right hon. Baronet stated that the ac- deavouring to detect the perpetrators of counts of the distress had been greatly ex- crime, and their exertions had been ataggerated; and if it be necessary to bring tended in many cases with prompt success. forward proofs that that statement is a A Special Commission had been issued for correct one, I am prepared to do so. I do the speedy trial of prisoners, where the not intend to make any observations with Government had reason to think a convicrespect to the speech of the hon. Gentle- tion could be reasonably hoped for. The man the Member for Dungarvan. It may right hon. and learned Member for the be, as he stated, that the documents to University of Dublin had recently pressed which he referred should be produced; but the Government to issue a Special ComI certainly think, that if the production of mission. [Mr. WHITESIDE expressed disthem is at all calculated to do harm to in- sent.] At all events, the right hon. dividuals, or to be attended with any other Gentleman had asked whether the Gobad consequences, they ought not to be laid vernment were going to issue a Special on the table of the House. In the present Commission. His (Sir George Grey's) state of the country I do not think it is fair reply was, that such a question was premaor reasonable for hon. Members to come ture, and that it would depend upon the eviforward on every occasion, and ask her Ma- dence which the Law Officers of the Crown jesty's Government to produce documents, were able to collect. If that evidence which, if produced, might be attended with were sufficient to justify the Government dangerous consequences to individuals. I in placing the persons apprehended on do not say that it is so on the present oc- their trial, he stated that a Special Comcasion, but I say that her Majesty's Go- mission would be issued on the earliest opvernment ought not to be attacked for not portunity. It was gratifying to the Goproducing documents when no sufficient rea- vernment to hear from the noble Lord the son is given for producing them. I wish to Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) say so much with respect to the observa- that the Italian policy of the Ministry had tions made by hon. Members, and I cannot nothing to do with their supposed unpopuhelp again expressing regret that these larity in Ireland; and that the great body matters should be so frequently dragged of the Roman Catholic laity as fully sympaforward, and that remedies so ineffectual thized with the people of Italy in their and so unsuitable should be proposed. struggle for freedom, as did the great body of the people of England and Scotland, and to find that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) had not denied that statement. He was glad to learn, on such good authority, that there was such a generous feeling of sym pathy for the Italians among the people of Ireland. The noble Lord, however, complained that the local magistracy in. LORD FERMOY wished to explain that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood what he had said about the police in Ireland. He had found fault with the Government for putting the police over the heads of the local magistracy, but that was not the fault of the police. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he did not wish to prolong this somewhat desultory Ireland had been supplanted by the tranquillity was to be restored on the terms police magistracy. The statement was mentioned by the hon. and learned Baroincorrect. The police magistracy had net the Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowbeen established many years; they were yer), namely, a repeal of the Ecclesiastical under the direct orders of the Govern- Titles Act, and the placing of the Roman ment; they were bound to obey the direc- Catholic clergy of Ireland on the same foottions they received from them for the re- ing as the Roman Catholic clergy of Canada, pression of crime, and to report to them he asked the right hon. Gentleman, Was the condition of the districts in respect to he prepared to go that length? But it was crime. He had, however, never heard not the existence of one Government or that the local magistracy were prevented another that caused these murders. The from assisting the police magistrates in the extravagant idea which existed in the discharge of their duty; and he knew that minds of a portion of the Irish people in many cases they had rendered useful with respect to the rights of tenants holdassistance. He had heard with great ing land was-he would not say the cause astonishment the statement made by the of all these crimes, but to some degree noble Lord, that the conduct of the Roman connected with them, and at all events Catholic priesthood of Ireland had been they were irrespective of the religion of influenced by a speech made by his right the victims; for in the majority of inhon. Friend the Chief Secretary at Derry. stances lately the sufferers were Roman It was, he believed, most unjust to them Catholics. The last thing the House to say that any speech would produce such would sanction wolud be a change in an effect. He need not say that there the law giving to the tenants fixity of was no intention whatever in that speech tenure, and possession of the land irreto