rose to move the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice, to prevent travelling on this railway on the Sabbath. The petition which he had already presented from Bath on this subject, had been called in question by some hon. Members. In reply to their insinuations, he would say, that it was signed by the Bishop of the diocese, by twenty-one resident clergymen, and by several most respectable inhabitants of Bath. That petition, too, on a former occasion, had been described by hon. Members as preposterous and extraordinary, as if an application to Parliament to sanction the divine law by human enactment, was in any respect deserving of such epithets. He would submit to the consideration of the House, that whatever might be the opinion entertained within those walls on this subject, there was a growing desire out of doors, which was becoming daily more prevalent, to prevent the violations of the Sabbath, by stringent legislative enactments. In justice to the promoters of this Bill, he must say, that they expressed their willingness to insert a clause to prevent travelling on the railway from 11 o'clock till 2 on Sundays, during divine service; but he begged to add, that such a proposition did not meet the views of the gentleman who had proposed this clause, nor did it meet his own view. This was a company investing their capital in an undertaking for the purposes of profit, and when it was recollected that at that moment a Bill was in its passage through the House to prevent Sunday trading, he did not see how they could allow this Bill to pass in its present shape, without raising a cry throughout the country, that they were acting unjustly towards all other classes, whose trading on Sundays would be prohibited. The question, therefore, admitted of no compromise. The object of the clause was to enable the persons employed on the railway to pass their Sundays in a proper manner. There was a great mistake as to the number of persons employed on the railway. On a former occasion, the hon. Member for Carlisle had talked of the number employed on the engine, as consisting of only three persons. But when the House considered that the line of this railway would extend 119 miles, and that several engines would be moving on different parts of it at the same time, it would seem that a great number of persons must be thus employed. It had been also suggested to him, that he should bring in a general legislative enactment on the subject, instead of trying to accomplish his object in this way. His answer was, that he was desirous to feel the pulse of the House, and he begged to assure hon. Members, that should he have a majority on this occasion, he would at a future opportunity bring forward a general measure for preventing all travelling on Sundays. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of the clause—which provided that no engine, or other carriage, should travel on this railway on the Lord's day, and that in case it did, the Company, and their successors, should be liable to die penalty of 20l. for each engine or carriage so travelling, to be recovered in the same manner as other penalties imposed by the said Act.

regretted very much the absence of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) when this clause was under discussion. That right hon. Gentleman had come very opportunely to their assistance the other evening, when they were endeavouring to prevent a restriction of the Sunday, and he was, therefore, very sorry the right hon. Baronet was not present on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman had said, that should he succeed in carrying this clause, he would then introduce a general measure (and so far he certainly would be quite consistent) to prevent Sunday travelling, not only on railroads, but on all roads whatever. [Mr. Miles: "No."] He (Mr. Potter) had undoubtedly so understood the hon. Member. Now, suppose the hon. Member should succeed in carrying such enactments, what would be the effect of them? To compel the inhabitants of large towns to remain within the limits of their towns on Sunday, even in summer, to generate therein nothing but tumult and discontent, and instead of promoting the interests of religion, to give a mortal stab to them. Such, he had no doubt, would be the inevitable consequences of this kind of legislation. The hon. Gentleman proposed to lay a penalty of 20l. on every engine that should travel on this railway on a Sunday, which would, in fact, prevent all Sunday travelling on it. Now, when this railway was finished, it was likely that it would monopolize all travelling on the line, the common roads being totally deserted, so that this clause would, if carried, put an end altogether to travelling on Sundays in the large towns and populous districts through which this railway passed. In the instance of the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, the turnpike-road, for the purposes of travelling, had been entirely forsaken for the railway. That railway was the communication between the town of Manchester, with a population of upwards of 300,000 inhabitants, and the town of Liverpool, with a population of upwards of 200,000 inhabitants, there existing very extensive connexions and relations between the two towns. Suppose, then, the hon. Gentleman's enactment regarding railways passed, in the case he had cited, its effect would fall exclusively on the working and industrious classes, who had no opportunity of going and visiting their friends in those respective towns except on Sundays, but who would, by the Legislature, be denied that enjoyment. Then there were the large towns of Bath and Bristol in the line of the present railway; of course the intercourse, at least between the industrious classes of those towns, would be altogether stopped by such an enactment. He trusted that the House, by its division on this Motion, would in some degree put a stop to these attempts at restriction of the Sabbath, which could do no good, but would be productive of great injury to the real interests of religion. In the instance of another Railway Bill, the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir A. Agnew) attempted to insert a clause similar to this, but the Committee on the Bill defeated the attempt. He hoped the House would deal in the same manner with the present clause. It was well-known that railways would be employed for carrying provisions to large towns. If, therefore, such a measure as this should be adopted, the population of this great metropolis would be deprived of the means of obtaining those supplies of provisions and agricultural produce which, if Sunday travelling on railways were allowed, would arrive to them not only from the neighbouring, but from distant parts, on Mondays and Tuesdays. He would call the attention of the landed gentry to that fact. He was certain, indeed, that any such enactment would be productive of serious injury to the farmer. He would give his most decided opposition to the clause.

