said, it would be recollected that during the discussions on Spanish affairs, the noble Lord had stated that the privileges of the Basque provinces had no real or substantial existence, and that they would only be found in old documents. Now, he had been informed that circumstances had lately taken place in Madrid which showed that the Spanish Government were far from adopting the theory which the noble Lord had propounded. He was informed, that the Spanish Government was now anxious to retrace its steps by annulling the law by which those privileges were abrogated. He wished, therefore, to ask, whether the accounts received by the noble Lord from Madrid bore out those reports, and whether the Spanish Government would now act upon the true and just policy?

did not remember ever having denied the existence of the fueros of the Basques; but he did recollect taunting the noble Lord with the gross inconsistency of supporting the municipal institutions of the Basques, when he would deprive such a country as Ireland of those institutions. So far was he, therefore, from having denied their existence, that he had made it the foundation of a just reproach against the noble Lord. He could not presume to say, what were the intentions of the Spanish Government in this matter, but he believed that it was at all times willing to continue to the Basques such local institutions as were compatible with the new constitution, and to confirm and sanction them. He had no reason to believe that the Spanish Government intended to make any alteration as to this point; whilst, on the other hand, he believed that there was a strong and growing feeling in the Basque provinces against the tyranny and oppression of Don Carlos; that this discontent had exhibited itself to such a degree, that the leaders and generals of Don Carlos had been by him arrested and thrown into prison; that the greatest disunion prevailed among the troops of Don Carlos, and that a state of insurrection existed in some parts of the provinces. So far, therefore, as the difficulties and discontent with Don Carlos, and the conciliatory disposition of the Queen's Government could afford a prospect of better times, he congratulated the noble Lord on the prospect there.

wished to put a question to the noble Lord on a subject of much importance. A statement had been made in one of the distinguished morning papers a few days ago, on the faith of a letter from Toulouse, that letters had been received from the French Government, directing their admiral on the coast of Algiers to remain off Tunis, and intercept the Turkish fleet, to prevent the Captain Pacha from landing any supply of men for the use of the Bey of Tunis. The question, then, which he wished to ask was, whether the noble Lord was aware of any orders issued by the French Government, which would give any probability of approaching hostilities between them and the Government of Tunis?

had received no information upon the subject; and having asked the chargé d'affaires of France at this Court if he knew anything of the matter, he said that he had no information. At the same time, he did not believe, that there was any foundation for the report. Her Majesty's Government had received the most distinct assurances from the French Government that it had no intention of taking hostile proceedings against the territory of Tunis. He (Viscount Palmerston) thought, that the report must have originated from circumstances which took place last year, and that this was only the revival of a by-gone report.

rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into subjects contained in the petition of the landowners and others connected with the principality of Wales, presented the 10th of May last, and praying for an inquiry into the proceedings of the agents of the Crown, affecting the petitioners. The subject was one of vast importance, and had been twice discussed in that House. The first time it had been discussed was in the reign of a monarch to whom the country owed so much—William 3rd, who wished as a mark of his favour for the loyalty and zeal of one of his followers, the Earl of Portland, to bestow on him the grant of the Crown property in the principality of Wales. On that occasion the House of Commons took up the question warmly, and petitioned his Majesty that the grant should not be made. At that time it was stated by Baron Price, that the rights were so undefined, that the grant would produce a collision between the interests and privileges of the Crown, and the rights and privileges of individual subjects of the Crown. The last occasion when this matter was discussed was analogous to the present. It occurred in the reign of George 3rd, in the year 1779, when a commission was issued, sending a gentleman on a roving commission, to try what could be done or extorted from the inhabitants of the principality to enhance the value of the emoluments arising from that part of the country. In the case of the knight errant, a specific salary was paid, but in the case he was about to bring before the House, a per centage on the Crown rents and other exactions inflicted on the principality, was allowed to the agents of the Crown. Now, the appointment of Probert was analogous to the present case, because now a gentleman had been appointed under the direction of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who was now pursuing the self-same course—viz., exacting where exactions had never been made before, holding manor courts and courts leet where they had never before existed, compelling the payment of rents never before demanded, and going, in fact, beyond the Nullum Tempus Act. It was time, when the noblemen and gentry were warned off their own property by individuals unknown, when they were upbraided in their own halls by strangers to the land, and the underlings of office, it was time for the country to look into the matter. He called in question the right of the Crown to the possession of any manors in the principality, though he was the last man in the country who would wish to see the Crown shorn of one particle of those rights and privileges which had been awarded to it to support that dignity and station which the Crown of this country ought to hold in the eyes of the world at large. But, with the exception of the marches, he denied the existence of manors in Wales, though they had been endeavoured to be established, not by lawyers, but by the tricks and cajolery of underlings instructed in Somerset-house. There was at that moment a letter extant from Lord Chief Baron Richards (and it was supported by the opinion of Lord Kenyon) asserting that there were no such things as manors in North Wales. The word "manors" was certainly used in the grants made in the times of Elizabeth and of James 2nd. No doubt the word "manor" was contained in many grants. He had inspected many old title-deeds, and there was not a single deed in which the word "manor" was not used, but it did not bear the meaning which was applied to it. The word "manor" was derived from manerium, a Latin word, used by Wotton in his translation of the Statutum Walliœ, as explanatory of the Welch word mainoul, well known as a description of a certain territory, which was again derived from main, a stone. Stones were the usual boundaries in the mountains of Wales, and there they were to be found at this moment. There were no feudal tenures in Wales, and if this committee were granted, he would prove, that their existence was merely a notion. It was a very short time ago that Lord Mostyn was warned off his own land by a wretched individual whom nobody knew anything of. This was a licensed poacher, who had an appointment as game-keeper from the Crown. However, he was dealt with as a common poacher, and punished as such. He stood there to assert, on behalf of the people of Wales, that the Crown had no right to make such appointments. He had heard a gentleman say, "How is it that Mr. Ormsby Gore puts himself so forward in this matter? The fact is, he has been stealing from the Crown, and therefore, he wants to make it out that the Crown has no right at all." Why, could anything be more absurd than this? Was it not a self-convicted lie? "Good God! Sir," continued the hon. Member, with great animation, "if I had been playing the rogue, would I call for inquiry into my rogueries? I defy any individual to prove, that I ever put my finger upon a single inch of ground belonging to the Crown, or that I ever filched, or stole, or cribbed, or whatever may be the word, anything whatever belonging to it." But these accusations had been made against others also, and with as little cause. He knew very well what was the reason of this; it was to deter him and other Welch gentlemen from the line which they were pursuing. So long, however, as the inhabitants of the principality were pleased to repose confidence in him, he would never flinch from the execution of his duty. Another ground of complaint against the Crown was, that licences had been granted to individuals to search for minerals on the private property of several persons. In some cases, even where the Crown had alienated the property, it had encouraged its minions to search for minerals. Of this he had in his possession three positive proofs, which would be sufficient as a sample to show the manner in which the Crown had exercised these oppressive exactions. He begged, however, to be understood, that when he spoke of the Crown, he did not speak of the individual at the head of the office of Woods and Forests, but of its underlings. The first of these cases was, where a party had, under authority from the Crown, proceeded to raise slates on an estate belonging to Mr. Wynn. Mr. Wynn, however, sent to the office of Woods a grant by the Crown to his family in the time of James 1st., and then the invasion upon his property was discontinued. Here, however, was a case in which a grant had been found, and found by a gentleman who was capable of reading it; but if the grant had not been forthcoming, or had not been understood, the Crown would have persevered in the unjust course which it had taken. The truth was, that it had sent its officers into Wales to search for evidence; they attacked individuals, and if those individuals could prove their right by deeds and charters, well and good; if not, the aggression on the part of the Crown was continued. These were not singular cases; they had them all over Wales, to the annoyance and destruction of the property of its inhabitants. Having disposed of these two points, the search for minerals and gamekeeper's licences, he came to the actions which had been tried for encroachments in various districts of Wales. He was aware that Members would say, "Well, you have your redress, without coming to the House of Commons. You have the law open to you." But the Crown paid no costs, and it put forward some individual, a mere man of straw, as its lessee, and if a verdict was obtained, the land was saved to be sure, but at a great expense. He could multiply cases in proof of this till the sun rose in the morning. The hon. Member then adverted to summoning courts leet, which, he said, had been illegally and unjustly done. He was sorry, he continued, to be obliged again to revert to the subject of gamekeepers. Authority was given to appoint them under an Act passed in 1828. But how and when was the clause by which that authority was given, inserted in the bill? Not till after the third reading of the bill, when it was introduced and passed sub silentio. Nothing was known of it, and, indeed, how should anything be known? What was the bill in which this clause was contained? Was it a game- bill? No. A bill for the improvement of Regent-street. This was the actual fact, and this was the manner in which the Woods and Forests attempted to trample on the gentlemen of the principality, who were descended from the princes of the country, and then turned round and said, "We do not care, bring your action," when they knew they had no costs to pay. The Crown had made several claims, too, for pretended manorial rights, and they had been assailed by every artifice, in order to induce them to pay up arrears. He knew of two individuals who were shut up in a back room until they agreed to purchase from the Crown, and not only that, but to pay up several arrears of back rent; and, in addition to this, they were obliged to pay for the conveyance, and even for the agreement for the conveyance. The poor cottager was attacked by the Crown, and every acquiescence on his part was used as an engine of oppression against the rich. He must beg the House to observe, that not one of these demands from the Woods and Forests was made, but had in the margin a threat that, if the demand were not complied with, it would be enforced by an Exchequer process. He considered the people of Wales to have been tyrannically and unjustly treated. What he demanded of the House upon their behalf was a committee, before which he would engage to prove the several allegations which he made; and if that committee should report, as he felt no doubt that it would, he would call upon the House to throw the shield of its protection over oppressed and injured subjects. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into subjects contained in the petition of the landowners and others connected with the principality of Wales, presented on the 10th of May, 1838.