insult any Roman Catholic prelato or spective of the rights of the landlords. priest; and even if there had been, he Those rights should be exercised with could not think it would induce the judgment, moderation, and justice, and he Roman Catholic priesthood to look on trusted that in the majority of cases they with indifference, and not do their utmost were so exercised; but nothing could justo check that system of assassination tify the acts which had been committed. and murder, which was a disgrace to a The Government had taken all the means country with any degree of civiliza- in their power for the apprehension and tion. His noble Friend (Lord Fer- bringing to justice of the offenders, and he moy) then spoke of the land question, hoped the result would show that the law which he said was one great cause of dis- was strong enough to repress crime without order in Ireland; and that the people of the necessity for applying to Parliament Ireland had been grievously disappointed for extraordinary powers. by the rejection of measures introduced in reference to that question. It was true that during the last few years independent Members of the House had laid on the table of the House measures with respect to the tenure of land involving principles which the Government could never sanction. Nothing could be more mischievous, or more likely to perpetuate the present state of things in Ireland, than leading the people to entertain false expectations with respect to the land question. He hoped that no such notions would arise, and that no portion of the people of Ireland would suppose, that by a system of disgraceful and cowardly assassination they would force the Government to adopt a particular course of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin seemed to think that the present unhappy condition of affairs would be remedied by his return to the office of Attorney General, which he so efficiently filled; but if MR. WHITESIDE said, that what he had asked was, Whether the Special Commission was about to be issued on the eve of the assizes? COLONEL FRENCH said, he should not have risen but for the statement of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), that the people of Ireland were naturally inclined to screen murderers. To that statement he gave the most strenuous denial. There might be a semblance of a desire to screen offenders against the law; but it was the consequence of the state of fear in which they lived. There was no protection for any man. They were ruled by an old and effete stipendiary magistracy and a military police, and they felt that the Government did not give them the protection to which they were entitled. The Government would only receive reports of the state of the country from the stipendiary magistrates. This, and all the Governments before it, had re fused to put any trust in the people. If the Catholic Church and the Catholic clergy the people were properly treated, they generally, which they believed to be a fixed were ready and willing to protect them-policy of the Government, and which had selves and their families, and to put down given occasion for general discontent. aggressors against the law with a strong hand. Some years ago several murders were committed in the county of Roscommon; the people formed themselves into a body for the protection of the part of the county threatened, and patrolled the district without the assistance of the police every night. He had himself done so every night for six weeks. The whole thing was crushed out, and nothing like it had occurred from that day. If the Government could be persuaded to understand and trust the Irish people, such complaints as they had heard to-night would not continue to be made. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he was glad to hear from the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, that a large body of Roman Catholic opinion sympathized with the policy which had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and that there was a wide-spread sympathy amongst them for their co-religionists in Italy in their efforts to acquire that freedom to which they had proved themselves so fully entitled. The remarkable fact which had been admitted during the debate which had taken place, was that several of the persons who had recently been murdered in Ireland were Roman Catholics. Coupling these two facts, and remembering the spirit which animated the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), and the fact that he represented the opinions and purposes of the Ultramontane and dominant party of ecclesiastical Rome, it must be quite apparent to the House, that there were in Ireland persons at the head of the Roman Catholic hierarchy who wished to force on the Roman Catholics of Ireland claims on their part and submission on the part of others to which many Irish Roman Catholics were as adverse as the Italians were to the temporal power of the Pope. And it was a remarkable fact, that in speaking on the subject of these murders, the hon. Baronet should stipulate that certain concessions should be made to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, in order to induce them to exercise their influence to mitigate those atrocious evils. [Sir G. BowYER: No, No!] He (Mr. Newdegate) was