rose, as the Order of the Day was about to be moved, and said, that before the House went into public business, he hoped for a few minutes' indulgence whilst he made a statement important to himself, and of some consequence also to the military profession, which it was thought by some he had most unjustly attacked by casting upon it an unmerited stigma. During the debate last night on the Mutiny Bill, he had called the attention of the Secretary at War to circumstances of which he thought the noble Lord was not apprised, and which had frequently occurred in the army in the punishment of soldiers. On referring to the newspapers of this morning, he found that they all nearly concurred in the representation of what he had said, but that there might be no mistake as to the statement upon which he was ready to stand, he had selected the report in one newspaper adverse to his own politics, which had also thought fit to comment upon it in no very flattering terms, and, with the leave of the House, he would read what there appeared:—

"The number of lashes was fixed by a general order from the Horse Guards, but perhaps the noble Lord did not know that the quantity did not in all cases constitute the torture of the punishment, and that it was compounded not alone of the number of lashes, but of the mode and of the time in which they were inflicted. He (Mr. Duncombe) had been informed that there were commanding officers in the service who, considering on some occasions the sentence of general Courts-martial too lenient, had evaded them by ordering the fifty lashes (he would suppose that number to be the punishment awarded) to be inflicted in minute or half- minute time, [cries of "name," and "no, no."] Thus making a punishment which should last no longer than five minutes occupy at least an hour, in some cases considerably more. However hon. Members might differ with him on the subject of the Motion before the House, he (Mr. Duncombe) was sure that there would be no disagreement between him and them as to the opinion that such a disgraceful and degrading practice should be discontinued. That could not be done unless the discretion of administering punishment was taken out of the hands of commanding officers. He, therefore, begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to the circumstance, to the end that, as the butchering system of flogging was to be persevered in, the punishment awarded under its provisions should be inflicted in the shortest possible period."

He believed that such was nearly the substance of what he had said, and having said it, his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Nottingham (Sir Ronald Ferguson) rose in his place, and called upon him to name the officer. He (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) believed that his hon. and gallant Friend had observed, that if such an officer as he had described existed in the British army, he should say, "in God's name, get rid of him at once." His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cutlar Fergus-son) had also called upon him to name the offender, but he (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) had declined to give up his authority, because he did not feel justified in doing so. With regard to the individual who had first called his attention to the subject yesterday, he was not now prepared to give up his name; but that gentleman, whom he had not since seen, would very likely come forward of his own accord. He had last night been required to go to the Horse Guards and to mention the name of the individual to the Commander-in-chief. To that course he decidedly objected. He had made his statement in the face of the House, and in the face of the House he was prepared to substantiate it. If the House now called upon him to name the officer to whom he had alluded last night, he was prepared to do so. He had not done so last night, because he would at all times rather subject himself to every kind of taunt and reproach than be accused of anything like a breach of private confidence. He would begin by naming the man who was flogged in the way he had stated. His name was Ingram, a gunner in the Artillery service. This individual had not only been flogged in the manner he had described, but there were other circumstances of aggravation. A Court-martial was sitting at Honduras, in the year 1820, upon another soldier. The sentence upon that offender was 300 lashes, and it had been carried into effect in the usual manner; but during the time the Court was sitting Colonel George Arthur addressed a letter to the president, which was, and the hon. Member read, as follows:—

"Government-house, Belize, Feb. 15, 1820.

"SIR—A crime having been sent in against gunner Ingram, of the detachment Royal Artillery, I have also required him to be brought before the Court of which you are president, and as this most incorrigible bad soldier has several times been placed in solitary confinement without any good effect, the same observations which I made to you with respect to the other prisoner will apply to him, provided he is found guilty to the extent of the crime with which he is charged.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

"GEORGE ARTHUR,

Lieut.-Col. Commandant.

"To Major Bradley, President of the Court-martial, &c."

The gunner Ingram was found guilty, and two hundred lashes were awarded, but with this circumstance of aggravation:—on the 15th of February, Ingram was brought before the Court-martial, but as he seemed in a very bad state of health the Court ordered the surgeon to examine him, the report was, that he was not in a fit state to be tried, and the man was sent to the hospital. In a fortnight or three weeks afterwards it was reported that Ingram was sufficiently recovered: he was brought to trial, found guilty, and sen- tenced to 200 lashes. The sentence was carried into execution, but Colonel Arthur in a most unusual manner (for it was generally left to the commanding officer) came down to the parade to see Ingram flogged, and he ordered that the punishment should be inflicted by what was called "the tap of the drum." The House might not be aware that the drum was not unfrequently used; he (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) had had the misfortune to see the sentences of Courts-martial carried into execution, and sometimes, in order that the cries of the sufferer might not be heard beyond the barracks, the drum was ordered to roll. In this instance it was used for a different purpose; the man was ordered to be flogged in quarter or half-minute time, that time being noted by the tap of the drum, the brigade-major holding his watch in his hand. He (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) had seen 500 lashes given in twenty or twenty-five minutes; but what time did the House think was occupied in executing the sentence upon Ingram?—an hour and a half. He did not want to have Colonel Arthur dismissed or cashiered for his conduct; he had mentioned his name for no such purpose; but having been called upon in his own vindication to state the case, he hoped he had justified himself in the face of the House and of the public, and he now dared any party to the trial of the facts.

had thought that this was a case totally different from that now stated to the House, for he had expected that the serious complaint of the hon. Member would have referred to a fact committed subsequently to the period at which the order restricting the number of lashes to be inflicted had been issued. He considered, that this case ought to have been made the subject of investigation immediately after the time when it occurred. He, for one, would never advise that any officer should be dismissed without having been heard in his defence. It was most extraordinary that, amidst all the complaints made against Colonel Arthur for so many years—and there was hardly one of these which had not been raked up to be brought before the House—this was the first occasion on which the present case had ever been mentioned. It was singular that this accusation should never have become the subject of a practical inquiry. He had expected that the charge brought by the hon. Member would have been directed against some officer in command of a regiment, who had been restricted by the order he had mentioned to a particular number of lashes, and who had prolonged the punishment to lengthen the suffering of the criminal, because he had no power to inflict a number sufficient to satisfy what he thought the case deserved. Now, in 1820, a Court-martial had a right to inflict any number of lashes it pleased, and therefore there could be no reason for protracting the punishment in order to augment the physical sufferings of the person who underwent it. He had thought that the charge of the hon. Member would have referred to a case of recent date, to an individual against whom proceedings by Court-martial might have been instituted. He thought, that though the hon. Member had relieved himself from the obligation under which he lay, and carried out the assertion he had made, this was not a case for immediate inquiry.

said, that if the hon. Member had made out a case such as he had stated on the evening before—a case where a commanding officer had, for the purpose of evading the leniency of the recent amelioration in military punishments, measured out the time to such an extent as to prolong the suffering of the individual punished, he (Sir Henry Hardinge) should certainly think it was a case calling for investigation before the military authorities; and he had expressed his opinion of such a case as strongly as any other hon. Member. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the hon. Member was fully justified for the assertions he had made, and at the same time he begged leave to say, that if this were a case where any friend of his was concerned, notwithstanding fifteen years had elapsed since the period, not another hour should pass over without his demanding an investigation. He ought to say, though he did not himself personally know Colonel Arthur, nor had any occasion to know him, that that officer bore a very high reputation, and he was satisfied, that as soon as he heard of the charge now made against him, he would be anxious to meet it by a court of inquiry, or some other means, if the law prevented him from doing so by a Court-martial. These were his sentiments, and as the matter could not rest here, he should not make any further observations.

