rose to present a petition from Messrs. Moon and Lonie, the owners of a vessel called the Rosamond which had been engaged in the coal trade, and had been run down by his majesty's frigate Sapphire. In bringing the matter forward the noble lord disclaimed any intention to throw blame upon any of the right hon. gentlemen opposite. The man at the helm was ordered to pat the helm a starboard; but he mistook the order, and the result was, that the frigate came into collision. The crew of the collier were blamed for mismanagement; but they were in reality innocent. The proprietors of the collier applied to the lords of the Admiralty for compensation, but received none. They then instituted legal proceedings to recover damages, but lord Tenterden directed a verdict against them, on the ground, that the commanding officers, having given correct orders on the occasion were not responsible for the helmsman's mistake.

said, that the principle on which the Admiralty refused compensation, was, that they possessed no power to give away the public money for such purpose. When the Admiralty saw that the commanders of king's ships caused injury to other vessels by mismanagement, they obliged them to make good the repairs, or give a compensation to the, injured parties. In the present case, the officers of the frigate had given generally proper orders; but the damage to the collier had arisen from the mutual collision caused by a mutual error. For that reason the Admiralty would give none of the public money, but let the applicants resort to a court of law for compensation. The proprietors of the collier had demanded 2,000l. as the value of the vessel and amount of the damage while the carpenter of the frigate, who examined the injury suffered by the collier, declared that, if she had been anchored immediately after the accident, her damages might have been repaired for 150l. This statement was supported, by the evidence of several other persons. Under these circumstances the Admiralty could have given no compensation.

said, that the ship owners had brought this case before parliament on public grounds. The petitioners' case had been proved only by the pilot of the frigate, and such a person was not likely to be an impartial witness; yet it appeared from him, that the frigate was in a situation in which she could have altered her course, but the collier could not, and that the accident arose from the helmsman's mistake on board the frigate in disobeying orders. This was a just ground for giving compensation to the proprietors of the collier for their loss. Own less a recompense was given in such cases to the injured, the good understanding between the king's ships and the merchant's service could not continue.

said, that, if the defendants had gone into their case on the trial they could have clearly proved the propriety of their conduct on the occasion.

said, he had acted on the trial for the plaintiffs. The case had been decided against the plaintiffs on a point of law: in had become, therefore, unnecessary for them to produce additional evidence.

said, it was a matter of much importance to the mercantile interest that merchant vessels should not be subject to suffer damage from king's ships without any means of redress. What he complained of was, that, by the law of the land, the owners of the mercantile navy were liable to suffer any loss in that way, without any means being offered of procuring compensation. It was useless to go into a court of law; for the captain or lieutenant of a king's ship was not responsible for the damage. He thought the government ought not be placed in a better situation than the owner of a trading vessel.

said, that in cases of this nature the principle of law that the master was responsible for the acts of his servant ought to be applied, and that government should pay the damage occasioned by its officers.

said, that government ought not to have any privileges which were not possessed by the ship-owners in general.

said, that private parties had no remedy when their vessels received damage from men of war, it was a most serious evil to the shipping-interest of the country.

said, it appeared as extraordinary as unjust, that the owners of a vessel run down by a king's ship, intentionally or otherwise, should be left without any remedy for the injury.

said, there was nothing to prevent the owners of vessels from obtaining redress, if their vessels were run down by king's ships. When it appeared that the king's officer had been the cause of the injury, the Admiralty always made compensation. In the case under consideration, the parties should have brought their action against the helmsman. He was the king's servant, and if it had been made apparent that he had occasioned the damage, the government (he being unable) would have paid that damage. If a clear case be brought before the Admiralty, they at once offer compensation. If the case be doubtful, the parties were told to apply to a court of law.

said, that if the practice of the Admiralty was of the nature represented by the hon. baronet, it seemed to be all that could be desired.

said, that honourable members were in error in supposing that either in point of law or fact there was any difference between a king's ship and a merchant vessel, in a case of this description. If the king's officer were in fault, the Admiralty compelled him to defend the action at his own cost and to pay the damage. If, however, it should appear that the fault was unavoidable, the Admirably then paid the damage for the officer.

was of opinion, that, upon the shewing of the gallant admiral that the king's ship committed the first error, the owners of the collier were entitled to damages.

wished to know whether the petitioners were to understand, that if they, in another action, got a verdict against any party in the ship as having caused the accident, the Admiralty would pay the damage. For if that were so, he thought it would be fair.

said, that was the general principle at the Admiralty.

thought it quite clear, from all that had passed, that the present state of the law was a great hardship to the public, and that government ought to be placed in the same situation as private individuals, when king's ships happened to do an injury to other vessels.