seconded the motion, and could not consider himself justified in giving a silent vote upon it. It was a subject which required the immediate interference of the Legislature. It had produced serious grievances amongst poor holders of land in Wales, and he trusted the evils arising from those proceedings would not be suffered to exist much longer. He was aware of those evils from his own observation. He had a personal knowledge of many facts which would prove the extent to which those oppressions had reached; but he was of opinion that before a committee would be the most fitting place to state them. The petitioners did not require, that the committee should interfere to any degree which could be deemed an overstepping of its powers; they merely sought an inquiry before it into those allegations, and to lay the case fairly before the public.

said, that when he heard the petition read, he felt that if the hon. Gentleman founded his motion in conformity with it the House would not be justified in granting a committee to inquire into those allegations without the consent of the Crown. If the object of the motion were to bring the question of the right of the Crown before them, the House could not take any step without the consent of her Majesty. The hon. Member who had introduced the motion had, however, said, that he did not demand an inquiry into all the allegations in that petition; he only demanded an inquiry into certain subjects contained in it. It was competent for the House to entertain certain subjects contained in that petition he would admit; but he would ask, of what use would the committee be if they did not enter upon the very question to which they could not proceed without the consent of her Majesty, namely, the right of the Crown? If they omitted this question the object of the hon. Member would not be effected. A gentleman had been very distinctly alluded to in the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech, who did not by any means merit the charges that were very plainly made against him—he alluded to Mr. Wilkin. That gentleman was not to blame for any proceedings of the Crown; and so far from being personally chargeable with anything deserving blame he had received the approbation of every gentleman who had held the office of first commissioner since the time of Mr. Huskisson, who appointed Mr. Wilkin to the office which he now held. It had been said, that before his present appointment that Gentleman had been in the Tax Office. He was not aware, that it was any stigma upon him to have lived in Somerset House, and to have been noticed as a very meritorious officer. It was a little strange to hear those charges when they recollected, that no longer than two years ago they were accused of neglect in the collection of the revenues of the Crown. This charge had been repeated at different periods since 1793; and now, when the officers sought to discharge their duty to the Crown, the charge was reversed, and they were accused of going too far on the other side. He should not give his assent to the motion, because the House could not institute such an inquiry without the consent of the Crown, and if they did not go to that length, the inquiry would be quite useless. It had been said, that the Crown had no right to waste-lands in Wales. Now what were the facts? There had been passed for Wales no less than forty Enclosure Acts, and in each of those there was a part reserved for the Crown, in lieu of its privileges. But the hon. Gentleman had quoted some actions at law which went the length of furnishing an answer to the foregoing part of his speech, for lie showed, that verdicts had been had against the Crown, thus proving beyond a question, that the ordinary Courts of law were sufficient, as they were also the proper tribunals, to investigate those disputed claims. If they could discover any case of abuse let them put him in possession of it, and he would undertake, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should have it investigated, but he would not consent to any interference of the House with the rights of the Crown. If they appointed a committee for the purpose specified by the hon. Gentleman they would interfere with the most delicate questions of private property. The hon. Member had alluded to the game in Wales, and he had no doubt, that some dispute against Welsh game-keepers had been mixed up with other matters in this subject. He should conclude by again saying, that the House could not grant to a committee powers to inquire into the claims of the Crown, and should a committee be appointed without that power, it would be the play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted, by particular desire.