perfectly agreed with the right hon. Baronet. He considered that the hon. Member for Finsbury had been fully borne out in what he had advanced in the debate of the preceding night.

was sure, from what he knew of Colonel Arthur, that as soon as he heard of the charge brought against him, he would anxiously desire that it should be thoroughly investigated.

said, that the right hon. Baronet opposite had said, that if any friend of his were concerned in it, he should be most anxious that the charge should be inquired into. Now, he (Mr. Hume) did not consider that the matter should be left to the friends of any individual. He thought that it was the duty of the public officers of Government not to pass it over.

wished only to add one word to this discussion. He would implore the House, therefore, as the officer concerned was at so great a distance, to refrain from any further allusion to his conduct. He was sure, that that officer would be the first to demand an investigation into the charges brought against him.

said, that before he moved the order of the day, as his hon. friend the Member for Lancaster had said that he would persevere in the motion of which he had given notice, he wished to state what was the position in which he stood, and in which the hon. Member stood, respecting this question. It was his intention, as he had stated before Easter, to proceed on this day with the second reading of the Bills for the registration of births and the celebration of marriages. He had moved for leave to bring in these Bills early in the month of February, and that on the registration of births had been ordered to be printed on the 17th of February. They were Bills on the subject of which great interest was excited among the Dissenters, and the Government had been often asked, for several years past, to interfere and remedy the grievances they were intended to remove. In the course of last year he had been very much pressed by those representing the Dissenting body to bring forward measures for their relief; but on his representing the impossibility of passing them through the House in the then state of public business, they had, with the utmost fairness and honourable feeling, acceded to the delay, with a strong expression of hope, however, that Government would introduce some measure on this subject early in the present Session. Having now brought those Bills forward as early as he possibly could, and after other business of importance had been disposed of, having given notice before Easter that he would on this evening propose their second reading, his hon. Friend (Mr. P. M. Stewart) interposed, and would not permit the order of the day to be read without going into the general subject of what he called "the aggressions of Russia." To the bringing of that question before the House he (Lord J. Russell) had not, on former occasions, presented any unreasonable obstacle. It might have come under discussion on the first day of the Session, in the debate upon the answer to the King's speech; it might naturally have been brought under consideration in the debate on the navy estimates; and a noble Lord (D. Stuart), the Member for Arundel, thought fit to bring forward a special motion on the subject, when the whole question was gone into, and a most elaborate statement, historically as well as with reference to its more novel circumstances at the present time, was submitted to the House. Upon a subsequent occasion, too, a right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stratford Canning), upon the reception of intelligence respecting Cracow, called the attention of the House to the subject; and, as the intelligence had but recently been received, and the postponement of the question might possibly deprive it of its interest, he had purposely moved the order of the day for supply, in order to enable the question to be raised, and accordingly the debate occupied the whole evening. Having thus afforded every possible opportunity for the discussion of this question, he thought he had some ground in reason and right to ask his hon. Friend, for the sake of the public interests, as well as for the convenience of the House, not to persevere in bringing it again forward on the present occasion. Undoubtedly his hon. Friend had a right to take his own course, but he could not see that any urgency existed to justify him in persevering; and if every Gentleman were to insist on his extreme right, he might be obliged to adopt a course which would, he feared, be most inconvenient to the House—for instance, when any hon. Member got up to move on Tuesdays or Thursdays, it would be competent for him to say he had an order of the day of urgent importance, and move as an amendment, that the orders of the day be read, thus setting aside or indefinitely postponing motions, just as his hon. Friend's course would the orders of the day. It was, therefore, obviously for the convenience of the House that he wished his hon. Friend not to persevere, and allow this question, having reference to the Dissenters' grievances, which was one of so much domestic interest and great public importance, to be proceeded with. He might then give notice for some other day, when the general subject of Russia, involving so many questions of foreign policy, might be conveniently brought forward without interfering with Bills not important merely for the sake of the Ministry but to the great mass of the people in the country. He begged leave to move that the order of the day for the second reading of the Registration of Births and Marriages Bill be now read.

said, he should have offered no opposition to the noble Lord's request had he not felt himself compelled, by the present state of the question, to persevere in his motion. No doubt there had already been two discussions on the subject in the course of the last two months, but its aspect had, in the interval which had since elapsed, materially changed for the worse; and every day new circumstances were occurring to render it more necessary that the attention of Government should be called to the question, in order duly to impress them with the serious responsibility which devolved upon them in consequence of the events which unfortunately were still taking place in the East of Europe. Petitions were now waiting to be presented from every individual of character in this country connected with the trade of Turkey, praying for that very discussion of which he was the humble advocate. On the two former occasions no definite or practical conclusion had been come to from which any benefit could arise; whereas it would be his endeavour to bring home to the Government the state of jeopardy in which our foreign relations stood, and practically fix them with the responsibility of what is new occurring in the East. But if it should appear to be the sense of hon. Members present that he ought not at present to persevere in his motion, he would be the last person to contravene their wishes in that respect; but differing as he did from the noble Lord as to the comparative importance of that subject which he had taken in hand—regarding it as paramount to many of those home subjects which so frequently engrossed their attention—he did think it most important that they should, before the Session was much further advanced, come to some cool and mature determination with respect to it. He therefore felt most reluctant to give way. [Cries of "Withdraw."] He felt quite at a loss what to do. [Renewed cries of "Withdraw."]

said, the hon. Gentleman seemed to invite an observation on the position in which he found himself. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had himself furnished a most conclusive reason why he should adopt the course recommended by the noble Lord. In reply to the noble Lord's observation, that the question had already undergone discussion on two recent occasions, the hon. Gentleman said, that those discussions led to no practical result, and he proposed that the present discussion should lead to such a result. If that was the object of the hon. Gentleman, he should say, let them have fair notice of the motion. Let the hon. Gentleman give notice that he intended to call the attention of the House to the aggressions of Russia, but do not let him invite them to come to a resolution, and then say that he meant to follow it up by a practical result for which they were not prepared. That might involve the House in a very serious difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman wished that the discussion should be decisive, that it should be of a very different character from the two preceding discussions, and that it should end in some practical issue—if he desired to call for the determination of the House with regard to the relations of this country with Russia, then let him give at least two or three days' notice of the precise motion he intended to bring under the consideration of the House. He was glad to hear the noble Lord protest against the practice of bringing forward questions of foreign policy on motions for proceeding to the orders of the day. If Gentlemen who were in the habit of supporting the Government, took that course, which he and his Friends on his side of the House had always discouraged, as not fair to the House, he could not answer for it that he and his Friends might not consider it expedient to follow the example.