speaking in the recollection of the House of what had become manifest during the debate. The hon. Baronet said plainly that these Roman Catholic bishops-he (Mr. Newdegate) rather believed that he might more properly have said that the Legate Dr. Cullen-claimed to exercise in Ireland an authority higher than that of the Imperial Legislature; the impresLORD FERMOY explained, that he did sion on the mind of the hon. Baronet not attribute to the Roman Catholic clergy evidently being, that this high authority that they were accessory to these horrible would not be exercised for the preservation crimes. In his argument he had en- of life and property unless Parliament sucdeavoured to account for the very wide-cumbed to that which the hon. Baronet spread disloyalty to the law which existed described, and claimed should be considered, in Ireland; and he said that one of the as a higher authority in matters temporal reasons for it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pursued a particular policy with respect to the heads of MR. COGAN believed, that the drift of one of the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) had been misunderstood, for he was understood to intimate that the only effectual method of detecting and arresting crime was through the agency of the Roman Catholic clergy, and that they had abstained from interfering in consequence of some foolish speech which had been made by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary. He altogether repudiated such an argument. He was quite sure that no speech could tend to relax the efforts of the Roman Catholic clergy to repress crime, and that they would not be influenced in the performance of their duty by any act of the Government or their representative. The efforts of Parliament ought to be directed towards strengthening the hands of the Government in their efforts to remove the stigma which now rested on Ireland; and he believed that the law officers of the Crown would not have advised the issue of a Special Commission if they had not sufficient reasons for believing that they had sufficient evidence to ensure convictions, because, if convictions did not follow, the step which had been taken would be productive of evil rather than good. than the Imperial Parliament! ["No, No!"] The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy) had shown that that high authority claimed, not only to interfere with matters of etiquette, such as the assumption of Episcopal titles forbidden by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but also with the social and temporal interests involved in the relations of landlord and tenant; and when the House remembered that these outrages were agrarian outrages, and coupled this fact with the declaration which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dungarvan, he thought that every honest-hearted and loyal Roman Catholic in Ireland, and he was sure that every faithful Protestant in England, would feel it his duty to support the Government in whatever measures they might think necessary for the preservation of life in Ireland, and in arresting the intrusion of the temporal authority of the Papacy on such terms into the sister country. ROYAL WARRANTS.-QUESTION. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH, referring to an expression of the Secretary of State for War in answering the question as to Colonel Bentinck's retirement, wished to know, Whether the Crown had the power of dispensing with the provisions of a Royal Warrant? because he had always deemed the Royal warrants to express the laws of the army. SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, the government of the army was subject to two authorities-one was the authority of Acts of Parliament, and the other the authority of the executive Government, as expressed by warrants under the sign manual. The Government, equally with the Crown, were bound to carry out the provisions of an Act of Parliament; but there was a certain discretionary power in giving effect to warrants. The regulations made from time to time by Royal warrants were generally carried into effect; but it was clearly competent for the Crown, by whom those warrants were issued, to make individual exceptions to the rules and regulations which they contained. In this casc the Crown had been pleased to do a single act which, unquestionably, was not provided for by the warrant to which reference had been made; but he apprehended there was no doubt of the legal power of the Crown to do it. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH wished to know who was responsible. SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, the Secretary of State was responsible to Parliament. CHANGE OF NAME WITHOUT ROYAL LICENCE. QUESTION. MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I wish to explain the circumstances under which the notice on the paper which stands in my name was given. It appears there is a young gentleman in Wales of the name of Jones. This young gentleman was lately seized with a desire to change his name, for which a variety of motives might be suggested. Probably the sort of reputa. tion which Brown, Jones, and Robinson have obtained conduced to that wish on his part. He assumed the more aristocratic name of Herbert, and, under legal advice, made it public to all the world by advertising that he had taken this step. Like a great many other gentlemen in this country, he was exceedingly anxious to pay his respects to his Sovereign; but was informed that he could not do so, because he had changed his name without Royal licence. Like the rest of his countrymen, he was desirous of giving his aid to the protection of his country, and of joining the militia; but Lord Llanover, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, informed him that he could not have a commission in the name of Herbert, because his name was Jones. There still remained that honourable course of usefulness which belongs to our English country gentlemen, and he wished to have his name put on the commission of the peace. The Lord Lieutenant, however, declined to apply to the Lord Chancellor to insert his name in the commission, for the same reason which I have just mentioned. It has been said that the Home Secretary used his high authority to assist the Lord Lieutenant in preventing this young gentleman, in these three separate instances, from indulging his very proper desires as a country gentleman. I hope that is not the case, as I should be sorry to see the power of the Secretary of State used for the purpose of personal spite, or of aiding any body of public functionaries in obtaining fees for useless forms. I lay it down as a rule of law that every man in this country has When I look around me in this place, I observe many persons who have, I know, changed their names, and have had that the right to take what name he pleases, Chamberlain of the type of Polonius or a Court and I will quote my authorities for that fool." assertion. The following have been the decisions of eminent Judges of courts of law respecting the change of surnames :"That any person may take any surname, and the law recognizes the new names when assumed publicly and bona fide."-Chief Justice Tindal (1 Bingham, N. C. 618, &c.) 66 That no Act of Parliament, or Royal licence, is needed in order to sanction a change of name, unless a new name is directed by a donor of land, or money, to be assumed by the donce, with such or some other particular sanction, and subject to the forfeiture of the donation if the name should not be assumed in the manner directed by the terms of such conditional donation."-Lord Chief Justice Tenterden (5 Barnwell and Alderson, 555, &c.) Lord Tenterden's words are these "A name assumed by the voluntary act of a young man at his outset into life, adopted by all who know him, and by which he is constantly called, becomes, for all purposes that occur to my mind, as much and effectually his name as if he had obtained an Act of Parliament to confer it upon him." "That when a name is assumed by Royal licence it is so assumed by the act of the person taking the name, and the name is not conferred by the licence."-Lord Chancellor Eldon (15 Vesey's, R. 100). 66 That the effect of a Royal licence is merely to give publicity or notoriety to the change of name."-Chief Justice Tindal, &c. (1 Bingham, N.C. 618). "That when, by any Act of Parliament, Judges have the control of a particular roll of names, they will, on change of name, direct the new name to be added to the roll, though such name has been assumed without a Royal licence, and by the mere act of the person whose name is on the roll."-Chief Baron Pollock, &c. (22 Law Times, 123). This was the case of an attorney who, having changed his name without Royal licence, applied to the Court to have his name altered accordingly on the roll of attorneys, and had his claim allowed. The following opinions have also been given: All "There is no special law governing surnames. To establish or recognise an aristocracy of names -of names licensed by the Crown in opposition to names assumed without such a licence-would be a folly of the most contemptible kind. persons, of all degrees, may change their surnames when they please. Asking for the licence of the Crown to change a name is a modern practice. It is a voluntary intrusion, which is simply to be well paid for." "It has been said that persons are not received at Court if their names are changed without a Royal licence. There is nothing to sustain this opinion. All public functionaries are obedient to the law, and no public officer connected with the Court would assume to establish or to suggest a rule contradictory of what the Judges have declared to be the law, unless he were a Lord change recognised and admitted by the House. It is therefore a principle which is recognised both by the courts of law and the House of Commons. It happens, I believe, that Mr. Jones, of Clytha, has a cousin of an elder branch, who married the daughter of Lord Llanover, and thereupon changed his name to Herbert, in the belief that it was a name which the clan Jones might properly assume. When this took place, it is said that Lord Llanover wrote to Mr. Sidney Herbert, asking whether he had any objection to it. Mr. Sidney Herbert's reply was, that— "He could oppose no impediment to the assumption of his family name, but that he hoped it was not the intention of all persons of the name of Jones in Wales to become Herberts." Lord Llanover supposed, I presume, that same aristocratic name which had been |