said, that if this clause should be carried, the House would, in common consistency and justice, be bound to pass a Bill prohibiting Sunday travelling on all turnpike-roads as well as railways. The hon. Gentleman had acknowledged, that some had described this proposition as preposterous and extraordinary. He felt no hesitation in saying, that it appeared to him to be one of the most preposterous clauses that had ever been brought forward. If the House was determined to restrict the enjoyments of the humbler classes of society on Sundays, let the thing be done openly, and not by a side wind, similar to this clause. He would give his most strenuous opposition to such a side wind and partial species of legislation. As to the country gentlemen, they, generally speaking, did not travel much on Sundays, and he would say, that in the rural districts, the Sunday was at present much better observed by the industrious classes than it had been formerly. Had they a right to deprive those classes of free agency on the Sunday, and thereby to debar them from almost every species of innocent enjoyment? He called on the country gentlemen to resist this attempt, and he trusted the House would render it abortive.

observed, that whatever difference of opinions might exist amongst hon. Members on the subject of legislating with regard to the observance of the Sabbath, there could, he apprehended, be no difference as to the impropriety of legislating in this manner on such a matter. It scarcely required a remark to exemplify the absurdity of inserting a clause like this in a Railway Bill, altogether prohibiting Sunday travelling on that particular railway, whilst several Railway Bills had been already passed with no such prohibition contained in them. Let the House come to a decision on the general principle involved in this matter, and do not let it legislate with regard to individual cases.

observed, that they had been told by the hon. Member who had just sat down, that they should not legislate in this manner, but that they should bring forward some general measure on the subject. Now, should the House reject this clause, and should a general measure be introduced hereafter, would it not be said that the House had in this specific instance decided against the principle of such a measure? He thought, therefore, that the clause should be adopted. If in this case they limited Sunday travelling in accordance with what they believed to be the law of God, the persons promoting this Bill could not complain, as they had applied for it, subject to such restrictions as the House thought fit to impose, and when the general measures should be brought forward, it would be fortified by the adoption of the principle in this particular instance.

said, that if this clause merely went to limit railway travelling on Sundays during the hours of Divine Service, or for a certain period in the day, he might be disposed to assent to it; but as the prohibition extended to the twenty-four hours, he would oppose it; amongst other evil effects, it might prevent people from going to church by railways, where churches or chapels adjoined them.

I shall oppose this clause, because it is intended by it to interfere with the enjoyments of the working and poorer classes, whilst it leaves untouched the recreations of the higher classes. Why should a clause be introduced which is to be made to apply only to poor people? I went a short distance out of town a Sunday or two since, and I will narrate to the House what I saw. On that morning I went first into Piccadilly. At twelve o'clock, the first person I met on horseback was the Duke of Wellington. I went into Hyde Park, and there, while the Church service was going on, I found some poor men watering the ride for the comfort of the refined classes in carriages in the afternoon. A little further on I came to Knightsbridge, and there I found the soldiers exercising, and their officers in arms. I pursued my journey, and crossed Hammersmith Bridge, and there I met the Lord Chief Justice on horseback, taking a ride with his servant in the country. At three o'clock I arrived at Hampton Court, and there I met the right hon. Member for Tamworth. Do I blame any one of those illustrious personages for what they were doing? By no means; I was doing the very same thing that they were doing themselves. They have as much right to travel on Sunday for their health or amusement as I have; and so have the poor. This clause, if inserted in the bill, will principally, if not entirely, affect the poor, as they will be the parties who will travel on this road on a Sunday. It originates in a proud overbearing pharisaical spirit. The plain fact is, we meddle too much with one another. If each individual would take care of his own goodness, instead of being so unnecessarily anxious about the goodness of his neighbour, we should have more virtue in the world, though we might perhaps have a little less of outside show.