begged leave to say, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, that the motion he had given, arose from the answers he had received to three questions put to the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, every one of which had been most unsatisfactory, both with reference to Cracow, and the still more important events which had recently occurred, throwing obstructions in the way of British commerce in the Black Sea. In giving way to the noble Lord upon the present occasion, he trusted one day next week would be given him for bringing forward this motion, and he pledged himself to shape his notice so as to meet the views of the right hon. Baronet opposite.

begged to ask the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) whether it was true that 250 of the Polish refugees had been given up to Russia? He would also take the opportunity of saying he had heard, that in Birmingham an order was given, two or three months ago, for 800 large guns, professedly for the Turkish Government; they were to carry balls of from sixty pounds to two hundred and sixty pounds each. There was a very prevalent opinion that those guns were intended for the Dardanelles. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether the Government had an eye to that circumstance—whether they had given their consent that these terrible engines of destruction should be allowed to proceed from this country to complete the fortifications of the Dardanelles? He hoped the Government were not asleep on this occasion; the Russians, he believed, were wide awake.

postponed his motion.

said, that on a former evening he had put a question to the noble Lord respecting this Bill. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be, that, with respect to baptisms, marriages, and burials of the members of the Church of England, it would leave the registration in precisely the same state in which it was at present. The registration would be carried on according to established usage, and would have full force as evidence in a Court of law.

was understood to say, that the law, with respect to registrations of baptisms and burials, would be the same as before; the registration of marriages would undergo a slight modification.

said, that the operation of the measure depended entirely on the machinery which they should make use of. That was so much a matter of detail, that he thought it would be better to defer any general consideration of the measure altogether, until they had first done all in their power to render the measure as perfect as possible. It would be much better to urge any objections he entertained to the details when the Bill was in Committee. Under these considerations, as he did not object to the principle of the Bill, he had no objection to allow it to go into Committee, though it contained many provisions which called for alteration and amendment.

said, that according to his apprehension, the right hon. Baronet had correctly stated the purport of the Bill, that it would leave to the parochial registration the same force and effect as it possessed at present. He fully agreed in the suggestion that they should first endeavour to make the measure as perfect as possible in Committee, before taking the discussion upon it generally. He altogether objected to referring the measure to a Select Committee, for the subject had already been considered by a Select Committee. There was another objection to referring the measure to a Select Committee, that they would have to discuss matters of principle, which more properly belonged to the consideration of that House.

, as he understood the object of the Bill, considered, that it was to relieve the Dissenters from some grievances of which they complained. He wished that the Bill had been limited to that object, and did not interfere with the rights, and let him add the duties, of the ministers of the Established Church. The Bill interfered materially with both, and he wished that the noble Lord would limit the Bill to such an extent as would meet the wants of the Dissenters, and leave the members of the Church of England in the came condition in which they were at present. It was not enough that the parochial registration should be left in the same state in which it was at present. That was not all he required. He required that the members of the Church of England should be left in the same position in which they were at present. The great body of the members of the Church of England were satisfied with the registration as it stood at present. There might be some occasional irregularities, but he believed that the great body of the members of the Church of England were satisfied with the state of the registration as it existed at present. He wished that the noble Lord would endeavour to so alter the Bill as to limit its provisions to the relief of the Dissenters. He protested against making a general measure, comprehending all classes, when the most important and largest class in the country did not complain of the evils which the Bill professed to remove, but were content with the system as it existed at present.

felt that the measure would be not merely a benefit to the Dissenters, but would be found to be equally a benefit to the members of the Church of England. With respect to registration at present, as selected to the members of the Church of England, it was exceedingly imperfect. There was no registration of deaths—they merely had a registration of burials. It was impossible, on this account, to find evidence of descent with any certainty beyond two generations, and the consequence was, that this uncertainty led to great litigation and expense. It was of the greatest importance to the members of the Church of England that there should be a general registration of deaths, births, and marriages. He contended, that a general registration would be a great benefit, and concurred fully in the suggestion offered by the right hon. Baronet to postpone the discussion to a future stage of the Bill.

said, that his observations were made under the impression that the Bill left the members of the Church of England in the same state in which they were with respect to registration at present. They were perfectly satisfied with that, and he saw no reason to alter or interfere with it. If he could understand that the Bill would place the members of the Church of England in a worse position than they were in at present, he should feel bound to give to it every opposition. He understood the principle of the Bill to be, to leave the existing registration uninterfered with, and to give it the fullest sanction and authority as evidence.

said, if he understood what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, the Bill did not provide for a uniform system of registration, but the general registration was to be confined to a general and uniform registration of births.

was sure that the hon. Gentleman had not read the Bill. The Bill provided for a uniform system of births, marriages, and deaths, and included all classes of the community and all sects.

expressed himself satisfied with the explanation.

said, that the intention of the Bill was to establish a uniform registration in the first place of births and deaths, and next of baptisms and marriages. With respect to baptisms and burials performed by the ministers of the Church of England, they would keep their own registers as before, and that registration would be equally valid, as it had always been in courts of law. With respect to births and marriages, there would be a civil and general registry; and whether the entries should be by the minister of a Dissenting sect, or whether according to the form of a civil contract, all would be merged in one registry, which would be a national registry. With respect to parishes, they would have, as at present, their own separate registry for marriages performed in them. Therefore, as he had already explained, these would answer the purpose of a national registry, at the same time that he would not interfere with the registry as at present carried on. He trusted he had now given an answer to the objections taken against this Bill, with respect to its national principle, and with respect to the objection of those dissenting from the Established Church. The Bill would, in the first place, establish a national registry, which would ascertain facts not now ascertained respecting descent; and, secondly, it would enable Dissenters from the Established Church, who did not agree in the ceremonies of that Church, to have a registry without resorting to means for that purpose, to which they conscientiously objected.

if the Bill were to pass in its present shape, he would give it his utmost opposition. He would have no difficulty in satisfying the House that it would not answer the objects for which it was intended. However, he was ready to consider the Bill in Committee, and to endeavour to improve it as much as possible; but then he would feel it competent for him to enter into an argument whether the Bill, even in that state, was so unexceptionable in its provisions as that they should allow it to pass at all.

thought it would be better to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and take the discussion on the third reading.

before the noble Lord named the day for the Committee on the Bill, he was anxious to ask him whether or not he would give his assurance that, at a future period, a Bill should be brought in extending the principle of the present measure to Ireland. He looked at this question, not as one which related to sects, but as one which proposed to carry into effect a great national improvement. The evils which the proposed Bill intended to remedy were much greater in Ireland than in England, because the registration in Ireland was in an extremely defective state. The noble Lord had stated on a former occasion, that the Roman Catholic clergy objected to the adoption of a similar measure for Ireland; but he (Mr. O'Brien) could not understand what their reasons were for making such objection. He could not believe that such was the fact. No person was prepared to treat the opinions of the Roman Catholic clergy with more respect than he was; but if such objections did really exist, he thought the House ought to be made acquainted with the nature of them. It was his intention to move, as an instruction to the Committee, to consider the propriety of extending the principle of the Bill to Ireland, with a view of taking the sense of the House on the question; but he would not do so if the noble Lord would say, that in the ensuing Session—he knew it would be impossible to do so in the present—that he would bring in a Bill to extend the principle laid down in this Bill to Ireland.