approved of a committee, not for the purpose of trying titles, but for the purpose of affording relief in numerous cases of grievance. The hon. Member who introduced the motion had spoken of great claims and great parties; but he spoke as the advocate of a number of poor men, who had been treated with a great degree of harshness. In the county of Radnor large sales of Crown manors had taken place; the Crown at the time of sale conveyed to the purchasers all the encroachments which had been made previously, and the consequence was, that immediately after, actions were taken by the purchasers against those who held land that was included in the encroach- ments. The actions failed, because, having been twenty years in possession, that time established their claim as against the purchasers; but it required a possession of sixty years to establish a claim against the Crown, and therefore the Crown accordingly commenced actions as from itself against those who occupied the encroachments. This was decidedly unfair. It was resuming functions which, for many years, the Crown had not exercised. It was a great hardship upon the poor people, and it would appear even more harsh when the House recollected, that the purchasers, if they had a verdict, would not make it freehold property, so that it would be waste. He did not wish an inquiry into title, but he wished to have an investigation as to whether the Crown exercised a greater degree of harshness towards those poor people in Wales than in other parts of the empire.

said, that the Crown had formerly been in possession of large tracts of land in Wales, which had now dwindled to an inconsiderable portion. He was not of opinion, that in its proceedings for the purpose of protecting its property in that principality, the Crown had acted with severity. He had no connection with proceedings, which were commenced at the direction of the Commissioner of Woods and Forests; and so far from the number of actions at law being very numerous, there had been but fourteen from the year 1820 to 1836, and only one verdict for the Crown.

thought, that a committee, consisting of Gentlemen, many of them, perhaps, having personal and pecuniary interests concerned, was not the best mode of settling the abstruse legal points that would doubtless be raised in connection with that subject; therefore he had made up his mind to oppose it. He should wish that some inquiry was instituted into those cases of hardship upon poor holders of land which undoubtedly existed. In one, the holder of a perch of land was sued by the Crown for fourteen years' rent, under a threat to be ejected, if he refused payment, although he had never before been asked for rent. To increase the harshness, the rent was incredibly exorbitant. If an inquiry were confined to cases like this, and that the invesigation took place upon the spot, he should support it, but not otherwise.

said, a commission would be very expensive, and he therefore thought a committee ought to be granted. He was anxious for an inquiry.

said, charges had been made with reference to purchasers of manors which were not at all borne out. In a case that he was personally acquainted with, nothing could be more unlike severity than the conduct of the purchaser towards those who held disputed portions of land. The purchaser he alluded to was Mr. Watt, a name which carried its eulogy with it. He had purchased a portion of land from the Crown, for 43,000l., and there were no less than ninety-nine encroachments marked upon it; the greater number of these were purchased from the occupiers, some of them were allowed to remain at a nominal rent, and in only one case out of the number did the Crown take possession, because in this it was necessary to do so in order to give up the possession to the purchaser. He should vote against the motion.

felt compelled to vote against the appointment of the committee, which would not give satisfaction to the public or the principality. The motion of his hon. Friend, which was a direct attack on Mr. Wilkin and the Woods and Forests, would not benefit the parties it professed to serve.