was as anxious as any Member of the House could be, to protect the rights and interests, and promote the enjoyment of the poor: and it was precisely for that reason that he should give his support to the clause for preventing the use of the machinery and engines of the great Western Railway on the Sunday. As, however, his motives might be misconstrued, if he merely asserted his opinion without giving the reasons on which it was founded, he should feel it his duty to explain, very shortly, the ground on which he should give his vote. It had been reiterated, on almost every debate on this subject, that it was absurd to attempt to make persons religious by Act of Parliament; and from the cheers with which this assertion had been constantly received, an impression seemed to have got abroad, that this enforcement of the cessation of traffic and labour on the Sunday, originated entirely in a desire to make persons religious against their will. For himself, however, he protested against his being included in the number of such persons, if indeed there were any; and he was not afraid to declare, that, in his view of the case, no religious motives whatever entered at all. It seemed to him, indeed, very questionable, whether any particular observance of the Sabbath could be justly enforced on Scriptural authority. The setting apart of a Sabbath or seventh day of rest, was clearly one of the earliest institutions of society, and was long anterior to the existence of the Mosaic law—as the commandment said, "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day; and the reason given for this institution was, that in six days the great work of creation was completed, and on the seventh the Creator rested; in commemoration of which completion, the seventh day was blessed and hallowed, and devoted to rest for man and beast. The Jewish observance of this day was most rigid and severe—as might be seen by reference to the ritual law upon that subject; and during all the time of the Jewish dispensation, it was the seventh day of the week that was kept holy; and during that day (which commenced at sun-set on the evening preceding the Sabbath, and continued till the sun set on the day itself) no fires could be lighted, or provisions prepared, or journeys undertaken; and it was well known, that in the sieges of Jerusalem, under Titus, the Jews endured the most slaughtering attacks throughout the whole of the Sabbath without even defending themselves from the assault,—so rigid was their observance of that great religious fast. Now no one at the present time pretended that it was right to observe the Jewish day (which is the true Sabbath, commencing on our Friday evening, and ending on our Saturday at sun set) or to observe it in the Jewish manner; and yet if, we took the Old Testament as our authority for any observance at all, this ought to be the case. But every one would remember, that when the Saviour was reproved for having violated the Sabbath of the Jews, by plucking ears of corn and eating them, as he passed, with his Disciples, through a field, he defended his conduct, and illustrated his discourse by showing, that if a man had an ox or a sheep that had fallen into a pit, even on the Sabbath, it was his duty to draw it out, as it was "lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." In short, with the cessation of the ritual law in general, the rigid observance of the Sabbath of the Jews was discontinued; and our Sunday was a day of purely civil institution, and stood on no scriptural authority, as a day of peculiar holiness, at all. After the resurrection of the Saviour from the dead, the first day of the week, on which this great consummation of the Christian scheme of salvation took place, was set apart by the early Christians as a day of religious observance, on which to commemorate, by public festivals of worship and rejoicing, the crowning event of human redemption, by the resurrection of Christ. Our Sunday was therefore a festival of the Christian Church, instituted purely by human authorities of very early date, and founded on joint grounds of a Sabbath of rest originally instituted by the Creator for man and beast, and the subsequent commemoration of that Sabbath as the first instead of the seventh day of the week, because of the resurrection (the most important event and latest seal of Christianity) occurring on that day. As a civil institution, therefore, it had the sanction of very early and high authority; and all experience in every country, and in every age, had shown that it was a wise institution—as such an interval of rest was equally beneficial to man and beast; and its devotion to religious services, contemplation, and study, was advantageous to the best interests of mankind. Still, however, he would contend that any particular observance of the Sabbath was not religion: as, on the one hand, a man might keep it even in the rigorous manner of the Jews, and yet be wholly destitute of religion; while, on the other hand, a man might be truly devout, and conscientiously hold it was lawful even to trade on the Sabbath day, or to 'do good' in any way or form whatever. But it must be clear, that if the observance of one day in seven, as a day of rest, was a wise and useful institution, the only way to make that rest effective, and to bring it within the reach of all classes, and especially of the poor, would be to make it compulsory on all parties to discontinue on that day all those trafficking and laborious occupations which compel the labouring population to work on that day, or to risk the loss of their employment on all the other six. For his own part, he would willingly consent, for the sake of the community at large, to put aside all his own claims to profit or advantage on that day; and he was therefore consistent in advocating a legislative enactment that should prevent all labour and traffic for gain in every class of society. It was not intended to make people religious by Act of Parliament; but merely to enforce, equally on all classes, a cessation of traffic and toil on one day out of seven, in order that every human being, who desired rest on that day, might command it, if he chose, without injury to his interests or any other, which, according to the present system, was impossible; for if any of the engine-men, or others required for the Western Railway, were, on religious scruples or otherwise, desirous of having their day of rest on Sunday, they would be no doubt told that if they would not work on that day they should not be employed on the other days of the week; and they would thus lose their employment altogether.—This was the case with the bakers, butchers, fishmongers, publicans, steam-boat sailors, coachmen, and many others, who had petitioned extensively for some legislative enactment to give them a day of rest, by enforcing a cessation of traffic and labour, equally binding on all classes;—and his firm conviction was, that if the whole population of the country could be polled on this subject, it would be found that the objections to any law for the observance of the Sabbath would be principally among the rich; but that the poor, and especially the very poor, would be found to be largely in favour of a law that would undoubtedly secure to them an enjoyment now often placed beyond their reach. The truth was, that all classes of society in England were overworked: but more especially the poor; and in the same spirit as he had always advocated the shortening the hours of labour for men, women, and children, in the factories in the country—for the same reason he would like to see every shop in the kingdom shut up at six or seven o'clock in the evening, to afford time for recreation, reading, and domestic enjoyment; and for the same reason he should advocate the observance of the Sunday as a day of rest for man and beast. Whatever pleasures could be enjoyed by persons walking in gardens, fields, and in the open air, in those intervals of time which they might think proper to devote to religious worship or to study, he should think lawful and useful to be permitted. But the employment of vehicles and labourers, for hire and gain, whether steam-boats, carriages, railroads, or any other description of public conveyance, could not be necessary as such pleasures were enjoyed long before those conveyances were even in use at all; and in countries where no description of public carriage or vessel existed at present, the population enjoyed themselves in innocent and pleasureable recreations, without any other aid than the use of their own limbs, and independently of any auxiliary assistance whatever, as indeed, our own ancestors, did before us, when a walk to the parish church, of three or four miles, was deemed no hardship to men of eighty, or children of ten; though, now a-days, the delicacy of the race was such as to make it denounced as a hardship, that men of thirty or forty should be obliged to walk a distance of a mile or two to get into the green fields, from any town, on a Sunday, because of the want of public conveyances. There was but one argument more that he would advert to, and with this he would conclude.—At present there was no Question before the House for lessening any of the existing facilities for travelling on the Sunday. The only Question was, whether any new facilities should be afforded by a particular Bill, now about to be passed, for authorizing a railroad from London to Bath. The proprietors of this railway came before the legislature; and, with a view to invest their capital profitably, and to acquire pecuniary gain, (for it was clear that this was the leading motive, and a very fair and honourable one it was of all such proprietors,) they asked for certain powers and privileges which the legislature alone could give them.—Surely, then, in return for such powers and privileges, the House had as good a right to place restrictions on the number of days they should work their engines, as they had to place restrictions on the number of hours which steam engines in factories should be worked, or to place a limit to the amount of their dividends, or a term to the duration of their charter. All these were within their competency; and they might with equal fairness say, we will give you all the privileges and powers you ask, for six days in the week; but as we think the right of the labourer to his day of rest should be preserved, we will restrict you to those six days, and not extend your privileges to the seventh. This was surely not a matter of religion, but of civil regulation. If the object of the clause had been to enforce any particular religious observance, either on Sunday or any other day, he for one would give it his most strenuous opposition; because he considered that freedom of religion was a sacred and solemn right, which no legislature ought ever to be permitted to infringe. The State should have nothing to do with religion, or religious observances, except to see that no one sect or party should hinder or molest any other in the exercise of any religious observance that they thought proper to follow; and that no one should compel another to follow any religious observance of which he did not approve. But the present Question was one merely of cessation of traffic, and rest from toil. He believed that six days in the week were quite sufficient for both, and he would gladly see these six reduced to five, by giving every Wednesday to innocent recreation, and even these five abridged to eight hours each, instead of twelve, as all classes were over worked, and the poorer classes especially; for them, and for their families, he desired to obtain, if possible, more rest, and more enjoyment in every shape, in return for the labour they gave to the community; and for their sakes, if the hon. Member for Somersetshire should press his Motion to a division, however small might be that minority, he would give him the benefit of his vote.