said, it was his most anxious wish to extend the principle of the Bill now under discussion to Ireland. But, in the first instance, he thought it was desirable to pause, in order to see how the present Bill would work in England. In the meantime he would take the subject into his consideration, with the view of considering the propriety of introducing a Bill, founded on the same principles, for Ireland.

supposing that the clergy of the Church of England should object to this Bill, would the noble Lord refrain from passing it, on the same principle that he declined to bring in a Bill for Ireland in consequence of the opposition which was made to it by the Roman Catholic Priests in Ireland? ["No, no"] Hon. Members might say "no, no," but he (Sir Robert Inglis) understood the noble Lord to say, on the 26th of March, on good authority, that the Roman Catholic clergy did object to the adoption of such a measure for Ireland. If, therefore, the noble Lord was not prepared to pass such a measure for Ireland, in consequence of the objections entertained to it by the Roman Catholic priests, was he prepared to pass the present measure if it should be objected to by the clergy of the Established Church of this country?

the declaration made by his noble Friend directly negatived the proposition laid down by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. His noble Friend stated, that he should be prepared on a future occasion, when he had seen the working of the present Bill, to produce a measure applying the principle of it to Ireland, for the purpose of forming a general registration for that country. That was the best answer that could be given to the observations of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Brien) must be aware that, in forming a principle of registration for Ireland, the machinery by which it must be carried into effect must be of a different character from that established for England. The present Bill was an experiment, and the method of its working must be known before a system of machinery for Ireland could be adopted. He was perfectly free to admit, that if an improved system of registration was wanted in this country, it was still more wanted for Ireland. He could assure the hon. Member that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in common with his noble Friend, was most anxious that a Bill should be brought in to extend the principle of registration contemplated by this Bill to Ireland.

was anxious to offer a few observations on the Bill. So far as the noble Lord had stated that this Bill was framed with the desire of relieving Dissenters from the necessity of being married by the clergymen of the Church of England, he had no hesitation to say that he was willing to go that length. So far as the Bill had that object, and proposed to effect it in an unobjectionable way, he was quite willing to give it his most cheerful support. But he besought the noble Lord to take care lest, in giving relief to the Dissenters on the one hand, he was not placing a burthen on the clergy of the Established Church on the other. Whilst the noble Lord consulted the religious and conscientious scruples of the Dissenters, let him not disregard or offend the scruples of the members of the Established Church. He would, when the fitting occasion came, be prepared to satisfy the House that this Bill interfered with the conscientious scruples of the members of the Church of England. He would, however, on the present occasion, deal with another part of the question, to which he felt that he could point out an objection so clear and distinct as to entitle him to the support of every hon. Gentleman in the House. He proposed to confine himself to the question whether the Bill now before the House did not afford increased facilities to clandestine marriages, and did not open a door in this respect to every man, whether Dissenter or member of the Church of England, and on a point, too, in which the interests of families were most seriously concerned. It was for the House to consider how far protection against clandestine marriages was afforded by this Bill. He should, he trusted, be able to show how perfectly inadequate this Bill was to prevent the performance of clandestine marriages amongst all classes of his Majesty's subjects, no matter to what sect they belonged. By the existing law of England there were certain guards against clandestine marriages. In the first instance there was the necessary publication of banns. There was the necessity that these banns should be published three times in the parish in which each of the parties must have lived for a limited period. This publication of course took place in the presence of many who must be acquainted with the parties about to be married, and so far all the advantages of the fullest publicity were obtained. The banns were a publication of the intention of the parties to engage in marriage, and in the rural parishes they afforded a certain security against clandestine marriages, and in other parishes a tolerable security against secret or improper marriages. They afforded an assurance that persons acquainted with the parties would hear of their intentions, and that it would become known in the parish where they resided, and if any objection existed there was a reasonable assurance that it would be made public. The next security afforded by the existing law was, that it required that the marriage should be celebrated in the church of the parish, in the customary and recognized place for such celebration. It was also required that all marriages should be celebrated within the hours of eight and twelve o'clock, the very time in which the public would be most likely to have their attention awake, and when any clandestine marriage would be the least likely to be celebrated. The next protection was, that it was required that the marriage must be celebrated within three months after the publication of the banns. It was no small security that the marriage was required to be celebrated under these circumstances in the church of the parish where the parties reside, and in the presence of the parochial clergyman, to whom the parties must be more or less known, and who, being a person of education and respectability, if there were any suspicion of a clandestine marriage, would interpose to prevent it. But there was still more. That which he considered one of the greatest protections was, that marriage was celebrated with all the solemnities of religion, and in the presence of God, and under the most solemn sanctions. By the Bill before the House all these protections were withdrawn. The party was not bound to have banns published in any instance. The marriage might take place not only in the parish where the parties resided, but in any parish in the kingdom which they chose to select—not in the church or recognised building, but in any place which the parties might choose, and where no person could anticipate that such a marriage would be performed. The noble Lord stated, that he intended to withdraw the exemption with respect to hours, and to limit the houses of celebration, as at pre- sent; but he withdrew the protection of compelling the marriage to be celebrated within three months after the publication of the banns. The Bill withdrew the protection arising from the celebration of marriage by the authorised minister of religion, and permitted marriage to be celebrated, not by the authorised minister, but by any person who chose to undertake the office. He contended, that this Bill opened the door to clandestine marriages, not only of Dissenters, but to every class of the community. After this Bill passed, there would be nothing to prevent any member of the Church of England from being married in any place he chose, or by any person he chose, or without the necessity of having the marriage performed in any place of religious worship. He thought it right to state those objections now, that the noble Lord might have the opportunity of making such alterations as would satisfy the public mind. His first objection was, that notice was not required to be served upon the registrar of the particular district in which the parties resided, so that two parties residing in Middlesex might, if they so chose, serve their notice in Yorkshire. Again, there was no penalty inflicted by the Bill for a false notice. Then, with regard to caveats, there was this anomaly, that no person except a parent or guardian could enter a caveat without subjecting himself to heavy damages. So that if a man were to marry a second wife during the lifetime of the first, the first wife could not enter a caveat, nor any other person except a parent or guardian. Again, with regard to the place where marriages might be celebrated by the present Bill, a building which had once been licensed for the purpose, no matter to what use it might thereafter be converted, would still continue to enjoy the same privilege, and what was still more strange, the ceremony might be performed by any person whatsoever. He would repent that, under the proposed measure, there was no protection against clandestine marriages. Under the present system the very solemnity of the rite formed a strong protection. He would feel it his duty, as the Bill proceeded, to show, to the satisfaction of the House, that it was eminently calculated to open a wide way for those clandestine alliances. He would wish to know whether the Bill intended to prohibit the publication of banns? [Lord John Russell: No.] He was glad it was not so intended, as it would, in some degree, do away with the established form of the Church of England; but there was this to complain of, that, besides the publication of the banns, the members of the Church of England were obliged also to give notice at the registrar's office. Why, in a measure purporting to be for the relief of Dissenters, introduce a clause which imposed a double burthen and a double obligation on members of the Church of England? Why compel members of that Church to pay twice for that ceremony? Why, greater evils were likely to ensue under this Bill than under the present Marriage Act.