said, the question was, whether or not the Crown had not been too remiss in asserting the rights of the public. The result of every examination and inquiry would be to controvert every assertion of the petitioners, and to enforce, instead of relaxing the rights of the Crown. The case was not one for the House of Commons to entertain, inasmuch as it was one simply of the right of the Crown in quality of a landlord, and dealt solely with private property. A court of law was the proper tribunal to try the issue raised by the parties petitioning in this instance. He must say, that the uncalled-for vehemence shown by the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion, appeared to him a strong proof that he would be found completely in the wrong. That hon. Gentleman was himself one of the parties between whom and the Crown, a question had been raised, and was pending; and while he gave the hon. Gentleman full credit for not asserting any claim which he did not consider founded in justice, he must say, that he believed the gentleman whose name had been introduced in this debate on account of the part which he had taken in main- taining the rights of the Crown (Mr. Wilkin) quite as incapable as the hon. Member of urging any claim on the part of the Crown, which was not perfectly just and equitable. The course adopted, had been fully approved by every Government, and particularly by Mr. Huskisson. Many observations had been made with reference to the situation of poor persons who had made encroachments on the Crown property, and against whom proceedings had been taken. But the terms offered to those persons on the part of the Crown had not been in any way oppressive, but most fair and moderate. He referred to the report of the committees of 1793 and 1823, on this subject, which show clearly the loss that had been sustained for want of proper attention to the rights of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire and the hon. Baronet the Member for Denbigh, though holding the offices of Stewards for the Crown, and bound, therefore, to protect its interests, were among the petitioners on this occasion, who supported the encroachments on Crown property. The question was, whether the claims of the Crown were well founded or not; and that question was one which the courts of law alone should be called on to decide. If, however, the motion were agreed to, he would divide the House on the name of every gentleman connected with the principality of Wales, if any such were proposed on it.

thought the cottagers had been treated with some harshness; they had occupied the land for some years, and had given a value to it, when the Crown interfered and demanded a purchase of it and of the buildings erected on it. He did not deny the right of the Crown; but he thought, in some instances, the claims had been unjust, and in others injurious; and that they had been enforced in a manner in which the rights of individuals would not have been enforced. Suits were frequently instituted on the part of the Crown because the persons received a premium, if they succeeded, on the value recovered, but who were not held responsible if they failed in making out their case. He thought such a system highly improper, and that it was grossly oppressive on individuals. Then it was said, that no claims on the part of the Crown were made after ten years, but he knew of cases in which the claims of the Crown had been brought forward after they had been allowed to remain dormant for sixteen and even sixty-four years. Now he thought, that if the claims of the Crown were allowed to remain dormant for such a length of time, and if the land to which those claims related had changed hands in the interval, it was an act of great injustice to enforce them, and that it was oppressive to exercise the extreme right of the Crown after such a period had elapsed. The hon. Member for Chester had stated, that the revenues of the Crown in the time of Anne amounted to 4,000l., and that since that time they had been allowed to moulder away; but the fact was, that a large portion of the land from which those revenues were derived had been sold. He thought the manner in which the powers of the Crown had been exercised was a fair subject for inquiry; but be contended, that an investigation as to the mode in which the rights of the Crown had been enforced ought not to be left to a commission appointed by the Crown itself. A commission so appointed could hardly give satisfaction, and many would be unwilling to produce their title-deeds before such a body. He thought the multitude of commissions already in existence highly injurious, and that those bodies tended to circumscribe the authority of Parliament. In the present case there would be great difficulty in finding persons qualified for the investigation proposed, and who would at the same time insure the confidence of all parties concerned. The right hon. Gentleman instanced several cases of hardship arising from the manner in which the rights of the Crown were exercised, and which, he contended, were highly oppressive to individuals, particularly where claims were brought forward after remaining dormant for a length of time. Such claims never would have been heard of in the case of individuals, and he would ask, whether it was just that the Crown should do what an individual could not attempt? The real matter for the investigation of a committee was, whether some remedy could not be devised for such cases of oppression and injustice.

urged on the House to take into its serious consideration the case of the poor occupiers which had been brought forward that night.