hoped, that the House would not listen to this Motion. If the House chose to legislate upon this subject, let it legislate openly and directly upon it; but let it not fritter away a great principle by legislating on it by a side wind. Why had not the hon. Member introduced a Sabbath Bill prohibiting all travelling on Sunday? In such a Bill he might have included all travelling upon this road, and indeed all walks whatever on a Sunday. The Western Railroad, if this clause were inserted in the Bill, would be stamped with a Sabbath mark, and would be tabooed ground for twenty-four hours in every week. What reason could be urged for shutting up this railroad on a Sunday? Unless you were next door to a church, you could not go to church without traveling; and this railroad, when finished, would give many people who reside along its line facilities for going to church on a Sunday, which they had not at present. He contended that no man who had any sympathy for the comforts of the poor could vote for this clause. The great use of this Bill was to bring the produce of the south of Ireland to the market of London with greater rapidity than could be done at present. Was the meat, the butter, the eggs, the vegetables, and other perishable commodities which might be sent over from Ireland to be tainted and rendered unfit for the market by being unnecessarily delayed twenty-four hours on the road? The free and rapid transmission of such articles from Ireland to London would render them cheaper for the poor. Why were they to be rendered dearer to the poor by the greater expense which those who transmitted them would have to incur by delay upon the road? He concluded by expressing his determination to give his most strenuous opposition to this clause.