declared, he was not one inclined to oppose any provisions that could prevent clandestine marriages. He participated in the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman, that every measure should be introduced into that House which should so far as possible protect the public against the occurrence of a mischief fraught with misery to families, and destructive of their domestic peace. Such were his feelings upon this subject; but he had long since come to this conclusion, that this was a matter of compromise. They could not invent a system that would be at the same time satisfactory, and prevent the recurrence of fraud. If they attempted to restrict that which ought to be free, which ought to be easy to every one of his Majesty's subjects, and, so far as was consistent, in which there should be a freedom and facility for forming the contract, they could not do that, and have every safeguard that might be desired. The right hon. Gentleman had declared, that there were safeguards under the present law, and compared them with the provisions of this Bill; and the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman had come was, that instead of this Bill giving securities, it fell far short of the securities at present existing. He was under the necessity of differing in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman. Under the existing state of the law the door was thrown open to clandestine marriages, and a person had only to desire a clandestine marriage, and nothing was more easily effected. The very statute which prescribed all the conditions upon which the right hon. Gentleman relied, contained a clause declaring, that if you disobey its provisions, still the marriage is equally good and valid, it having once taken place. At the present hour the banns were to be published on three suc- cessive Sundays, in both parishes in which the parties resided, if they were the residents of two separate parishes. Let them look at the consequence; a man went to the next parish, that was a populous one—if he lived in the neighbourhood, the facility of travelling brought him some seven or eight miles in a short time—it was easy for them to meet a friend, no difficulty interposed, he went to the clerk, he gave in the name to that clerk of the person who intended to many, the banns were published, and no living soul could say anything as to the marriage. The marriage took place, and it was held good in law, and it was incapable of being set aside. What then was the protection that had been so much relied upon? It was a protection in name, a security in words, and it afforded not the slightest degree of safety. So much, then, for the marriage banns. Let them look, then, to the state of the law at the time of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. It was competent for any two persons, by a written contract, or simply by a promise before witnesses, followed by cohabitation, to contract marriage. That was the state of the law up to 1723. Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act left banns very nearly as they were at the present moment. It was declared, that if one or two persons under age, and by whom licence was taken out were married, the marriage was to be null and void. What was the consequence? The matter went on until the complaints were so loud that the attention of the House was called to it. The House had to interpose, and by one of the strongest legislative measures ever passed, it rendered valid retrospectively the marriages that had taken place; it not merely rendered those marriages valid, but deprived of their vested rights, those whose interests arose in consequence of such marriages. These steps demonstrated that neither the Legislature nor the country could endure the restrictions imposed—that they were intolerable to the people, as the melancholy consequences he had stated originated in them. Lord Redesdale, with a laudable anxiety for preventing clandestine marriages, annexed conditions to the Act as it passed the House of Commons. When the Bill came down again to that House, he remembered that he strongly opposed those conditions, and he remembered that Mr. Canning said, that he would take the Act as it was, as he did not know that the Lords would pass another, and that the defects in the Act might be amended in the next Session. Now what was the consequence? Why, in the next Session, at the very commencement of it, he believed, a Bill was introduced to repeal these provisions, because they prevented the facilities to the solemnization of marriage. A Select Committee then sat on the subject of marriage for many months, and they were compelled to go back to the old law. But then again, as to marriages by licence, a person might go to any of the authorities who were empowered to grant licences—he might falsely swear he was of age—he might give false names in the case of himself and of the woman whom he intended to marry, and thus every facility was given for the promotion of clandestine marriages. For where was the protection of an affidavit in these cases? But it never could be intended to shackle the marriage ceremony. By the Bill now proposed, the parties would have to go before the Registrar. The Registrars, it was to be presumed, would be respectable men. [An Hon. Member observed, that the Registrars might abuse the power reposed in them.] It was to be presumed, that they would be well-conducted men. He believed that under the Registration Act, the guardians of unions would perform the duties intrusted to their care with accuracy and integrity. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that this measure was intended to apply not only to members of the Established Church, but it was proposed to be extended to persons of all religious distinctions. They had endeavoured by one Act to meet the views and wants of all parties, and in so doing they had totally failed. It was impossible, by the agency of the publication of banns, to prevent clandestine marriages. He would admit, that in some cases the clergyman had objected to the solemnization of the marriage. Now he spoke from experience when he said, that the clergymen of the Church of England did not consider themselves authorized to defer a marriage if the banns had been published, or a licence were produced, unless there was something so extraordinary or conspicuous in the conduct or appearance of the parties as to induce them to pause—and such a case as this did not occur once in five years. From clergymen of the Church of England, who had applied to him, he knew that their impression was that it was their duty to proceed with the solemnization of the marriage. He had to observe, that it would be the duty of the Registrars under this Bill, and there were provisions expressly to punish them for neglect, to lake care that all the enactments were strictly carried into effect; and he believed it would be found that if the directions contained in this Act were strictly complied with, the consequence of the notice so given by the Registrar would be of equal force and effect as the present impediments thrown in the way of clandestine marriages by the existing law. It had been said, that this would be onerous upon the members of the Church of England. It was entirely at the discretion of the party whether the banns were published or not. One of the clauses of the Bill provided, that no person, vicar or curate, should be obliged to publish the banns for any persons whatsoever. He thought that the system of keeping open the books of registration would be found very efficient as a preventive of clandestine marriages. At the same time he cordially agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in a most earnest wish to provide every possible means of security towards that end, but if the Bill, as it stood, were defective in such particulars, the House would have every opportunity, when they got into Committee upon it, of supplying all that might be required.

was glad to see that the present discussion had been conducted throughout without the occurrence of any observations inconsistent with the importance of the subject; and he trusted that nothing would fall from him which could be construed as irrelevant to the matter before the House. He begged, however, in limine, to make a solemn objection to the principle proposed to be recognised by this Bill that marriages could be celebrated by any other mode than as a religious act. He claimed on the part of the members of the Established Church, that they should enjoy the same privileges and ceremonies in respect to marriage as they did at present, and that new burdens should not be imposed upon them, for the sake of affording relief to the Dissenters. He thought a Bill might be framed for affording relief to Dissenters without the necessity of imposing any new burdens upon those who adhered to the doctrines of the Church of England. It was the duty of that House at the same time that they proceeded to inquire into and to redress the grievance complained of by the Dissenters from the Church of England, to remember that the latter were especially under the protection of the Legislature, and not to oppress them with a Bill of pains and penalties, such as the present would prove to be against them. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had amply described the defects of the present system of marriages, but he had not replied to the objections of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) to the defects in the present Bill, particularly that relating to the difficulty of entering caveats against marriages under the regulations proposed. He trusted, if the hon. and learned Member should rise again on the subject, he would take notice of his right hon. Friend's objections.