, in reply, said, he might, perhaps, have spoken vehemently on this subject, but he had never lost his temper. Whatever his manner might be, he could assure the hon. Member for Whitehaven that he would not change manner with him. He denied, that he was engaged in any action at law with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. There was a case in which he had given notice that he should open ground on a part of his estates for the purpose of trying to obtain slate; but he did not attempt to do that surreptitiously—he gave due and proper notice to the Government authorities of his intention. He remembered that he did receive a notice in reply, but from that day to this he heard no more of it. He had been charged with having personal gratification in view only, and with wanting merely to preserve the game on his estates for his own pleasure. He had not sported over his grounds for many years. "Gentlemen of Scotland," continued the hon. Member, "are ye here? Listen to this—take care of your inheritance. When you find that the mountains of Wales are invaded, let your lairds and your chieftains look to your highlands, for they will next be attacked. Sir, I shall divide the House."

The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 98:—Majority 48.

rose, pursuant to his notice, to move, "That a humble Address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions for the appointment of an engineer or engineers, to ascertain and report on the best engineering line, for a communication by railway from the North of England to Edinburgh and Glasgow, in communication with the existing railways from the South." In his opinion a general commission should have been appointed before any railways had been made; but, in consequence of the exertions which had already been made by individuals, this was now impossible. lf, however, it had been appointed, not only would many lines have been better, but much expense would have been saved. In the Birmingham railway 72,000l. had been spent, and in the Great Western 88,000l., by parties promoting the bills without taking into account the costs of the opposition. And although he was ready to admit, that it was now too late to make a general survey of the country, yet the objection did not apply to the line in favour of which he now moved an address. In taking this course he was not unsupported by precedents—a commission was issued to a military engineer named by Government on the Brighton line; but what was more completely in point was, the general commission still in existence for the same subject in Ireland. It appeared, that there were 292 miles of railway on the eastern side of the island to which Parliament had given its sanction, while the extent on the western side was 240 miles. Parliament should take care not to be influenced by local prejudices, and having arrived at a determination that a railway should be established, they should first decide upon whether the line should be taken on the eastern or the western side, and they should then decide upon the precise line to be taken. He was of opinion, that the commission should be carried on at the public expense, as had been the case in Ireland. He begged, therefore, to move for the appointment of a commission to ascertain and report on the best line for a communication by railway from London and the manufacturing districts of England to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

said, that as the Speaker could not second this motion he had very great pleasure in doing so, and he thought, that the statement of the hon. Gentleman was sufficient to show that it was advisable to adopt his motion. Was it not a matter of public concern to construct a railway from the metropolis of England to that of Scotland, and was it not a matter of the utmost importance that such an opportunity should be afforded and should receive the sanction of this House to carry on the commerce of the country? Controversies had arisen as to the best line to be taken, and they would be best settled by the appointment of a commission, by whom Government engineers should be employed, who were skilful, and who besides were not likely to be acted upon by local prejudices. The expense would be trifling, and would soon be repaid by the railway itself.

opposed the motion. He had himself been a member of a committee at the commencement of the present Session, and they had come to the resolution, that it was better that Parliament should not interfere in such matters. Besides, if the Government should appoint a commission to take the matter into consideration, they would make themselves responsible for the security of the money expended, and it was not, then, for the advantage of the Government or of this country that the interference desired should take place.

supported the motion, and he believed, that money to a very great amount would be saved by the appointment of a Government engineer to decide upon what would be the best line. He thought this was proved by the case of the Brighton Railway, when, after the Government engineer had ceased to be employed, an expense of 182,000l. had been incurred in the course of two years.

was of opinion, that the Government could not more properly dispose of the means which they had, than by appointing an engineer to decide upon the question. He was convinced, that this was the mode which was most likely to advance the interests of the people, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, with a view to corroborate his argument, how the engineer who was employed in the Brighton case was paid?