supported the clause, for he thought that a special exemption ought to be made in all Bills as to Sunday travelling on railroads.

suggested the propriety of withdrawing this clause. The legislature could not establish one principle for travelling on Sundays on railroads, and another principle for travelling on ordinary roads. If it adopted the principle of prohibiting all travelling upon Sundays on all kinds of roads, it would subject the people to intolerable inconvenience.

supported the clause in a speech of some length, of which not one word was audible in the gallery.

said, that travelling on Sundays was completely prohibited in Scotland, either by mail-coach, stage-coach, omnibus, or any other species of public vehicle. The poor had, therefore, no means of recreation on a Sunday in Scotland. The consequence was, that on that day many of them went unshaven and unshorn, and did not dress either themselves or their children. They lounged in idleness at home during church time, and as soon as church was over went off to the ale-house, to find amusement there, which was denied them elsewhere. He had represented the folly of this system over and over again to the Magistrates of Scotland, in hopes of getting it altered. In his own neighbourhood he had done everything in his power to render the poor free as air, and he had found his reward in their contented looks and smiling faces. The fact was, that the excess of severity led the people to desecrate, and not to keep holy, the Sabbath day. He should oppose the clause.

rose to present a Petition from Thomas White, of Hull, praying the House to declare the election for that borough, of David Carruthers, Esq., to be null and void. The hon. Member said, he presented the petition in pursuance of part of the Resolution of that House, of the date of the 24th of February, by which it was required that all persons complaining of returns to Parliament on the ground of bribery and corruption, should present the petition within twenty-eight days after bribery or corruption was alleged to have taken place, and within fourteen days after the first sitting of Parliament.

said, that as the petition was presented in consequence of one of the Resolutions he had the honour of moving, and as there might arise some doubt as to the construction of that Resolution, he thought it would be best to receive the petition pro formâ now, to order it to be printed, and to consider on the next day of sitting of the House whether it ought to be received.

said, that if there was any doubt as to the time the petition ought to be received, or as to the construction of the Resolution, the propriety of receiving the petition was in his mind very questionable.