said, that whilst he was perfectly ready to concur in any measure which seemed likely to give satisfactory relief to the conscientious scruples of Dissenters, and whilst he fully concurred in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets as to the importance of guarding against imposition and clandestine marriages, at the same time he thought, that in giving relief to the conscientious scruples of Dissenters, the House should take especial care not to wound the feelings or offend the conscientious scruples of the members of the Church of England. He premised that it was proposed by the present Bill, speaking here apart from any consideration of the particular case of the Dissenters, to give the members of the Church of England, who, be it recollected, made no complaint of the present system of marriages, a new method of entering into the state of matrimony without the necessity for any religious ceremony. That was a provision which appeared to him perfectly unnecessary towards the main object of the Bill, namely, that of affording relief to the conscientious scruples of Dissenters. He should therefore give notice, that in the Committee on the Bill, he should call attention to that particular feature in its provisions, and take the sense of the House upon it.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had candidly made the declaration of kindly disposition towards the Dissenters of England, and he in return begged to disclaim any intention on the part of the Dissenters of imposing a Bill of pains and penalties upon the members of the Established Church. He conscientiously believed that the present measure would prove as beneficial to the interests and convenience of the members of the Established Church as to the Dissenters themselves.

asked whether the noble Lord had any objection to state what was intended in respect to the University of Durham?

was understood to say, that that matter was as yet entirely open. There might be some difficulty in the present state of proceedings in settling it, as the Bishop of Durham was to take the see with certain regulations, and under certain restrictions, which were hereafter to be defined.

ventured to express an earnest hope that his Majesty's Government, in whatever measures they might adopt, would fulfil the intentions of the late Bishop of Durham in respect to this subject.

hoped, that not one penny of the revenue of the see would be applied to the purposes of the University of Durham, unless the Dissenters of the north of England were equally admissible to it as the Members of the Established Church. It was the principle of all, or nearly all, the universities of Europe, that parties were admitted without distinction of religion, and he did not see why the same principle should not apply to this new university, the more particularly as the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge were closed to all but members of the Established Church. It was, he thought, monstrous in the present day to confine establishments for the dissemination of learning to one religious denomination only. He would appeal to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) below him, who had ever shown himself the friend of the Dissenters and of religious toleration, and put it to him whether he would sanction an exclusive establishment of this kind. He hoped that in this, or early in the next session, the noble Lord would be prepared with some measure by which Dissenters of the north, as well as members of the Estab- lished Church, would be equally admissible to this University.

differed wholly from the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House. He looked on the University of Durham as a splendid monument of the munificence of the late most estimable prelate, and believed it was well known that it was the intention of that right reverend Prelate that it should be for the clergy of the north. That intention would be altogether defeated if it were thrown open to Dissenters; and for his own part he would rather see the whole establishment fall to the ground;, than that it should be open to Dissenters. He regretted that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had not been prepared to give an answer to the right hon. Baronet, as to the intentions of Government with respect to this University. The intentions of the late right rev. Prelate with respect to the Durham University were notorious, and had received the sanction of Earl Grey. It was the wish of the right reverend Prelate that the income of three stalls in the cathedral of Durham should be reserved for the salaries of the warden and professors. Now, this sum he thought should be held in trust by the bishop for these purposes. With respect to the Bill before the House, he thought there were parts of it with which the inhabitants of the county and of the city which he had the honour to represent would be greatly dissatisfied. There was the abolition of local courts and other institutions which the late bishop had fostered with great care. He did not think that the administration of justice would be better or cheaper in consequence of those changes. On these accounts he was anxious that time should be given for the due consideration of the Bill before it went into Committee, for he feared the time would come when some of the proposed changes would be regretted by all classes in the country. He thought the income of the see was so much reduced in the Bill, that he did not hesitate to say, it would be found difficult to get persons to accept the see with such limited means. He also objected to the Bill, that in the application of the surplus revenue it made no provision for the spiritual wants of many parts of the county. All that the Bill proposed was, to plunder the see of a part of its revenues, to enrich other parts of the county, In conclusion, the hon. Member repeated his objection to seeing the University of Durham thrown open to Dissenters, and he added that the Dissenters of Durham did not look upon the University with any hostile feeling; on the contrary, they regarded it as an establishment which would be greatly beneficial to the neighbourhood. The hon. Member, after thanking the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, for the interest he took in the University, gave notice, that should the Government determine not to fulfil the intentions of the late Bishop with respect to it, he should feel it his duty to oppose any measure they might introduce with that object.

rose in consequence of the last remark of the hon. Gentleman concerning Earl Grey, and his wish that a University should be established in Durham. It was quite true that that noble Lord had expressed an anxious wish that there should be a University established in the north; and he (Lord John Russell) believed that there were two points on which the late Bishop of Durham and Lord Grey had differed, while they agreed in the expediency and propriety of appropriating a certain portion of the revenues of the chapter and see of Durham to the support of that University. The first related to the income of the stalls applied to the professorships, Lord Grey thinking—and in his opinion most judiciously—that the whole income of a stall would be much too large a salary with which to endow a simple professorship. The objection of the late Bishop to the proposition of Lord Grey might be deemed very natural and very just at the time at which it was made, the right reverend Prelate not liking, perhaps, as there was no general measure upon the subject, to break in upon the particular constitution of the establishment of Durham. There was another point to which allusion was necessary, in consequence of the feeling which Lord Grey had been said to have expressed of decided dissent from the opinion of the late lamented Prelate. The Bishop expressed his opinion that the emoluments of the University should be completely and entirely confined to the members of the Church of England. From that opinion Lord Grey did not dissent; but he expressed (as he had been lately informed) his strong and decided opinion that with respect to all honours, including under the term degrees, they ought to be open to persons of every religious persuasion. The late Bishop of Durham did not agree in that opinion in the terms in which Lord Grey stated it; so that when that noble Lord's opinion was referred to as that of a minister most anxious to see a University established in the north, he (Lord John Russell) thought it due to him to mention, that he stated at the time that while he was most anxious to see such a University there established, his anxiety was equally great to see it established, if possible, on those principles of religious freedom, by which all persons in the north might enjoy the benefits of study, and the honours then to be attained, without reference to their religious creeds.

said, this University was established five years ago, out of the funds of the late Bishop of Durham, out of the revenue of the Church for the promotion of the Church Establishment, and it would be as unjust to divert that University to other objects than those contemplated by the founder as it would be to divest the funds of any noble Lord who had invested them in any foundation of any kind whatever. The founder had always a right to limit the appropriation. The Bill proposed to separate the spiritual from the temporal duties of the Bishop of Durham, and consequently to deprive that Prelate of much of the dignity which now attached to his office. Against this he begged leave to enter his protest. He did not think there were too many of what were technically speaking, called prizes in the Church; and, great as was the outcry against the large income attached to the bishopric of Durham, this he would confidently say, that no income, however large, could have been spent in a manner more consistent with the spirit of true Christianity or more calculated to promote the welfare of the community than the income of that see by the late Bishop. By little and little they sought to deprive the Church of England of its temporal dignities, but its spiritual character was fortunately beyond the reach of its assailants.