Ordered to lie on the table.

said, that as the recent alteration of the laws respecting the Roman Catholics was likely to effect so material a change in the state of Ireland, he should rather learn from his noble friend opposite an exposition of his views respecting the prevision for education and other matters in that country, than come before the House himself with any proposition having reference to that subject.

entered fully into the views the hon. member, respecting the expediency of avoiding a discussion upon that subject at that time. Under all circumstances, it could not but be obvious that much inconvenience would arise from provoking debate there or out of doors, with out something like a matured plan.

hoped, that whatever arrangement was made for the distribution of the money that was granted for the promotion of education in Ireland, government would consolidate the system; by which means the salaries, which how consumed so much, would be materially reduced. With respect to the distribution of bibles and prayer-books; by this time two must have been distributed for every one man that Ireland contained. He therefore felt assured, that the grant in that respect was not applied, to the use which the House had sanctioned.

said, he must enter his protest against the report of the Education committee of last year, and was sorry that the noble lord was pledged to support the resolutions of that committee; especially as one of its recontaminations was to discontinue the use of the Bible. He himself was satisfied with the progress of education in Ireland; and the more so; as the Roman Catholic bishops had petitioned against the distribution of Bibles, as sanctioned by that House. They appeared quite shocked at the idea of the general circulation of the Scriptures in Ireland; but that was the very reason why the course should be persisted in.

, that any imperfect discussion like the present was to be deprecated. If the House was resolved to wait for the statement of the noble lord until next session, why should they now enter into a fifty-ninth part of a discussion on the subject? The hon. member for Dover had said, that the basis of the plan recommended by the committee was formed on the exclusion of the Bible as a book of education. This he begged most distinctly to deny; and he might add, that even the Roman Catholic bishops had expressed themselves willing to have the Bible used as a book of education.

said, he would seriously ask, whether it would be wise, a great change having lately taken place in the civil polity of Ireland, to follow up that change by laying down immediately a general plan of education, without first waiting to see what were the consequences of that change? But, if that course were unwise, it would be still more so to discuss what could not be settled that session. He had not understood his noble friend to have given any opinion on the subject, and he trusted that he would, for the present, refrain from doing so. His advice to the House was, to take the votes this year as they stood; on the understanding that they pledged no one to any specific opinion on the question of education in Ireland.

said, he was opposed to the report of the committee; but he thought that it would be better for Ireland, and for the empire at large, not to enter upon any partial discussion of the question.

The vote was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 8,928l. be granted to defray the expense of the Roman Catholic seminary at Maynooth, for the year 1829,"

said, he felt it necessary to protest against the grant. He thought that it would operate in direct opposition to the principles upon which the Catholic Relief Bill had been granted; since, instead of keeping the Protestant state and the Catholic church distinct from each other, it would produce an amalgamation of both, which could hot fail to be injurious to the Protestant part of the community. The Secretary of State for the Home department, had declared, when the Relief bill was proposed, that the object of government was to prevent any collision between the state and the Catholic church; but it this grant were allowed, that principle of the bill would be at once infringed upon; since the proposed grant was nothing more of less than a grant from the state for the support of a Catholic establishment. Another principle of the Relief bill was to produce conciliation; but, if this grant were allowed, that object would not be obtained, for it would create an excess of excitation in every part of the kingdom. By such a grant we were giving money for the dissemination of principles which every member of that House, hp was sure, must deprecate. Upon these grounds he should oppose the grant. On every future occasion on which such against might be proposed he should enter his most solemn protest against it. My feeling up by the subject, (continued the noodle lord) is this, that if ministers willfully persist in making this grant against their own principles, and against the law of God, they will draw down upon themselves and upon the whole kingdom the immediate wrath of Almighty God.

disapproved also of a vote to increase the power of the Catholic priesthood, and declared his determination never to give it his assent hereafter; although, under the peculiar circumstances, he should on this occasion support the government.

entirely concurred in the sentiments which the noble lord had expressed upon this subject. He trusted that the government would not further identify the church of Rome with the Protestant establishment. He could not under stand upon what principle it was that they proposed to pay a man for teaching that, in the flame of God, which they did not believe themselves. He believed the church of Rome to be a gross errors—he would use no harsher term—and he should therefore oppose the present grant.

thanked the noble lord for the able manner in which he had stated his objections to the vote. In those objections he entirely coincided. Government, by the course which they pursued, were introducing a system for the encouragement and protection of beings who were little better than devils incarnate.

thought it would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Irish government to deal with the question of education in that country. He deprecated the partial manner in which the question had been discussed. For his own part, he believed that the grant might be made without any danger to the Protestant church.

said, he had five times protested against this grant, and he now did it for the sixth time, and would back his protest with his vote. He considered this an unchristian grant, and should look upon it as a disgrace to the House, if it granted a sum to support persons whose professed object was, to teach the Roman Catholic tenets with all their errors.

said, he would vote against any grant that went to encourage the dissemination of Popish principles. He could not see why the Catholics should be thus favoured above all other dissenters. There was a large sum given to educate Catholic priests and that in the very teeth of the law. The reason formerly assigned for this grant was that the Catho- lic clergy could be no longer educated on the continent; but that was not the case now. He saw no reason, therefore, why this establishment, which fostered blasphemy and idolatry, should cost us so large an annual sum.