The Order of the House referred to, related to the extending of time. Did the right hon. Baronet think the Question ought to be decided now?

thought, that the purport of the Resolution was, that the petition should be presented within a certain time after the day corruption or bribery was alleged to take place. If the petition were not presented to the House within the time specified, it ought not to be received as an election petition.

said, that it was competent in the House to discharge the petition if any irregularity should be found in it.

said, there were two facts to be considered by the House as to the reception of the petition. The first was, the time of the payment of money for corrupt purposes, and the second was, whether since the time of payment more or less than twenty-eight days had elapsed before the petition was presented. The House could decide as to the time of payment of the money.

The petition alleged that the last payment of money was on the 13th of April; but from the 12th of April to the 12th of May the House had not been sitting.

referred to the resolutions of the House, by which it appeared that the petition might be presented any time within twenty-eight days after the corrupt payment had been made; and if the House were not sitting in that interval the Petition was to be presented within fourteen days after the House first met. The question was, then, whether the House was sitting at the expiration of the twenty-eight days; and, secondly, whether it had been now sitting longer than fourteen days?

thought that the petition in this case ought to be presented on the first day of the House sitting after the adjournment. Any other interpretation would be different from that of the original resolution.

thought the construction of the resolution was "fourteen days after the return had been certified to the House."

Yes, that is it. When that day Mr. O'Loughlen was called on the ballot the officer looked to the date of the return. The money, in this case, was alleged to be paid on the 13th of April; on the 12th of May the House resumed its sittings, so that twenty-eight days had elapsed. But this day was the fourteenth day from the time the House resumed ["No!"] at any rate it was the fourteenth day from the 12th of May. He considered, therefore, that the Petitioner was in time to have his petition received.

considered the Petitioner had a right to be allowed fourteen days after the House first recommenced sitting.

said, that he considered the petition ought to have been presented on the first day the House resumed its sittings. It appeared to him now, from the arguments he had just heard that the petition ought not to be received.

said, that the petition was placed in his hands but ten minutes before he entered the House. In that time he had examined it as attentively as he could, and he thought it ought to be received. However, he would not for one moment oppose his opinion to that of the majority of the House.

, in pursuance to notice, brought forward his Motion relative to the right of British subjects to a Concurrent Fishery on that part of the coast of Newfoundland, commonly called the French shore. If the subject were only of a local nature he would not presume to demand much of the attention of the House; but it involved more than local importance or the interests of a single colony. The question arose out of the construction put upon a treaty entered into between England and France in the year 1814, and though so long a period as twenty-one years had elapsed the Government had given no answer to the persons engaged in this fishery as to how the treaty was to be construed. This was very strange, and he would ask the Government how long after twenty-one years were British subjects to wait before they were told whether they had a right, concurrent with the French, of fishing on their own coast. In 1830, he moved for a Select Committee to consider the subject. The answer of the Government was, that a Select Committee was an inconvenient course of proceeding. In 1831, he again brought the matter before the House, when he was induced to withdraw it, in consequence of being told that the subject was under the consideration of the Government. Last Session, in June, he moved an humble Address to his Majesty, praying that he would, order the Law Officers of the Crown to give their opinion on the treaty in question, and then he withdrew his Motion, because he was told by Government that they were in treaty with France on the subject, and that it would be useless to press the matter until the pending negotiations were concluded. On the accession of his Grace the Duke of Wellington to office, he (Mr. Robinson) received from Newfoundland a strong memorial, complaining of the long delay in giving an answer, and almost insisting that the Government must say whether the memorialists had a right of fishing on that part of the coast alluded to. On the 25th of February he wrote to the Duke of Wellington enclosing the Memorial, and in the letter he stated it to be his opinion that the English had a concurrent right with the French of fishing on the coast in question; and that Government ought to tell them so, or tell them if, and why, the right was taken away. He was told soon after by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that the reason the Duke of Wellington had returned no answer to his communication was, that the negotiations with France were still pending. It was for these reasons that he placed a notice of Motion on the subject on the books for that day, and which made him feel it his duty to advert once more to the matter. He protested against any further delay in adjusting this Question. The French had an interest in having the settlement of the Question indefinitely postponed, because, whilst it was so, they arrogated to themselves the right of interrupting all others fishing on the coast. Unless the Government could satisfy him by cogent reasons that the Question could not as yet have been settled, he would persevere in his Motion. This right of fishing was given so far back as 1730, and so important was it thought to be that it formed a separate Article in all Treaties between this country and France ever since that time. France had no other right of fishing than that given by the treaty of Utrecht, and that was nothing more than a permissive right to fish. He remembered having written a letter to a former Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. Sir George Murray, pressing him to tell those people if they had a right of fishing on what was called the French shore or not, and, strange to say, the right hon. Gentleman (able Minister as every one knew him to be) answered his letter by saying that the Government did not know. In the year 1831 a vessel was fitted out in this country for the purpose of trying the disputed right. On the approach of this vessel to the French coast the French assembled, and warned the Captain of the vessel, telling him that he had no right to fish there, and that they would prevent it. The captain answered that he was sent to try the right, and that he would not withdraw unless he was compelled to do so by force. A French ship of war then appeared, and told the English captain that he had orders from his Government to prevent the British from fishing on those shores, and that he would do so. Upon this intimation the captain of the English vessel withdrew. He contended that, according to the fair construction of all the treaties that existed between the two countries on the subject, the right which France exercised was a permissive, and not an exclusive, right. France had always pursued in respect to oilier nations a course of selfish policy, and he must, therefore, say, that if this question were suffered to remain much longer unsettled, the dignity of the British Crown would be compromised.