said, that the Church Commission having reported so completely upon the state of the bishopric of Durham, and it being concluded that it was no longer for the interests of that bishopric, nor for the good of the Established Church, that so large a sum should remain in the hands of one individual, while there existed districts in the county in which the money was needed, and in which it might be applied to much greater effect in forwarding the cause of religion, and of the common happiness of the people, the House was bound to consider well whether they could co-operate with a Government disposed to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect. He felt bound to say, that he could not co-operate with the Government if the money were to be appropriated as he understood it would be. There was an increasing population in the county of Durham much in want of instruction; and he was not prepared to give to the opulent town of Manchester, rivalling the first of our cities in wealth and importance, or to the rich agricultural district of the West Riding of Yorkshire, those funds which could be well applied in the general cause of religion, and for the spread of education and morality among a class of people who, though they were his constituents, were, he grieved to say, very devoid of that which was likely to promote happiness among men. It happened to be the practice in that county to accompany the calendar of prisoners for trial at the Assizes with a statement, showing to the Judge upon Circuit what proportion of the prisoners were educated, how many could read and write, &c. The following remarks had been made by the Judge in his charge:—"The list before him presented a larger display of the more atrocious description of crimes than the calendar for the Central Criminal Court for Middlesex had exhibited during the last twelve months. He knew not whether this was to be attributed to the state of instruction in this county; but he feared that where they were perpetrated, religion and morality had not spoken to the hearts of the inhabitants. He had not seen the name of any person who read well, or was tolerably instructed, in that calendar." He asked, then, that some consideration might be given to the peculiar circumstances in which his constituents were. There could not be the same feeling entertained with respect to the funds of the bishopric of Durham, as could be indulged in by an individual looking to ecclesiastical revenues springing from other sources, and aiming at other ends and objects. The greater part of these funds were of peculiar origin, and were appropriated to the keeping up of that princely and palatinate jurisdiction which was at present annexed to the see. Unless the Crown were disposed to relieve the county of Durham of the various expenses arising out of the holding of Courts, the many appointments, conservatorships of rivers, &c, which were at present borne by it, he apprehended that there could be no ground for the proposed diversion of the funds into other districts. He felt bound, therefore, to protest against such an abstraction of a large portion of the revenues of the bishopric from the county, and to give his support to every proposition which, while it avoided all needless interference with the feelings of members of the Established Church, gave at the same time to all in that part of the country the opportunity of enjoying a liberal education—such, indeed, as every member of that Church must wish a Dissenter to receive, if he were a friend to his own religion, on the principle that such an education would supply those clear and enlightened views of which the Dissenter was supposed to be in need, and the want of which were alleged to be the cause of his dissent. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would place that University on a liberal, extended, and open footing; nothing was more desirable for the county of Durham, and even for the University itself, which, without being so placed, would not thrive. With respect to the Court of Common Pleas, and the minor arrangements affecting other institutions, he believed that the Government would not press the alterations proposed by the Bill on those points, if it were proved that the county relied on the continuance of those Courts for the attainment of expeditious and cheap justice.

thought it the greatest satire which could be pronounced on the Church, that the district of the country where the richest bishopric in England was situated, should contain, as it was stated, the most demoralised people. When the Church had in its possession large sums of money which were diverted from their proper objects, it was the duty of Parliament to interfere, for the purpose of compelling a just application of them.

was desirous, before this Bill passed, to draw a declaration from the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, to the effect that this Bill was not intended to imply that the Legislature of Jamaica had been guilty of bad faith, with reference to the conduct which they deemed it necessary to adopt in regard to the Governor, Lord Sligo, but that they had rather been compelled to resort to it, from a combination of unfortunate circumstances. All he desired was, that his hon. Friend should give the House an assurance that this Bill, which overrode the legislative privileges of the Assembly of Jamaica, was not intended as a measure for identifying the steps taken by Lord Sligo, with the determination of Parliament on the question to which they referred. He was anxious that this Act should not be regarded as an unnecessary interference with the local legislature, but merely as a subsidiary enactment for carrying into execution the principles of the measures passed by Parliament for the abolition of slavery in the colonies.

said, that he had distinctly stated on moving for leave to bring-in this Bill, that it was not meant to convey any opinion by its proposal as to the difference which occurred between Lord Sligo and the Legislature of Jamaica; but that it was intended to declare, that a case of necessity was made out for the interference of the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of removing an admitted defect in the law, which seriously affected the apprenticed slaves, over whose interests Parliament was bound by every obligation to keep a careful watch.

admitted that Parliament was bound to take care that the stipulations of that Act, which cost the country a sum of twenty millions, were complied with, but warned the House against unnecessarily interfering with those concerns for which the local legislature were prepared to legislate.

said, that he was anxious to receive from the Under-Secretary for the Admiralty some information on a subject of considerable interest. It was no doubt in the recollection of the House, that those who supported the Bill which passed last Session for the encouragement of voluntary enlistment of seamen, dwelt strongly on the probability of sailors becoming more ready to enlist if the measure which held out such hopes to them were allowed to pass. An opportunity had very recently occurred for testing the correctness of that statement, in consequence of the increase in the number of men required for the navy. Statements had appeared in the public papers that there was considerable difficulty in procuring men for the service. But from the information which he received from Portsmouth, there never was a period in naval history when men entered the service with so much alacrity. He was desirous, therefore, to know whether his information was well-founded?

Wood felt the greatest pleasure in stating that the account given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buckingham) was perfectly correct. In consequence of the inducements held out for promoting the voluntary enlistment of seamen, there never was a period when they entered he service so readily and so rapidly as within the last fortnight. He had been informed that the fishermen and boatmen who used formerly to run away through fear of impressment, now cheerfully and willingly came forward to enter.

rose to call the attention of the House to the inadequate wages received by the workmen in the dockyards. They had been praised by the Admiralty, but their wages had been reduced from 2l. 17s. per week, in 1814, to 1l. 7s.. 6d. in 1821. Since then their ship money had been taken away, and a considerable number of them had been turned adrift without either pay or pension. In many cases, too, no allowance had been made to the shipwrights and others who had received hurts in the service. This conduct he considered very injurious to the public, for, in case of a war, the services of such men would be required, and then it would not be possible to obtain them.

admitted, that the dock-yard wrights were a most exemplary body of men, but when they received nearly 3l. per week, they were obviously paid at too high a rate. Sir James Graham, when first Lord of the Admiralty, had ascertained that the average rate of wages in private yards was 4s. per day, and the wages paid in the King's dock- yards exceeded the average of the wages paid in private dock-yards. The men in them, too, had the chance of a pension, and they had medical assistance whenever they were laid up by accidents. He considered those statements a sufficient answer to the observations of the gallant Admiral though the Admiralty he was sure had every wish to treat the men in question with the greatest consideration, knowing that their services were indispensable.

thought this vote ought to be accompanied by detailed statements of what the money was wanted for. He must complain too of the manner in which the timber store for the navy was obtained. Instead of being procured by public contract, it was made the subject of private arrangement with parties possessing influence with the Admiralty. If it were left to public competition, a great saving would result. The public market also would be less liable to fluctuations, and the public and individuals would both be benefited by open competition. He objected also to the vote because he believed there was no responsibility that the stores would be properly applied. He must complain too of the lavish expenditure of stores, occasioned by the experiments in naval architecture now being made by Captain Symonds. He had a great respect for that officer, but he thought that gentlemen brought up to the business of ship-building, were more likely to build ships well, than a naval officer with whom every vessel he constructed was an experiment. Such a proceeding was extravagant and disastrous. Captain Symonds claimed to have discovered a new principle of shipbuilding. For his part he did not believe in its efficacy, but all the old ships would be pulled to pieces to build new ships on Captain Symonds's plan. He could have no confidence in estimates prepared under such auspices, particularly as several of Captain Symonds's ships had been altered while building, and altered after they had been built. He repeated that he objected to the whole sum being proposed in a lump. He thought that when money to such an amount was called for, details should be given, and he was afraid that those who had the management of this department were inadequate to the task.