said, that, whatever might be the objections of hon. members to the grant, he thought they would acquiesce in it on the ground of its justice. Under the sanction of the past proceedings of parliament, the government of Ireland called upon the individuals presiding in that college to furnish an estimate of the expenses for the ensuing year; which pledged the government, in a manner, to the present vote. It should be remembered, that the grant, which was originally proposed in 1795, had been continued ever since by various governments, as much interested in the maintenance of Protestant ascendancy, as any individual who now objected to the vote. Mr. Pitt had sanctioned it: and, in 1807, Mr. Perceval, finding the grant already established, did not think it wrong to continue it. Gentlemen had offered to withdraw their opposition if government pledged itself to discontinue the vote in future. That pledge he could not give.

said, he knew it to be the private opinion of lord Liverpool, that this was the most unchristian grant that a Christian country could make.

, denied, that there was any injustice in objecting to this grant. The Catholics had themselves said, that they preferred having their clergymen educated abroad to having them educated at Maynooth.

wished to enter his protest against being bound by any previous acts of the Irish government to continue this grant. If this were to be the case, the thing must go on for ever. He now gave notice, that he should oppose next year any further grant for this purpose.

thought, that no new pupils should be admitted into Maynooth in future. If this course were adopted, the establishment might be allowed to dwindle away.

said, he was not disposed to withhold the proposed grant this year. He, however, conceived it to objectionable one. In voting for it, he thought it right to give fair warning, that if a similar grant should be proposed next year, it would be opposed.

said, that if the grant was proposed next year, it must be entirely upon the responsibility of minister; and honourable members would, of course, act according to their own judgments upon it.

The House divided: For the Motion 118; Against it 14; Majority 104.

proposed an amendment, to the effect, that the bill should only apply to such persons as accepted Offices of Profit under the East-India Company, with respect to which the Crown might exercise its approbation or veto. He also proposed that the bill should have no retrospective effect.

said, he had no great objection to the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, but was anxious that the bill should have a retrospective effect.

thought the hon. member ought, in consistency, to extend the operation of his bill to persons accepting any, office abroad. He was inclined to vote in favour of the amendment.

supported the bill, because it had a retrospective effect, but suggested, that the bill should contain a provision, making such persons as accepted offices in India eligible to be re-elected, if their constituents thought proper to choose them.

expressed his concurrence in the amendment but doubted whether the principle of the 6th of Anne ought not to apply to the present case; so as to make such offices as were specified in the bill, not tenable by members of parliament. He thought it would be a dangerous precedent to allow the bill to have a retrospective, effect.

, said, he was impressed with the difficulties which surrounded this case. On the one side, they ought to consider the grievance under which the electors laboured, in consequence of the long absence of Mr. Lushington; while, on the other, the House must see the danger which might attend any measure that would open the door to the taking away seats from member of that House. They could not tell how far the principle might be carried, at times when party feelings happened to run high.

expressed himself hostile to to a bill of this nature. They ought, in correcting the evil complained of, to stand on their own common-law right; on their constitutional privileges, and on the reason of the thing; all of which tended to support the principle, that the first duty of a member of that House was to discharge those functions which, when he was elected, he had covenanted to perform. If, however, a bill of this descriptions were passed, he hoped it would not have retrospective effect.

observed, that it was a very doubtful point, whether the 6th of Anne, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, did not govern this case. The office certainly was a new one, created since the 6th of Anne. That act vacated the seat of any member "who accepted any new office or place whatever under the Crown," and particularly pointed out any person becoming "governor or deputy-governor of any of the plantations."

was of opinion, that thins case came within the meaning of the 6th of Anne, because the office was a new one, created since the passing of that statute; and no person could hold it without receiving the approbation of the Crown.

observed, that as this question involved many points of a delicate and difficult nature, it would be advisable to adjourn its further consideration. A committee of that House ought to be appointed to search the Journals for precedents, and to inquire whether such a case as that of Mr. Lushington came within the provisions of the 6th of Anne.

was not quite clear that the case of Mr. Lushington came within the operation of the 6th of Anne, because the salary of the office was not paid by the Crown, but by the East-India Company. Considering it, however, as a very doubtful case, it would be better to adjourn the further consideration of the subject.

entirely agreed in thinking, that further time should be allowed for the due consideration of a question which involved many constitutional principles. If this case were governed by the 6th of Anne, very serious consequences might result from it. He did not know whether Mr. Lushington had sat and voted in that House after his appointment; but if he had done so, and it were found that the office he had accepted came within the meaning of the 6th of Anne, then he was liable to a penalty of 500l. for every day he had so sat and voted. He was inclined to think that the case did not come under the section of that act, which had been quoted; but certainly it was a subject that ought to be maturely considered.

agreed to postpone the further, consideration of the bill until Monday. If it should be decided that cases of this nature came under the 6th of Anne, a declaratory bill, stating them fact, would answer revere purpose.

The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday. After which, Mr. Baring moved, "That a Select Committed be appointed to search for precedents in respect a members, of this House accepting Offices abroad without vacating their Seats." The motion was agree to.