(interrupting the hon. Member)—I move, Sir, that the House be counted. The House was cleared of strangers for the purpose, but there being forty Members present, the debate was proceeded with, although strangers were not readmitted, until Mr. Robinson had concluded, and Mr. Poulett Thomson had begun his reply.

said, that he had formerly stated to the bon. Member (Mr. Robinson) the course which he (Mr. P. Thomson) considered should be taken, viz. to ascertain what was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with reference to the question; upon which afterwards the Government might proceed in negotiation. He (Mr. P. Thomson) had felt it his duty strictly to comply with the pledge he had then given to the hon. Member; and within a few days after, he addressed a letter to the Foreign-office, requesting them to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject. He had reason to believe, that that request was complied with; that the opinion was demanded; and, when it had been received, the noble Lord then at the head of the Government would have been prepared to make all endeavours towards negotiation with the French upon the subject. That opinion had not been received by the noble Lord, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, prior to his leaving office; and during the Administration that succeeded them, no further steps were taken in the question. As far then as he (Mr. P. Thomson) could fulfil the pledge given by him to the hon. Member, and as far as the noble Lord then at the head of the Foreign Department could fulfil it, so far it had been fulfilled. Since their return to office, he knew that the Law Advisers of the Crown had been pressed for their opinion, and he had no doubt that it would be soon in their possession. Now, having stated that they should be in a condition, at least as far as that opinion went, to commence negotiations upon the subject, he trusted that he had stated that which would prove to the hon. Gentleman that there would be no use whatever in the House acceding to the Motion, even if it were otherwise advisable. But supposing that negotiations upon the subject had been carried to any extent, he was prepared to say, that nothing would be more unadvisable than to lay whatever had passed upon the Table of the House. Because it was in the power of the hon. Gentleman to say, that his interpretation of the treaty was perfectly clear, it did not follow that others must agree with him. He wished that he could feel as little doubt upon that subject as the hon. Gentleman, and that all the other statesmen to whom the treaty had been successively referred for consideration had not, in their opinions, thrown great uncertainty upon the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said he looked merely at the treaty of Utrecht; and if he looked at that treaty, he would find the rights for which he contended fully maintained and fixed. But let the hon. Gentleman look at the treaty of 1783, at the peace of Paris, and the declaration that accompanied it, (for that was the chief point) and the Act of 1786, which was framed for the purpose of carrying into effect that treaty, and let him turn to that with which he was well acquainted, the opinion of Mr. Huskisson given in 1827, and he was afraid the hon. Member would find doubt adhering to his (Mr. Robinson's) judgment. He was perfectly willing, however, to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance, that when the opinion of the Law Officers had been received, every exertion would be made by Government to bring that question to a settlement, and let him tell the hon. Gentleman that it was only by the endeavours of Government that it could possibly arrive at a satisfactory settlement; for, if he were anxious to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, let him ask he hon. Gentleman in what way would that be effected? Was he prepared to say, that Government ought to send out armed vessels to the coast of Newfoundland, and, with a treaty, the construction of which was yet undecided, take force into their own hands, when their rights were disputed? Was he prepared to say that?