would answer the question of the hon. Member at once, but that he thought the proposition of the hon. Member opposite involved a difficulty, and an objection in principle which were decisive in the case. The motion was for a commission to deliberate upon the question as to the best line of communication by railway from London to Edinburgh. There had been a committee at a former period, the object of whose inquiry was to ascertain the best lines of railway throughout the country; and he, with the hon. Baronet who had already addressed the House, was a member of that committee. Many of the Gentlemen composing the committee at first—and he among the rest—were inclined to believe, that the object in view was a very proper one; but after due consideration they came to a decision that, on a close examination of the proposal, they were convinced that such an attempt would be productive in Great Britain, at least, of no practical good; for, that the various local interests which would be involved could not be sufficiently considered; and it appeared to them, therefore, decidedly best, to leave railways in Great Britain in the hands of those who were willing to embark their capital in such speculations, subject always to the scrutiny and control of Parliament. That was the principle adopted, and he objected, therefore, to the present motion, because its object was, to ascertain which was the best line of railway between London and Edinburgh, the object being to ascertain the best of two which had already been commenced. Now, that was directly in opposition to the principle which had been determined upon by the committee. He would beg leave to ask hon. Gentlemen how they intended the commission to proceed? There was a dispute going on, and the question was, whether the eastern or the western line should be taken. How could an engineer decide that point? He might say which was the best line in an engineering point of view; but how could he take into account the various interests which must be involved in the question? If this was the real object of the motion he had no objection whatever to an engineer being appointed to ascertain which was the best line of railway in the point of view to which he had alluded. Let hon. Gentlemen adopt the course which he had suggested to be taken in the cases of the Birmingham and Manchester and the Brighton railways. Let them ask for a Government engineer, and they should have one directly; but let the parties who were interested, and who were the subscribers of the money, let them, he said, pay the engineer, and he could assure them that he would not offer the slightest opposition to their wishes, but he would give them every assistance in his power.

did not desire that anything should be inquired into except which was the best engineering line. He must say, however, that it was important that the expense should be paid by the Government, because until the company was formed, there could be no other funds to pay with.

was willing to alter the words of his motion to "the best engineering line."

was disposed to support this motion. The line to be adopted must be the best engineering line, and the object in view was to obtain a great and imme- diate means of facilitating the conduct of the commerce of the metropolises of the two countries. He thought, therefore, that the Government was bound, and that it was its legitimate duty, to assist the object of the hon. Member.

was opposed to the motion before the House. The first question was, what course it was intended to pursue hereafter? for, even supposing that a Government engineer were appointed who was quite competent to the task, might he not look at the matter solely in an engineering point of view, and without looking at all to the necessity and propriety of securing a line which would pass through or near the great manufacturing towns, from which necessarily a considerable portion of the profit of the undertaking would be derived.

observed, that the best engineering line might be perfectly useless as a commercial speculation. He did not think that it was a matter for the Government to take up, as they might thus inadvertently mix themselves up with a speculation, and lead to great loss.

was anxious that it should be settled by competent authority which was the best line of railroad. He thought that the Government should have nothing to do with railways; but he regretted that when they were first started the Government did not give the aid of the engineers to determine on the best line. He knew no other way than that now proposed to save a most wasteful expenditure of money.

objected to the motion as being too limited, The object of the motion was only to determine which was the best line of railroad, the eastern from Newcastle or the western from Lancaster. Now, he should like to have it determined by the engineers which was the best line of railroad, without its being limited to these two lines.

said, that if the hon. Member would bring his motion to a practicable bearing there would be comparatively little objection on the part of the government. The expense would be only a secondary consideration, but they could not compel either of the parties to adopt that which might be determined on as the best line of railroad.

said, that he should have no objection to alter his motion so as to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

felt an objection to the original motion which had not been diminished by the debate. Government should, in his opinion, survey all the lines or none. He did not see any reason why this particular line should be selected above all others for Government survey. He for one certainly did not feel that a sufficient case had been made out to justify an address to the Crown.

said, that Government had offered to survey the lines from Newcastle to Edinburgh, and from Lancaster to Glasgow, should any of the competing projectors desire it. In that case all that was necessary to be done was to apply for such survey.

said, it was perfectly impossible, after the ruinous inquiries of last session, that any company would come forward again to defend a competing line. Believing, therefore, that it was of the highest importance that a good northern line should be ascertained, he trusted that the motion would be agreed to, and that the expense being so trifling hon. Gentlemen opposite would not further oppose it.

The House divided—Ayes 53; Noes 53: Majority 0

The Speaker gave his casting vote against the Motion, which was accordingly lost.

rose to move for a Committee to inquire into the case of Lieutenant Hill. He was convinced that this officer was an ill-used man. The hon. and gallant Member then stated the particulars of this case, which have already been published. He should be perfectly satisfied to have Mr. Hill tried now by a court-martial.

opposed the motion. He did not consider the case a proper one to be referred to a Committee of that House.

Motion negatived.