defended the vote. All the information was given in the estimate which could be useful to the House, and he had explained, on introducing the estimates, that this sum was demanded on the responsibility of the Government. Timber was not purchased as the hon. Member said privately, it was sometimes bought by contract and sometimes by private bargain as circumstances dictated; and he was ready to maintain that no more than the fair market price had been paid for timber. With respect to Captain Symonds, he had only to say that persons who, without the smallest disrespect to the hon. Member were by profession far more competent to form an opinion on the subject, had expressed themselves in terms of high commendation upon the subject of his experiments in naval architecture. The hon. Member complained of the waste of stores by Captain Symonds's experiments; the fact was, that the quantity of timber required each year had been gradually diminishing from 21,000 loads in 1829, to 9,000 loads in 1834; yet there were more ships at sea in 1834 and more building than in 1829. He must deny too that Captain Symonds's ships were altered either during the building or after they were built. All Captain Symonds's ships had been finished according to the designs first laid down, and almost all other ships were altered in the progress of constructing them. He should be ready to meet the hon. Member when he made any direct charges; at present the hon. Member only made insinuations.

confirmed all that his hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Admiralty had said, with respect to Captain Symonds's character and his merit as a ship-builder.

, while he admitted Captain Symonds's merits, objected to the system of making a naval officer surveyor of the navy. The surveyor of the navy ought to be well instructed in, and conversant with, naval architecture.

praised the construction of Captain Symonds's ships; and, adverting to the Barham and the Vernon, observed, that although the Barham did much better than he expected, the Vernon greatly exceeded her in stability.

said, he would take that opportunity of alluding to the two convict vessels, the George the Third and the Neva, which had recently been wrecked, and of the dreadful loss of life by which the wreck of each had been attended. Looking at the length of the voyage, and the number of human lives at stake, it was highly necessary that none but vessels of the most sea-worthy class should be employed on this service. He thought it would be highly satisfactory to the House and to the country, if the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Wood) would take this opportunity of stating what had been the result of the inquiries made by the Government as to the loss of the two vessels he had named, and also whether there had been any change introduced either into the mode of surveying vessels previous to their being taken up for this service, or in the rate that, was paid for them when they were so taken up—whether in fact any such change had been adopted as could lead to the supposition that a better class of vessels would for the future be employed.

replied, that the most minute inquiries had been made into the circumstances attending the wreck of the vessels to which his right hon. Friend had referred; and if a wish to that effect were expressed, he should be willing and happy to place the whole of the information which had been obtained on the subject before the House. With respect to the mode of taking up convict ships, he begged to state, that since the year 1833, such alterations had been made as necessarily secured the employment of a better, more comfortable, and more sea-worthy class of vessels than those formerly engaged in this service. Before any vessel was taken up in any port, it was surveyed, and must be favourably reported of by the resident agent of the Government, assisted by a naval officer and an intelligent shipwright. In the case of the George the Third, the parties who surveyed her and upon whose approval she was taken up, declared that when she left Deptford she was in every respect, a fit and proper vessel for the purpose for which she was to be employed, and that her subsequent loss could not in any way be ascribed to her want of seaworthiness. The result of the inquiries which had been made upon the subject went, indeed, directly to show that the loss of the George the Third was attributable, not to any defect or decay in herself, but to the attempt to carry her through a dangerous and not well known strait. As to the Neva, the most rigid investigation had been instituted into its character before it was permitted to sail; and it was declared sea-worthy not only by the Government surveyor but by the surveyor of Lloyd's, an impartial witness. Very considerable expense had been incurred to repair that ship.

said, the loss of the vessel in question had not so much to do with the character of the vessel as with the temerity of the commander in putting it through this difficult strait at night.

said, that though the George the Third and the Neva were old vessels, they happened to be good ones for the service they were engaged in; but it was the system of taking up and inspecting vessels that was so defective. For instance, the Anne was reported when taken up by the Government inspectors, as fit for the service; but the economical system they were restricted to, did not enable them to look deep enough, and it was only afterwards, when an accident obliged the Anne to undergo a slight repair for the fitting of a new fore-foot, that it was discovered that her principal timbers were in such an unsound state that if sent to sea in the state the inspectors had pronounced her fit for service she must have certainly foundered in the first gale. To attain the results they desired, Government must establish a more liberal rate of allowance for inspection, and then only superior vessels would be taken up, for which, of course, they must pay a higher rate of freight. Thus only could they obtain good vessels for such a service.

had been credibly informed that the Neva was twenty years old. If so, the Admiralty were certainly not justified in hiring such a vessel without a strict examination into her soundness. He, however, was of opinion, that no vessel ought to be employed for so important a purpose as the conveyance of hundreds of human beings if her age exceeded eight or ten years.

said, that taking the statement as true, that the Neva was twenty years old, the 'Admiralty had certainly failed to justify the manner in which she had been hired.

also thought the explanation offered by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wood very unsatisfactory. Nor was there any intimation that the system would be abandoned.

wished that those hon. Gentlemen who seemed to know so much of nautical affairs would explain to the House how any vessel, be she of whatever class, could run among rocks at nine miles an hour with double-reefed topsails without going to pieces.

said, that he had once been a voyage to the East Indies, and therefore, knew something about the sea and about ships, and he would himself be glad to know what sort of a commander he would be who would have the temerity to run among rocks, with double-reefed topsails, at nine miles an hour.

said, that from the rock not having been properly laid down in the chart, the Captain had run upon the rock in ignorance.

read a testimonial of the commander's fitness, from which it appeared that he had had a previous experience of the navigation of the seas in which the vessel was wrecked, and that he had not been chosen to the command of the vessel without having had the highest character from naval officers.

said, that after this testimonial, there could be no further doubt as to the previous fitness of the commander; but it must still be remembered by the Admiralty that there was such a thing as examination. He still maintained, that no vessel ought to be hired for such a purpose as this, unless her soundness had been previously ascertained by competent surveyors.

hoped, that this discussion would at least have one good effect, in showing to the Government that it would, in future, be better to have testimonials to the fitness of commanders and examination of the soundness of vessels before hiring them to perform this most important service, rather than to expose themselves to those suspicions, which, however unfounded they might be, were nevertheless excited when those unfortunate occurrences took place.

hoped, that in future none but A. 1 vessels would be employed. As this was the last vote, he could not but compliment the hon. Secretary on the clearness with which the estimates had been laid before the House. At the same time, however, he could but regret that there had been in the present case a departure from the practice of the estimates being introduced by a Lord of the Admiralty.

could not agree with the hon. Baronet in thinking that these estimates deserved credit for so much clearness; and he should next Session, divide the House upon every estimate unless they were much more clear and explanatory.